10. Regional Migration
    1. The challenges of attracting and retaining migrant workers is particularly acute in rural, regional and remote areas. Evidence submitted to and heard by the Committee demonstrated both unique challenges faced in these areas, as well as, challenges shared with their urban and peri-urban counterparts, but often amplified in scale in a regional setting.
    2. It is, then, perhaps not surprising that over the previous three parliaments regional issues have figured prominently in inquiries conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration:

• Inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker Program (2020);
• Inquiry into Migration in regional Australia (suspended in 2020); and
• Inquiry into the Seasonal Worker Programme (2016).
  3. The Committee heard from individuals, businesses, advocacy groups, and local and State governments, among others, that there was an overwhelming shortage of workers across a range of sectors in regional Australia, resulting in jobs that are not able to be filled by the local workforce. Despite the immediate need, there was also recognition that long term solutions were required to foster the sustainable settlement of migrant workers in regional Australia.

Where is Regional Australia?

10.4There are shifting understandings and definitions of what makes up regional Australia. Under some definitions, regional Australia can include smaller State capitals and peri-urban areas abutting major cities.

10.5A discussion paper issued by the Australian Government in June 2024 observed that most regional migration settings utilise a two-tier definition:

• Category 2 - ‘Cities and Major Regional Centres’ of Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Canberra, Newcastle/Lake Macquarie, Wollongong/Illawarra, Geelong.
• Category 3 – ‘Regional Centres and Other Regional Areas’.[1]
  6. Category 1, comprising ‘Major Cities’—Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane—is excluded from visas, incentives, and concessions directed at regional migration. For migration purposes, the remaining locations (Categories 2 and 3) are classed as designated regional areas with the boundaries aligning to postcodes.[2]
  7. The discussion paper, however, also noted that a different definition of “regional” applies to the Pacific Australian Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme (discussed in greater detail later in this chapter). One of the aims of the PALM scheme is to help ‘fill labour gaps in rural and regional Australia’. To be eligible for the scheme, employers are generally required to be based in postcodes defined as rural or regional. (No postcode restrictions apply to employers engaged in agriculture and selected agriculture-related food manufacturing sectors).[3]
  8. Under the Working Holiday Maker (WHM) scheme, postcodes are also used to distinguish remote and very remote Australia from regional Australia. In addition, postcodes are also used to define zones such as Northern Australia, and bushfire declared or natural disaster declared areas.[4] The definitions assigned to these postcodes largely correlate with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure assessments—where relative geographic access to services is used to provide a measure of remoteness across five classes:

1Major Cities of Australia;

2Inner Regional Australia;

3Outer Regional Australia;

4Remote Australia; and

5Very Remote Australia.[5]

10.9Eligibility for an individual’s second or third WHM visas is often dependent on undertaking specified work in approved industries and locations. For example, under the Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa, this might include being employed (for a minimum period) in plant and animal cultivation[6] in regional Australia, or tourism and hospitality in northern or remote and very remote Australia.[7]

Out of Bounds

10.10Such definitions, of regional, rural or remote Australia, do not always accord with lived experience of residents.

10.11Rohan Mott, owner of Skymirror Australia in Sea Lake, Victoria, shared the challenges that his accommodation and gallery café business faced by being excluded from employing backpackers seeking to satisfy the 88-day work requirement to extend their initial Working Holiday (subclass 417) or Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa. As his postcode, 3533, was designated outer regional, rather than remote or very remote, Mott told the Committee that his business was unable to satisfy the specified work required to employ backpackers in the tourism and hospitality sector.

10.12Mott questioned the characterisation of his postcode as outer regional. ‘[W]e are remote’, he told the Committee, adding that the population of Sea Lake, the largest town in the postcode, was less than 600 people, public transport was limited, and the nearest town of any substance was 80 kilometres away.[8] While he tried to counter the isolation of the location by offering incentives including free accommodation and paying above the award rate, without access to a casual workforce, opportunities for him to help grow tourism locally had been stunted.

