Treatment of our visitors from Vanuatu

March 11th, 2010
Renee Alleyne

It may have been brought to your attention that some, not all, of our visitors from Vanuatu, are not being treated very well. How many of you have seen Leo's letter describing some pretty appalling conditions of overcrowding and poor pay?

For example: some-one who is associated with the Birdhurst management, accomodating 18 Vanuatuans in a 4 bedroomed house, and charging $115 each for the privilege. After repaying $50 for their airfare, and sending some money home (and paying exorbitant amounts to do this) they have very little left for food.

I happen to have a woman staying with me who has just completed a PhD on the topic of Seasonal Workers in NZ. It seems that most of the dodgy practices Leo has described in his letter may well be legal and above board, agreed to by both parties before people left Vanuatu. Legal maybe, but ethically and morally wrong.

It seems that there are some responsible employers, for instance the Haywoods and the Ingles, that do a good job of looking after their workers. I have also heard that the staff at the Bakers Lodge, take good care of their guests.

I hope that the investigation that will be ongoing, will show up the employers who seem to be disregarding the well-being of their workers, and that they will either be struck off the list of selected employers who are able to bring these people over to help with the harvest, or will improve their ability to be a good employer.

Comment by Joanna Santa Barbara:
[Posted 12 March 2010]

This is just the sort of story that a good local reporter would pursue and publish in our two newspapers. I do hope one or more will rise to the challenge, and not shy away from a controversial topic because a large local business is involved.

We need to know if human and labour rights are being abused in our area, or if workers are being treated in an unethical way. I look forward to some responsible local journalism on this issue.

Comment by Renee Alleyne:
[Posted 15 March 2010]

One of the newspaper headlines might read, "Heartfelt response to Vanuatu visitors from the people of Motueka". I put out a request to my friends and acquaintances who have gardens to pass on any surplus produce from their harvest. On the first day a friend from Te Ataarangi dropped of a bag of peaches and mixed fruit to which I added my surplus nashi, the 2nd day brought zuchinnis and cucumbers to the door, then there were potatos and some-one had plenty of tomatos.

An offer from the Riverside community produced some giant cabbages, zucchinis and assorted greens for the next few weeks for 54 people and then to top it off a friend of a friend shot a couple of pigs up the Graham Valley and passed them on.

Such a generous spirit we have here, one can only hope it will rub off on the employer who may be doubling or even tripling their production next year. Happy employees can only boost productivity, lets hope this generosity rubs off on the errant employer.

Comment by Jana Prochazkova:
[Posted 15 March 2010]

I would like to explain that the Vanuatuans are not really underpaid, but there are many other debatable and controversial issues here.

The Vanuatuans really get only 50-80 dollars per week, but the rest is sent to an account which they can not touch until they leave. The employers explain this as a measure against drinking - they are afraid that if the Vanuatuans get too much money at once, they will just spend it on alcohol and useless things. In fact, this is to ensure the Pacific Islanders really leave the country.

The Vanuatuans have to pay certain amount every week to cover half of their airfare (the employer has to pay the other half). They also often have to repay the loans they got in order to fly to NZ. But they should not be charged for using the employer's van to get to work, as it is sometimes the case here.

The Pacific workers usually sign the contract in their islands, so they know a bit about the conditions before they come here. So unfortunately, there is nothing illegal with the fact that they get only a small part of their earnings every week. But, as they try to save and send money to their families, many end up with about 20 dollars used for food. As they admitted, some of them eat dog's food in order to save.

In short, some employers such as Birdhurst should not be blamed for exploiting the Vanuatuans, if they pay them only a part of their earnings, because this is one of the rules of the scheme they come under (RSE scheme). But, inquiries should be made about the workers' accommodation, its price and about personal relationship with the workers because this is controversial.

I have talked to several Vanuatuans working for a company in Motueka during the first season of RSE. They all refused recording and talking about their relationship with the management, fearing the loss of their jobs. According to another informant, the Vanuatuans were occasionally paid less then other workers, treated like "idiots," given short breaks, being shouted at . . . This employer had a too paternalistic approach to them. This should be addressed first instead of the system of payments.

As I found out, the Vanuatuans need any warm clothes, shoes and socks. It's getting cold and they don't have much money left to pay for this stuff. They work most of the time and can hardly get to Salvation Army or to Hospice shop, but Renee Alleyne is talking to the owners and they might open the shop some day at the weekend just for these people. She and her friends have also donated some food. Any donations of food and clothes will be appreciated!

