The recent adjustments to the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) policy by the New Zealand coalition government sparked considerable dialogue at this year’s RSE conference. The event attracted RSE employers, industry representatives, government officials, and delegates from Pacific nations, all discussing the potential impacts of these changes.
Employers expressed enthusiasm about the revised policies, which are expected to lessen their operational costs—a key goal advocated by employers and industry groups alike. Even after 17 years, the RSE scheme is primarily utilized by smaller producers, with 62 percent of the 179 active employers in 2024 hiring fewer than 50 workers. Notably, half of these employers recruit fewer than 20 workers, revealing the scale of small producers involved.
As the pandemic heightened employment costs and compressed profit margins, many small producers find continuing participation in the RSE scheme increasingly challenging. Meanwhile, the policy adjustments particularly affecting take-home pay for workers from Pacific nations include the removal of the requirement for employers to pay RSE workers 10 percent above the minimum wage, lifting the freeze on accommodation charges, and eliminating guaranteed payments for 30 hours of work per week.
From September, the increased minimum wage will only apply to RSE workers completing their third season or more. This change is seen as a means of acknowledging the skills and experiences of returning workers—a recognition long sought by Pacific nations. However, several issues arise from this decision, particularly regarding the overall return rates of RSE workers, as many from Pacific countries average less than three seasons of employment.
Furthermore, setting wage rates based on tenure may inadvertently encourage workers to return for financial gain, even if it doesn’t serve their family’s best interests back home. This approach also risks overlooking the skills and productivity of second-season workers who might outperform returning workers.
Historically, employers have had discretion in rewarding skills and experience, employing various incentives besides direct wages. The prior policy, instituted during the pandemic to protect workers financially, mandated employers to guarantee 30 hours of work weekly. The new guidelines shift this to an average over four weeks, raising concerns about the dilution of worker protections.
Catherine Wedd, a National MP, suggested this approach is intended to enhance New Zealand’s competitive capacity against Australia, although critics argue it undermines worker safety and support. Unlike New Zealand, Australia’s PALM scheme offers both higher pay and comprehensive worker protections.
Overall, while some adjustments to the RSE scheme may be justified to address employers’ concerns about rising costs, the lack of consultation with Pacific nations raises significant issues. Stakeholders from the Pacific region are awaiting substantial outcomes from the RSE policy review initiated before the pandemic, yet the recent policy changes were expedited with little engagement.
Preparing to balance interests is crucial, as pointed out by Vanuatu’s High Commissioner to New Zealand, Jimmy Nipo. Maintaining beneficial relations with Pacific nations requires ongoing, constructive dialogue to realize the potential of the RSE scheme for all parties involved.