10.13Mr Mott drew the Committee’s attention to a Regional Development Australia report (2016) that projected the region had the potential to almost double the number of tourists visiting by 2025. He argued that the ABS categorisation of postcodes was ‘no longer fit for purpose’. He called for postcode 3533 to be considered eligible under the 88-day work requirements, or that the list of locations eligible to satisfy the specified work requirement be expanded to include all outer regional postcodes.[9]

10.14The Tasmanian Government’s submission was equally critical of the use of postcodes as delimiters on where in Australia a WHM visa holder can work to be eligible for subsequent visas. In their view,

The underlying methodology and rationale are unclear, and the risk of inequity or unfairness is high as a result.[10]

10.15Definitions used by other Australian Government authorities also have an impact on where migrants can work in Regional Australia. The submission of the National Rural Health Alliance, for instance, raised concerns about the expansion of the Distribution Priority Area (DPA) classification of areas experiencing shortages of General Practitioners (GPs).[11] Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, International Medical Graduates (IMGs) and Foreign Graduates of Accredited Medical Schools are required to work in areas with GP shortages for a period of up to ten years (depending on remoteness scaling) in order to provide services covered by Medicare rebates.[12]

10.16The DPA classification system applied to the 10-year moratorium (as the requirement is known) incorporates an assessment of the remoteness of the catchments of GPs. The system is underpinned by the Modified Monash (MM) model that assesses the remoteness of an area, ranging in scale from MM1 (a major city) to MM7 (a very remote area). With all those areas classified from MM2 to MM7 (as well as the entirety of the Northern Territory) being considered as DPAs since 2022.[13]

10.17This expansion of the DPA classification to include regional cities and some outer metropolitan areas has been criticised by the Alliance. In their view, practices located in remote areas have suffered as they recruit from the same pool of IMGs as practices located in more desirable urban areas. The Alliance contends that their earlier warning that these changes would ‘result in GPs electing not to work in rural and remote communities or indeed leaving rural and remote communities in favour of regional or outer metropolitan areas’ is being borne out.[14]

10.18More generally the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) indicates that the Department of Home Affairs’ treatment of regional Australia lacks nuance. The NFF observes that regional visas appear on the processing priority list for skilled visa applications[15], but suggests the effectiveness of this prioritisation is diminished by the Department’s definition of ‘designated regional areas’ encompassing almost all areas of Australia, except Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. They call for the definition to be redefined to ‘enable rural, regional and remote migration needs to be appropriately supported’.[16]

10.19The final report of the independent reviewers into Australia’s migration system was similarly critical of the ‘complicated and frequently changing definition of “regional” used for migration purposes’. To the panel, the expansion of the definition to include all areas apart from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane appeared to be a measure to slow population growth in those cities ‘rather than address[ing] the particular needs of regional and remote areas of Australia’.[17]

Committee Comment

10.20The Committee recognises that postcodes (among other geographic delimiters) provide the Australian Government with convenient boundaries for the implementation of policy measures. Yet, as the case of Skymirror Australia highlights, how a postcode is categorised, be it outer regional, remote or very remote, can affect the ability of businesses within an area to attract and retain workers.

10.21Further, the application of this postcode categorisation has not been consistent. For example, certain postcodes of Northern Australia currently eligible for specified work include areas designated as outer regional Australia and encompass major centres such as Cairns and Townsville in Queensland, and Darwin in the Northern Territory.[18]

10.22The Committee notes that the Final Report of a previous inquiry conducted by a predecessor of this Committee into the Working Holiday Maker program recognised the importance of the tourism and hospitality sector in sustaining both regional and remote communities as well as the industries that these communities support. This report also recorded the challenges faced by businesses in these areas in attracting suitable staff. The Committee agrees with Recommendation 3 of that inquiry to expand the areas eligible to employ backpackers in tourism and hospitality to hard-to-staff rural areas.[19] The Committee reiterates that recommendation in this report, especially given there has been no substantive Government Response provided.

10.23More generally the Committee is concerned at the patchwork approach to defining regional Australia and its component parts. While the Department of Home Affairs notes that they take a largely two-tiered approach to regional Australia, this is compromised by the same approach not being shared across government departments. This lack of consistency adds complexity and creates confusion for those who need to understand and negotiate more than one scheme: is it a designated regional area or a Distribution Priority Area? Is the remoteness of an area being assessed under the Modified Monash model or the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure?

10.24The Committee is also troubled by the lack of distinction accorded to regional Australia. As currently conceived, the ‘designated regional area’ equates the experience of those living on remote properties with those in cities such as Canberra, Perth and Adelaide. Further, Category 3 – Regional Centres and Other Regional Areas – appears to be a catch-all for regional Australia encompassing provincial cities, intensive farming areas, tiny townships, and outback stations. Such a broad characterisation fails to demonstrate respect for the vastly different experiences and opportunities face by residents across the breadth of this category.