[Visiting from overseas, Jana Prochazkova has spent 4 seasons working in orchards, mostly in Motueka. "I didn't work for Birdhurst, just few friends did, so I know a bit about this place. Now I'm a studying my PhD in Dunedin and writing a thesis about seasonal workers, that's why I'm interested in this stuff. I also have a friend who writes about the Vanuatuans in Central Otago so I have quite a lot of information about this topic. Also some background stuff which wasn't published."]

Comment by Leo Coldstream Hylton-Slater:
[Posted 15 March 2010]

There is a situation before all this, that is making it difficult or impossible for orchardists to provide new on-orchard accommodation. This is that the cost for permits is said to be now over $30,000 before a building is even started, plus a host of inspection and approval fees. This leaves many orchardists unable to provide even basic but adequate accommodation. Thus a niche for entrepreneurial exploitation is created.

Fifteen years ago on-orchard accommodation was merely a few dollars, and that was then considered appropriate in that basic wages were minimal, and seem even more so now.

Surely it would be well for the local governments and central government to provide exemptions from building permit fees, and treating such capital development as a total tax refund? Such would, if only the lower of reasonable charges were assured, allow an improving situation for accommodation.

There is patently, and has been for some years, seething discontent amongst workers on some orchards about conditions and wages practises. It has to be remarked that there appear no such expressions of dissatisfaction about most other orchards.

Comment by Leo Coldstream Hylton-Slater:
[Posted 16 March 2010]

Some new information on several of the matters mentioned in my earlier memoranda. For one, the house in Saxton St is - I am now informed - SIX bedrooms, having been earlier told by several that it was four. Also I am told that the price includes all hot water, electricity, and sheets and bedding, and cleaning.

My position is still that the densities seem surely to be overcrowding, and I doubt that in town these concentrations would truly conform to TDC rules for occupancy. I want to get a handle on this that is fair and true, and also feel it is timely to finally firmly address in this district, as is the contention too in Marlborough, overcrowding, extremely high prices, and low wages that in real terms are less than years ago.

(I am also bound to remark that my inquiries thus far of workers and neighbours elicit remarks to the effect that these houses, in Motueka, overcrowding aside, are perhaps as well run as ever might be expected, including those run by, or associated with, Birdhurst.)

Editor's note:
[Posted 16 March 2010]
Leo Coldstream Hylton-Slater, who raised the matter and since has been investigating and analysing this issue in detail, has provided a detailed 4-page document of his findings, which he continues to update. You can read his document here »

Comment by an employee of Birdhurst, who asked not to be named:
[Posted 23 March 2010]

I think it is very inapproriate that personal details and addresses to be given out by this site, when this corrospondance should have been given to the company involved first. A lot of the things written are incorrect and they are then corrected.

It's a big difference in a 4 bedroom 2 bathroom home, to a six bedroom 3 bathroom home. I can personally say I have visited several accomodation blocks, including the one commented on by Leo. It is a 6 bedroom 3 bathroom/toilet home that is checked by the Labour department before housing Staff. It is a modern large home, furnished with new furniture, beds and bedding etc. Bedding, towels, toilet paper, phone, TV, cleaning and maintence are all provided in their rent. Most of us would love to live in this home.

The Nevans are provided with money each week for food, they do their own shopping and choose what they want to eat. They have recently had cooking lessons by a staff member's wife in affordable, nutritious island cooking, working as teams for cooking is encouraged.

Those working outside are taken to a local retailer to get work boots at a discounted rate, along with correct socks to help prevent blisters!!! Clothing is keep from season to season for them. Last winter 2 apple bins full of clothing was stored for them, for their return this year. Staff members donate their own clothing to them, and we would hate to think of them being cold!!! Staff treat these workers like family and it is with great distress that I am reading these articles today.

I think the Community need to learn a bit more about the Nevan culture before they accuse a local business of such things. I enjoy working with our island visitors, having them in my home and being part of our community.

Comment by an anonymous contributor:
[Posted 28 March 2010]

It doesn't matter what my relationship to Birdhurst - I'm not an employee but I have been employed a couple of times by them in the past. Fact is, I am in a position to know the truth of the allegations about mistreatment of the Pacifica workers at the various orchards - and at Birdhurst.

The allegations of mistreatment are false. Birdhurst ain't perfect - but as far as I'm aware it isn't mistreating the Vanuatuans.

I'll address a few of the points that have been splashed around the messageboards:

Overcrowding:
Yes, the houses often accommodate large number of workers.

