The article is well-written, methodologically correct, and provides an interesting contribution to the literature. Here are some small suggestions to make it, in my opinion, more effective.
1. The abstract is too schematic, within the limits of the spaces allowed by the journal, it could be made a little more fluid and discursive (for example, there is no reference to the JD-R model, which could be useful for future citations in reviews).
2. it should be explained that "NZ" means New Zealand the first time it is used
3. in the instruments I find “occupational engagement” written instead of work engagement, as is also written in the results, so I would also standardize it in the instruments paragraph
4. most important aspect: the use of verbs such as predict, which suggest cause-effect relations between variables, should be avoided, as the cross-sectional design does not allow it. This aspect should be indicated as a limitation in the appropriate paragraph.