10.25It is noted that the Australian Government’s recently released discussion paper (Review of Regional Migration Settings) acknowledges that ‘[r]egional definitions could also be simpler, and better account for the needs of regions’. The paper, recognising that the diversity of regional Australia cannot be addressed by a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, calls on stakeholders to respond to their questions:

Could the definitions of regional be aligned across the various regional visas? How can definitions be structured to better account for the unique circumstances of regions?[20]

10.26Perhaps an equally important question that the Australian Government should consider is: do these definitions and underpinning models adequately support the attraction and retention of migrant workers to the areas in which they are needed in regional Australia? The Committee is of the opinion that these definitions should be reviewed to make them more fit for purpose.

10.27The Committee recommends that the Australian Government allows Working Holiday (subclass 417) and Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa holders to work in tourism and hospitality in all hard-to-staff rural and remote areas of Australia as part of their 88 days or 6 months to qualify for their second- or third-year Working Holiday Maker visa.

10.28The Committee recommends that the Australia Government reviews the definitions used by Australian Government departments in legislation and regulation in relation to regional Australia with a view to fostering a more uniform approach, especially in relation to their application in policies and procedures.

10.29The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensures that the definition of regional Australia, and its constituent parts, used by the Department of Home Affairs to underpin its policies and procedures, is both consistent and sufficiently nuanced to support the attraction and retention of migrant workers to the areas in which they are needed in regional Australia.

Reviewing Regional Migration Settings

10.30In their 2023 Final Report, the independent reviewers into Australia’s migration system made the point that migration was only one element that needed to be addressed in a much broader examination of the challenges faced in regional Australia. They added that challenges faced by Australia were often exacerbated in its regions—greater population decline, lower workforce participation, lower wages and productivity, unique skill shortages, and dealing with the impact of climate change, among other things.[21]

10.31Simply put, the reviewers found that ‘[r]egional migration programs have had little success to date’. Migrants were less likely than Australian citizens to live in regional areas and, of those that did, more than a quarter left within five years.[22] In their view, a different approach to planning was needed; an approach that focused on the longer term, where migration was considered as part of broader regional goals, and underpinned by more effective collaboration across all levels of government so as to share data, among other capabilities.[23]

10.32In response, the Australian Government’s Migration Strategy (the Strategy) announced a new commitment to:

Plan migration over a longer-term horizon to better manage the migration intake, with greater state and territory collaboration.[24]

10.33The Strategy also noted the Government’s existing commitment of increased skilled migration to alleviate labour shortages in regional Australia, alongside a new commitment to accord the highest processing priority to migrants sponsored by employers in regional Australia (established by Ministerial direction 105 on 15 December 2023), with further evaluation of regional settings and the Working Holiday Maker program to take place following consultation with stakeholders.[25]

10.34On 21 June 2024, as part of this consultation process, the Government released the discussion paper Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings.[26] The discussion paper for the Review proposed five objectives for regional migration that align with, and support, the five national objectives for migration:

• Raising living standards through supporting the unique skills needs of the regions;
• Ensuring a fair go in the workplace by making sure that visa settings do not contribute to migrant worker exploitation and support the wages and conditions of regional workers;
• Building stronger communities by planning for regional migration and giving all communities the opportunity to benefit from migration;
• Strengthening Australia’s international relationships by using regional migration settings to support stronger international relationships and connect Australia’s regions with our international partners; and
• Making the system work by providing tailored approaches to migration without being overly complex.[27]
  35. Submissions were sought from stakeholders on improvements that might be made to regional migration settings with a particular focus on eight questions posed in the discussion paper.The questions touched on the ability of visas to meet skills needs, consideration of a regional occupation list, definitions of regional, settings that maintain access to the WHM program while reducing exploitation, consistency in Australia’s approach to lower paid migration, factors underpinning successful settlement, provisional visa settings, and improving regional migration planning.[28]

Committee Comment

10.36Evidence heard during this inquiry touched on the same issues raised by the Independent Review and echoed in the Australian Government’s Migration Strategy and discussion paper.

10.37The Committee agrees with the longer-term collaborative approach suggested by the Independent Review. It also welcomes the Australian Government’s identification of Regional Migration as an area in need of reform, and its scrutiny of existing programs, policies and procedures relevant to regional Australia.

10.38Given the shared interests of these reviews, and the overlapping evidence from stakeholders and individuals, it is expected that recommendations made in this chapter will, by and large, complement and build on this work.