What you haven't been told is that the houses have been SET UP to accommodate large numbers of SEASONAL workers. These people living in these houses are seasonal workers here to work for three or four months so they do have to share bunkrooms just as any european apple picker shares a bunkroom at a Backpackers, or other orchard staff of any nationality share bunkrooms in any other orchard accommodation. The accommodation is good, warm and kept very well cleaned. Remember that these Islanders have never had a bed, or even water on tap before. These houses have heatpumps, carpet, mod-cons and in most cases they are better than my own house.

Don't forget that the Department of Labour Inspector inspects each and every accommodation block for suitability. They have guidelines regarding minimum square meterage per person and how many litres of hot water per cylinder. They take each accommodation unit on it's own merit. Birdhurst accommodation units have been rated very highly.

High Rents:
Rent in Motueka as a whole is expensive. When did you last try to rent a room or a house in the fruit season? The reality is that ANYONE pays well over one hundred dollars a week for a bed at any campground or backpackers. $115 is a reasonable price when you realise that it covers rent, a furnished house, power, LPG gas, toilet paper, cleaning, supply and laundering of sheets and linen, etc etc.

If you complain about these prices being unreasonable then you also have a problem with every hotel, motel, campground, B&B, or accommodation establishment anywhere.

Minimum Wage:
These pacifica workers get paid the same as everyone else. It's minimum wage. If you got a job stacking cartons or picking apples with no qualifications or experience after walking in off the street and that isn't a minimum wage job, then what is? Regardless of it being minimum wage, the Pacifica workers return home with thousands of dollars saved.

If someone told you that you could get a job in, for example, Saudi Arabia, and come home after six months with enough cash to build a good house (and more), would YOU be interested? Would you even care that what you were being paid compared to the local Saudi Arabians? Would it matter? Anyway, the argument is moot - they get paid the same and in the same way as everyone-else.

Other fees:
Medical insurance is a compulsory $15 a week. The insurance industry sets that, the government makes it compulsory.

Transport fees:
There was, and probably still is, a $10 week contribution toward using the vans and cars out of work time. Do you know anyone that has a car that costs them only $10 a week, or has use of a car for $10 a week including petrol and all costs? Sometimes these guys travel to Golden Bay sightseeing on a Sunday, you know.

Food Money:
The vanuatuans have a highly structured village leader system. They come here with group leaders and church leaders. They have all agreed that ensuring that the money goes back to the villages is in everyone's best interests. To that end, the vanuatuans THEMSELVES decided and set themselves an $80 a week food and spending allowance. The other money diverted into their personal (and easily accessible) savings account. The limit on the $80 per week is really only a psychological one. They must go into the branch to access their savings, and the $80 alone is accessible with their eftpos card. THEY set how much money they all get each week, not the company!

If you investigate the issue you'd also discover that the nevans are quite happy to scrimp on food and not spend the $80 a week on food but they will buy McDonalds burgers, portable DVD players, cellphones, stereos, and all manner and type of electronic devices. And that also brings us to...

Alcohol:
Probably the single biggest cause of problems amongst the workers and the single biggest waste of money. Did you know that the Vanuatuan government asks the leaders to report back to them about people causing problems? Those caught drinking alcohol receive a 5 year ban for any RSE schemes anywhere by the Vanuatuan Government! And without going into the details, the alcohol has caused violence, harrassment, and work problems. It is a big problem because these guys often prefer to spend food money on beer or spirits. And, boy, can they drink.

When the workers have paid off their debts they increase their food allowance to $100 per week and the group usually all agree to paying themselves a bonus few hundred dollars to buy things for their families etc etc. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Unfortunately you'll find that most of them just buy large amounts of alcohol. Really. I'm not exaggerating.

Anything that the employer tries to do about it is an infringement of legal personal rights. The employer is powerless to actually do anything; stuck in a limbo between being responsible for ensuring that they are looked after under RSE guidelines and not being able to actually enforce anything.

Tax refunds:
Early in the scheme the Inland Revenue Department set a special tax code for the RSE scheme workers. This came about because people tried to do tax refunds for the workers - and it was a debacle. There are now NO tax refunds because RSE workers are taxed lower than anyone else - specifically and purposely so that IRD could avoid the paperwork involved with thousands of tax refunds.

Clothing:
The Vanuatuans are helped with their clothing - they are taken to Whitwells to buy work boots and sox. Warm clothing comes from thrift shops, donations, other places. Did you know that some Islanders were wearing five winter jackets when they got on the plane to go home last year? No wonder the Thrift shops get cleaned out.