Visas in Regional Settings

10.39The Department of Home Affairs’ discussion paper (Review of Regional Migration Settings) notes that visas of all types operate in regional Australia. These include:

• Visas targeted to the regions—where, as a pre-requisite for a permanent visa, migrants are required to be resident in the regions for three years e.g., permanent regional employer sponsored, and permanent regional points tested visa;
• Visas with requirements that create strong ties to the regions, e.g., WHM visas, where undertaking certain work for a specified period in regional Australia enables access to a second (or third) WHM visa, and the PALM scheme where the work is often located in regional Australia;
• Visas offering concessions or incentives for being located in the regions, e.g., international students undertaking study at a regionally based institution, or concessions granted to eligibility for a skilled visa for work in a Designated Area Migration Agreement; and
• ‘[m]ainstream visas with no particular regional dimensions, but that still support the regions’.[29]
  40. While some employers rely on just one visa type, others—particularly larger businesses—access migrant workers using a combination of visa types. For example, the Committee was told that horticulture growers accessed migrant workers via:

• The PALM Scheme for short term harvest workers;
• Horticulture Industry Labour Agreement Program (HILA Program) for long term skilled workers; and
• Standard 494/482 work visas.[30]
  41. While recognising each of these visa types, the focus of this section is not to provide an in-depth explanation of their operation, but rather to draw attention to the evidence of how these visas operate in regional Australia, their perceived flaws, and suggestions made for their improvement or replacement.

Skilled Migration

10.42The Migration Strategy Action Plan released in December 2023 affirmed the Australian Government’s existing commitment to increased skilled migration to help meet labour shortages in regional Australia.[31] Yet, as the Committee was told by stakeholders, increased skilled migration was only likely to be effective following reform of the underlying visa settings and the creation of a welcoming environment to encourage migrants to choose and then settle in regional Australia.

10.43In October 2023, Jobs and Skills Australia highlighted that skill shortages were more pronounced in regional areas. Their research found that the likelihood of employers reporting recruitment challenges increased in proportion to the remoteness of their location:

In Very Remote areas, more than 80% of employers believed the reason they did not receive many applicants was because of the job location and over 40% of employers had a suitable applicant not take a job offer because of the location. In the Northern Territory, 55% of employers who had few applicants and 25% of employers with an unfilled vacancy listed location as the reason. In Western Australia, these figures were 36% and 20%, respectively.[32]

10.44Further, occupational shortages could be very much place based, with remote and regional areas experiencing shortages for occupations that were not in short supply on a national level. Location, in their view, was likely ‘to remain a barrier for the foreseeable future’.[33]

Source: Jobs and Skills Australia, Towards a National Jobs and Skills Roadmap: Annual Jobs and Skills Report 2023, p. 55

10.45The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) similarly noted the effect of this shortage of workers as it limited the productivity of farms, placing them in precarious positions, and the lack of skilled workers stifled the ‘industry’s ability to innovate and adapt to change’. While the NFF noted a priority of promoting agricultural careers to domestic workers, they stressed that ‘migration will remain an important part of the workforce “puzzle”’.[34]

10.46The Government of South Australia was one of several submitters who argued that there was a need to make regional visas more attractive. Its submission highlighted the inadequacies of the current skilled visas in attracting or directing migrants to particular jurisdictions or regions. It noted that Australia’s three general skilled migration visas—the Commonwealth (Skilled Independent [Permanent] visa [subclass 189]), jurisdictional (State Nominated [Permanent] visa [subclass 190]) and Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 491)—operate under a ‘largely identical eligibility framework’. As a result, there is considerable overlap in the visas for which potential skilled migrants are eligible.[35]

10.47Drawing on analysis of skilled migrants expressing interest in South Australian nomination in January 2023, the Government of South Australia found that almost half (47 per cent) were eligible for all three skilled migration visa categories. The consequence, they maintained, is that jurisdictional and regional visas are ‘comparatively far less attractive than the Commonwealth Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa’. Further they added that:

… in many cases, the provisional regional visa is considered the visa of last resort once prospective migrant have ascertained if they are unlikely to secure a permanent visa.

The Government of South Australia also claimed that of the 77 additional occupations that were only available to the regional visa, just 4 per cent were eligible.[36]

10.48The Government of South Australia judged that incentives, such as the additional occupations and reduced pass-mark under the points-test, have not effectively supported the jurisdictional and regional visas objectives of:

• meeting the skills needs of particular economies and regions; and
• supporting the settlement of skilled migrants outside the largest metropolitan centres.[37]
  49. For the Government of South Australia, any longer-term strategy required skilled migration policy settings designed to ‘provide clear pathways to permanent residency in a way that supports the distribution of skilled migrants to where they are needed’. They argued for the retention of a points-based system but added that its design required a collaborative approach between the Commonwealth and the states and territories.[38]
  50. A cooperative approach was also called for by Australian Pork Limited (APL). APL’s submission recommended that the Australian Government ‘collaborate with agricultural industries to address workforce shortages, and invest in attraction and retention strategies for working migrants, through implementation of the National Agricultural Workforce Strategy’. Consultation with their industry revealed that labour and skill gaps were the main workforce issues faced by almost three quarters of respondents and that despite their efforts, they struggled to find domestic employees with the ‘appropriate interest, attitude and skills’.[39]
  51. APL noted that their industry’s workforce is ‘skilled, specialised and generally engaged on a permanent basis’. They stressed that any reform of Australia’s skilled migration program ‘must be supported by program administration that understands rural and regional labour market constraints to ensure fair decision making by government’. In their view, there was a need for a national regionalisation agenda that was ‘underpinned by appropriate levels of investment to provide economic and social infrastructure to ensure equitable access to opportunities’.[40]
  52. Peak bodies were among many submitters that highlighted the centrality of providing skilled migrants with pathways to permanent residency. The APL pointed out that both employers and migrants call for pathways to permanency, leading to their view that ‘it must be a central feature of future migration settings’.[41] NFF added that the provision of such pathways remain an ‘incredibly important aspect’ in Australia’s competitiveness in the international labour market.[42]
  53. Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services made the point that:

Without permanent residency, it is difficult to be able to plan, and invest in migration. In many ways, permanent residency is the enticement that a migrant needs to put down their roots in this country, and to make their commitment to the country.[43]

10.54Ms Sally Urquhart, Business Innovation Manager at HealthWISE argued that the ability to apply for a permanent visa was not sufficient if processing of that visa was inefficient. Delays in processing, she explained, were both emotionally and financially costly to migrants and created uncertainty for their business. She highlighted the case of a member of HealthWISE’s information communications technology team based in Tamworth with his wife, a registered nurse, and one year old Australian-born son:

He has lived regionally for seven years, has fulfilled the three-year regional requirement of the 491 [Skilled Work Regional (Provisional)] visa, but they are still waiting for their application for permanent residency to be processed. They’ve got no indication why it hasn’t been approved and when it might be approved. Effectively they are living in limbo. This family can’t enrol their son in early education because they would have to pay the full rate of $180 a day. They are worried he is not getting the stimulation he needs to thrive. They haven’t been able to buy a house because of the extra costs that they would face and the foreign investment tax that they would be subject to. They say the biggest mistake they made was to choose regional, because they’ve watched their friends get permanent residency in other states – in Brisbane and Melbourne – and buy a home.[44]

10.55In Ms Urquart’s opinion, the existing regional visa system was ‘working against us, not for us, as regional employers. She added that simplifying pathways to permanency was only one element in a raft of changes needed to incentivise skilled migrants to work in regional Australia. In addition, she called for:

• Recognition that every requirement of visa and residency applications incur costs and, due to the need to travel, take time off work, and pay for accommodation, the costs are greater for migrants living in regional Australia;
• The need to ensure that the skilled occupations list reflects actual shortages; and
• The provision of support to organisations in regional settlement locations that support migrants, and particularly those providing training and employment opportunities to humanitarian entrants to Australia.[45]
  56. The NSW Government also considered that a raft of reforms was needed to attract skilled migrants to the regions. They called for the removal of ‘unnecessary barriers’ such as age, years of experience or English language requirements. At the same time, they called for the introduction of incentives to relocate, suggesting fee waivers for visa applications and the provision of pathways to permanency. To ‘strengthen planning, coordination and evaluation of regional resettlement’, they suggested a multi-layered approach where Commonwealth, state and territory and local governments coordinated with business and community groups.[46]
  57. The Regional Universities Network (RUN) highlighted the stored potential offered by regional universities. They pointed out that 70 per cent of the students who graduate from a regional university remain in rural, regional or remote Australia. Consequently, RUN called for support to promote the benefits of studying in regional locations to international markets and that this be ‘complimented by positive regional differentiation in policy settings’. Among them, they recommended ‘providing onshore international students with clear, assured pathways from study-to-skilled migration’ and additional points towards skilled visa applications for students who have studied in regional Australia.[47]
  58. Mr Mark Wright, National Leader of Immigration Services at KPMG Australia, agreed that the regional migration program should leverage from the labour market already resident in the country, rather than building a new program to attract migrants to regional locations in Australia from offshore. In his view, graduating students should have the opportunity to take up a graduate visa that offered a pathway to permanent residency after three years, provided that they had been working for an employer in a location outside of the major cities of Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane (with the pathway being longer for those who remained in the city). Such a visa, he believed, would incentivise ‘labour to work in locations where perhaps those skills and labour market needs are greatest’.[48]
  59. The need for better recognition of local conditions in the policies applied to regional Australia was a constant theme in the evidence presented to the Committee. Mr Constantine Paxinos, Vice President of the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) identified the need for a ‘bottom-up perspective’ in respect to workplace shortages in regional Australia:

We wouldn't want a situation where there's a gatekeeper sitting in Canberra or Sydney with a spreadsheet saying, 'We've got enough accountants; we're not going to allow accountants,' but there's an employer sitting in Mildura, for instance, that needs an accountant desperately and can't find them, and they've shown that they can't find anyone. We need to have that flexibility in the system.[49]

10.60Ms Liz Ritchie, Chief Executive Officer of the Regional Australia Institute (RAI) called for the nation to ‘double down our efforts and focus on rural and regional Australia and the opportunities that lie there’. She particularly noted the need to tailor a campaign to attract migrants to relocate to regional Australia that was:

… much more targeted at our secondary migrant community living in our capital cities, so we've done a blanket campaign that has really provided dividends. However, we know that, in order to reach our migrant audience who are residing in our capital cities, we need to get much more targeted and much more nuanced. [50]

Committee Comment

10.61The Committee recognises that several measures were introduced by the Australian Government in late 2023 to streamline existing processes for the benefit of regional Australia. These include expansion of pathways to permanent residence to all streams of the Temporary Skills Shortage visa and a ministerial direction to prioritise skilled visa applications. The Committee remains interested to learn whether these measures make an appreciable positive impact in countering the immediate and long-term skill shortages in regional Australia.[51]

10.62The Committee also acknowledges the Australian Government’s moves to streamline Labour Market Testing requirements. The Committee heard that in many parts of regional Australia, worker shortages across several sectors are so acute as to make this requirement farcical. The removal of the requirement to advertise positions through Workforce Australia and increasing the period of validity are welcome moves.[52]

10.63Yet, as the Government of South Australia pointed out, the existing visa settings do little to incentivise skilled migrants to choose a regional location over an urban one. Given the acute shortages across a range of sectors in regional locations, the Committee believes there should be a two-pronged approach to both promote the advantages of living in regional Australia, especially to those skilled migrants already onshore, alongside dedicated incentives that make relocation an attractive choice.

10.64The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with state and territory governments to tailor a campaign that promotes the virtues of relocating to Australia’s regions to skilled migrants.

10.65The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with state and territory governments to tailor a suite of incentives that encourage migrants to move to Australia’s regions.

Focus on Healthcare Professionals

10.66Over the course of the inquiry, the importance of healthcare professionals to daily lives of those in regional communities became evident.

10.67As noted in Chapter 7, Australia relies heavily on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to fill roles as General Practitioners (GPs). This reliance on IMGs is all the more apparent in regional settings that face acute shortages in healthcare professionals. Rural Workforce Agencies (RWA) cited analysis that found that IMGs in Australia were ‘more likely than local graduates to provide health services in regional and remote areas’.[53]

10.68HealthWISE informed the Committee that in their business, skilled migrants have been ‘crucial in filling workforce gaps in health care (Speech Pathology and Dietetics), preventative health and information technology roles and enabling our business to grow and thrive’, enriching their colleagues and clients through their ‘skills, networks, diversity of thought and entrepreneurial ideas’, their contribution, extending into the rural communities in which they live.[54]

10.69Yet, despite their centrality to regional Australia, the National Rural Health Alliance (NRHA) told the Committee that ‘[r]ural communities have fewer registered nurses, midwives, pharmacists, dentists, optometrists, psychologists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, occupational therapists, and other allied health workers’. Further, an independent report commissioned by the NRHA found rural Australia had a health access spending deficit that, on average, equated to $848.02 less being spent on a rural person per year, compared to an urban resident.[55]

10.70In the view of Dr Gerard Foley, Chair of the Primary Care Business Council (PCBC), the process to recruit IMGs was ‘needlessly slow and burdensome’ with visa processing taking more than a year and costing an applicant upwards of $25,000. Advocating reform, he directed the Committee’s attention to New Zealand where the same process was completed in three months at a cost of $5,000.[56] This perspective was echoed by Associate Professor Michael Clements of the Rural Faculty of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), who called for a ‘reduction in the administrative burden and a reduction in the time frame between an overseas-trained doctor expressing an interest in a role in Australia and the point where they're actually seeing patients’.[57]