Generosity:
Has anyone mentioned the solar panels the employer bought for these guys? Those cost thousands. What about the free meals, the lunchtime BBQs, the trips around Nelson, the sports arrangements that were made, the donations back home in Vanuatu. The arrangements being made to buy supplies and equipment for the local hospital? What about the employer having to pay for half the international airfare?

Does a backpacker from Canada thats been picking apples get that stuff?? Does Joe Brown from High Street Motueka that picks apples get $$$ of his travel costs paid for by his employer??

New Zealanders First:
Remember that these Islanders are here to work. By working they help themselves. Remember too that the employer has to survive too - in case you hadn't noticed, apples aren't exactly returning high profts in recent years. The workers aren't being exploited. This isn't a freebie for these guys. Everyone has to make it work. The single thing that makes the whole RSE scheme better for the employer than hiring New Zealanders is consistency - they aren't cheap labour by any stretch of the imagination. They are consistent though, they do turn up every day for the whole season, and plug away at the job. If enough Kiwis could do that we wouldn't need the RSE scheme.

Think about it:
It's easy for a person to post false allegations on the internet and carefully surround it with all the rhetoric and talk about it being "heresay" they want to protect themselves from defamation. But they should support the "heresay" with facts and research.

Birdhurst and do-gooders:
Birdhurst, and no doubt many other RSE employers, ain't perfect. Birdhurst doesn't have the greatest reputation as an employer. But it does annoy me when I see garbage like this being spouted by people that claim that they're good people and doing good. It certainly upsets the Birdhurst employees that have been helping the Islanders, and working hard long hours to ensure that they are happy and well. It's a slap in the face for those people.

Comment by Jana Prochazkova:
[Posted 1 April 2010]

I agree with the (unfortunately anonymous) author, that the Vanuatuans aren't really being exploited. I have already mentioned this before. I also know that there are many people in Motueka, including some supervisors or managers, who do a lot for the Pacific workers. Nobody claims that EVERYBODY at Birdhurst or anywhere else exploited or mistreated the workers. But, if everything is OK, why none of the big group of Vanuatuans working for Birdhurst during one season came back during the next one, whereas some returned to other employers? Why all of those I interviewed refused recording and talking about the relationships at the workplace? Why did they tell me they were too scared to complain?

I also don't agree with the author's opinion, that getting tax refunds for the workers was just a debacle. Some other Vanuatuans, for example a group working in Central Otago, finally got their refunds, because the people who promised to get refunds for the workers REALLY tried and cared. But, I must also admit that sometimes the workers themselves did not care and did not provide sufficient documentation.

It is also debatable how "easily" accessible are the savings accounts. Some Vanuatuans, working at another place, could get more money from their accounts only after filling in a form, which they hardly understood or they felt embarrassed to answer certain questions. For example, they had to explain what was the purpose of this transaction. Does the Canadian backpacker (mentioned by the anonymous author) have to do this?

Editor's note:
[Posted 7 April 2010]
Motueka journalist Alastair Paulin wrote in his fortnightly column Motropolis in the Nelson Mail a well-balanced opinion piece about this issue, and how the mayor Richard Kempthorne withdrew his support for Motueka Online as a result of this discussion thread being hosted. You can read his column here »

Comment by the same anonymous contributor who posted on March 28 above:
[Posted 11 April 2010] (Editor's comment: I have been questioned for posting anonymous comments. Normally editorial policy for this website rejects anonymous posts, but I am persuaded that in this case there is good reason for it and I am convinced that the writer is indeed validly able to comment.)

Thank you for your comments, Jana.

You make a couple of comments about my anonymity; I like to remain anonymous if I can because anything put on the internet is there permanently for the world to see. I see no advantage to myself to get involved in someone-else's debate and perhaps even have any future employment compromised for all enternity should an employer google my name. So I'd prefer to avoid having my name posted here if at all possible. Leo would understand my reasoning.

I have to admit that I am surprised that you haven't already discovered the answers to some of the questions you are asking during your research for your PhD. None of this stuff is particularly secret, you know? Who did you actually talk to?

Addressing some points in your last response; Why did a large group of Vanuatuans not return to Birdhurst one year? From the conversations I have had with the Vanuatuans it was primarily due to internal politics amongst the villages in Vanuatu.

The penny has dropped, so to speak, back in Vanuatu now that the first RSE workers had been home for twelve months. Other villagers were seeing the funds being spent, the new houses being built, and the children's educations being paid for. They realised that the pie was real, that there was money in it, and they all wanted a part of that pie. I know that Birdhurst had a major problem trying to get the Vanuatuans to return because a few village leaders passed a resolution amongst themselves that anyone that had been to New Zealand (including any orchard in NZ, not just Birdhurst) had to stand down for two years and let new people go to New Zealand. If you read the NZ government reports about the RSE scheme you will see that one of the core ideas behind the scheme is that trained and experienced Pacific staff can return year after year providing value to the employer who a) doesnt have to retrain new staff, and b) has returning workers that can help the new arrivals with life in NZ.

It is in an employer's best interests to have staff return. When Birdhurst sent a list of workers invited to return for the following season to the village leaders in Vanuatu, no-one on the list was informed that they had been invited back. The leaders did not release the list. The motivation seemed to be that if no-one knew they were invited back, they couldn't go, and all new staff could be sent in their place. Note that eventually about 80% of those on the list did return the following year. Combine the remaining 20% that didn't return with those that hadn't been asked to return and you had dozens of first-time staff going to NZ and filling the gaps. Natural selection meant that new people were getting a chance to have part of the pie, it wasn't necessary to force the issue.

Having said that, a number of Vanuatuans did go to other orchards and did not return to Birdhurst - most of them were workers that hadn't been invited back - they had enjoyed alcohol, some had exhibited antisocial behaviour while in NZ, some simply did not perform very well, and some believed other recruitment agent promises of weath beyond their wildest imaginations if they went to other orchards.

There are also a number that think that they can get a better deal elsewhere and have been particularly interested in going to orchards up North. They seem to think that things that happen here in Motueka don't happen elsewhere. I know that they do get very disgruntled about having to stand-down in wet weather and they seem to think that wet weather doesn't occur anywhere else. They also hear about success stories from other orchards but that would be no different than the success stories from orchards around Motueka.

I am also a little sceptical about what you get from talking directly to the Vanuatuans themselves. They are very good at telling you what they think you want to hear. Playing up the bad and down-playing the good. I believe that it comes from a culture in a country that has always had foreign aid flowing into it. First from the French then the missionaries then the Americans during the war, and New Zealand and Australia. Over the decades I feel that the Vanuatuans have developed a culture of playing the poor, underpriveleged native and they are very good (and somewhat skilled even) at getting, even demanding, that they are "helped". I understand that people could be horrified at my attitude and feelings - but don't judge me until you've spent some time trying to help them yourself.

The advice that you've been given that some are "scared" to ask questions or complain is more feature of the Vanuatuan culture than it is anything to do with the employer. There are a number of problems here. Firstly, Vanuatuans will NOT ask questions. You can ask them "Do you understand this?" and they will answer "Yes" even if they have no idea what you are talking about. You can sit there and give a whole speech and encourage them until you are blue in the face about how important it is to ask questions so that they understand the training that you are giving them, but they still won't ask!

Secondly, in a poor culture that lacks wealth, information is power. Thus the control of information is a way of maintaining control and power. I have discovered situations where the leaders have had meetings with orchard managers and been asked to spread the information amongst the other workers - but haven't. Combine that with village justice where a good beating doesn't go amiss now and again and you've got an interesting mix that often leads to well informed leaders and ignorant, scared, workers. It's a lot of work making sure that all are well informed. I think that you've taken "scared" out of context, or been ill-informed about the - the workers are not scared of the employer, they are scared of the beating they'll get if they upset their leaders or community!

Tax refund debacle:
As far as I'm aware refunds only applied to the first year - and Yes, the first year WAS a debacle - ask the IRD why they introduced the RSE taxcode in the way that they did. After the taxcode was introduced I made some enquiries in my efforts to help some Vanuatuans with their refunds and I directly told by senior staff at IRD that there were no longer any tax refunds. It sounds like you've been advised differently and there is a discrepancy in our understanding there.

Savings accounts:
This is difficult because this is about balancing an agreement made at the start of the job with both an employee and their community against the legal right of the employee to access their own money. I think that the problem you've got is that some individuals don't like what they've agreed to after they get here. I can't see that it's really the employer's fault. They are only doing what the group wanted and that individuals sometimes don't.

In the example you cite about having to fill in a form; If you agree to fill in a form to make getting your money more "awkward" for you in an effort to promote savings before you start the job, who is at fault if you change your mind two months down the track? We're not talking personal emergencies here - noone is going to stop someone accessing their savings for that. But lets be clear, if our aforementioned Canadian backpacker wanted the same arrangement I would have no problem recommending it for him.

And finally, the administration of filling out forms, making withdrawals, and payments to separate savings accounts is a time-consuming hassle. There is no business motivation for the employer to do this, it's purely about trying to "do the right thing" and make it, the RSE scheme, work.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]