10.71 The RWA told the Committee that:

The reality is that more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are needed now to support healthy communities and migration is, and will remain, integral to meeting these demands.[58]

10.72The Committee heard that there was an imperative to get health professionals working in regional areas where residents experience a ‘higher burden of disease than the general community’—life expectancies are shorter and the impact of chronic health conditions greater.[59]

10.73Several witnesses highlighted the need for additional training and support to provide a soft landing for IMGs placed in regional settings. Dr Raymond Lewandowski, President elect of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, for example, recognising that migration was ‘the first of many bureaucratic hurdles’ that healthcare professionals were subject to, shared the view that case management was ‘essential’, particularly for healthcare professionals and their families living and practicing in rural and remote communities.[60]

10.74The NRHA questioned how long Australia can ‘ethically and consciously’ continue to:

… place doctors who are not used to the Australian system, culture, integration and regions, in rural Australia without the support, infrastructure and funding in rural communities?[61]

10.75The submission of the RACGP put forward that it was essential that IMGs wanting to practice in Australia first complete ‘cultural awareness and cultural safety training’. They highlighted the correlation between remoteness, chronic disease and multimorbidity prevalence, as well as the higher representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in regional Australia.

10.76The RACGP recommended that a collaboration be formalised between the RWA (a not-for-profit, government funded organisation) and Indigenous peak bodies to develop a training curriculum that could be in place before IMGs commenced practice in Australia.[62] In the view of Associate Professor Clements, the RWA had been underutilised and it should play a ‘key role’ in providing a ‘concierge-like’ or case management service to aid the transition of IMGs.[63]

10.77The RWA, in turn, called for the Committee to revisit the 2012 Standing Committee on Health and Ageing’s Lost in the Labyrinth report’s recommendation that ‘[s]erious consideration should be given to the feasibility of providing an individualised case management service for IMG’s’.[64]

10.78In the face of acute shortages, strategies to attract and retain healthcare professionals in regional Australia was a strong theme in the evidence presented to the Committee.

10.79HealthWISE, a provider operating across 17 local government areas in New South Wales and Queensland, for instance, told the Committee that:

Recruitment and retention of a skilled and knowledgeable workforce is vital to the delivery of primary health services in rural Australia and is a constant challenge for our organisation and others like us, operating in non-metropolitan areas of Australia.[65]

10.80Dr Foley of PCBC affirmed that there is ‘a need for immediate solutions to increase the supply of medical graduates to our primary care system’. He pointed out that IMGs were ‘doing much of the heavy lifting in the most difficult to serve areas, including regional and outer-metropolitan areas where socioeconomic barriers are greater’.[66]

10.81The Australian College of Nursing highlighted the importance of providing healthcare professionals with a pathway to permanency. They observed that, due to their ‘relative simplicity’, many internationally qualified nurses and midwives (IQNMs) arrive in Australia on temporary visas. The absence of a pathway to permanency, they believed, limited the ability of IQNMs to fully integrate into the communities in which they live. Given the ‘crucial role’ that nurses and midwives play in providing health care to ‘people living in rural and remote areas who experience a higher burden of disease than the general community’, they argued that the provision of permanent migration pathways would help ensure that greater access to care will be delivered to those ‘who need it most’.[67]

10.82For Associate Professor Clements, the support and structure designed to attract IMGs to regional Australia needed to be tailored. In his view ‘[e]very town has its own drawcard’, whether it be ‘housing, spousal employment, child care, a car package, a fishing package, a travel-home package’. He particularly highlighted the recent successful chain migration of Egyptian-born doctors to Wagga Wagga and the establishment of a Coptic Orthodox Christian church to support their social and spiritual needs.[68]

10.83Ms Kristy Challingsworth, a member of the PCBC, told the Committee what was ‘most important’ to many new IMG’s was ‘housing and schooling for their children’. These same elements, she added, were also crucial in attracting doctors to regional Australia.[69]

10.84The absence of childcare and familial support was an issue raised in several submissions.

10.85For example, the Committee was told that increasing numbers of doctors were choosing to work part time to balance their family responsibilities and the pressures of the work. Associate Professor Clements observed that several of his colleagues would increase the hours they worked if more childcare was available. He added that:

We know that, particularly for our rural doctors and rural generalists, they would contribute to after-hours or weekend emergency department coverage and would provide overnight birthing support or anaesthetic support if there was someone to look after the children for them to do so.[70]

10.86Raising the importance of parental support, he added that ‘I have no doubt that facilitating parents to join doctors would increase the work capacity of those … [whose] ability to work after hours and work extra hours is limited by [a lack of] childcare options’.[71]

10.87Jobs and Skills Australia, in their 2023 annual jobs and skills report, affirmed the following related to this point:

Recruitment difficulty in regional areas remain particularly acute in high skilled occupations like General Practitioners, engineers and nurses but childcare issues are another key issue, with so many ‘childcare deserts’ … in regional Australia. If we are going to attract enough professionals to work in regional areas, childcare support for working parents will be a key factor.[72]

10.88PCBC argued that the introduction of a Parents Visa (sub class 103) for rurally placed IMGs in priority locations was necessary to enhance the attractiveness of rural and remote locations, ‘particularly for GPs with young families who may need the assistance with young children’.[73]

10.89The Committee also heard evidence that the recruitment of IMGs was limited by the requirement that the work undertaken by IMGs granted limited or provisional registration be supervised.[74] PCBC judged the supervisory requirements to be ‘particularly onerous in rural and remote communities where doctor shortages, and therefore supervisor shortages, are widespread’.[75] While Associate Professor Clements told the Committee that supervision acted as a ‘barrier or a rate limiter to growth in the remote areas’.[76]

10.90Ms Challingsworth (PCBC), who is also Chief Executive Officer of the Medical First Group of practices, explained that the supervisory requirements added to the shortage of GPs in rural locations. She cited the example of an IMG in Shepparton, Victoria, whose services were in demand and wanted to work, but was unable to, due to a lack of supervisors. She added that, at the same time there was no incentives for experienced GPs to take on the roles as it was not funded, yet at level 1 (of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency’s Guidelines: Supervised Practice for International Medical Graduates[77]), supervisors were required to undertake face-to-face consultation with the IMG during each patient visit.[78]

10.91Associate Professor Clements noted that some regions had developed innovative models to help manage the supervisory burden, including a healthcare business that funds a GP whose sole role is to supervise IMGs over a large area; and a regional hospital where the doctors assist in supervising IMGs (both in person and remotely) in local practices. He added that:

There's no program that pays for a GP's time. So we do think that if we can crack that supervision nut open by finding dedicated funding, rather than leaving it to these small pockets [of innovation], we can increase the capacity of the good practices.[79]

10.92To alleviate the supervisory burden, PCBC recommended a reduction in the requirement for IMGs who were from ‘“substantially comparable” countries’, a reassessment of the limitation requiring three years’ experience before a GP is eligible to take on a supervisory role, providing financial incentives for GPs to become supervisors, and permitting recently retired GPs to take on supervisory roles.[80]

10.93A further topic that featured repeatedly in the evidence was the requirement under the 10-year moratorium that IMGs and other foreign trained doctors work in designated priority areas (DPAs) for up to 10 years before being entitled to a provider number and the ability to practice Australia wide.

10.94As discussed earlier in relation to definitions of regional Australia, several witnesses were dismayed by the impact of the expansion of the DPAs to include urban and peri-urban areas. Mr Dermot Roche, speaking as the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Ochre Health Pty Limited, noted the ‘significant adverse and detrimental effect’ on the regional and rural areas in which his business operated, as doctors were now able to work in major centres like Newcastle or Wollongong instead of remote locations like Bourke or Lightning Ridge. He was particularly critical that the expansion of the DPA was made ‘without any further funding or recognition that we need to incentivise people to go to rural and regional areas’ and judged that, if these issues were not addressed, the effect was ‘going to be devastating for towns that have only got one or two doctors’.[81]

10.95RACGP stated that it has ‘has never supported or endorsed the 10-year moratorium’. They characterised the moratorium as a policy option that addresses acute shortages but does not deliver a long-term solution. In their view, compelling doctors to work in regional areas was unsustainable and generally not effective as they move away after satisfying the requirements. They put forward four recommendations to attract and retain IMG’s and overseas trained doctors in general practice:

1Subsidising the training support program for IMGs through the RACGP's FSP [Fellowship Support Program], which supports IMGs achieving general practice specialist recognition across rural and remote Australia;

2Providing additional funding via housing, travel and infrastructure support for GP supervisors, GP trainees and general practices in rural and remote areas to support GPs in training;

3Increasing the Workforce Incentive Program with additional payments for doctors who use advanced skills in rural areas (scaled to rurality); and

4Providing access to the relevant specialty Medicare Benefit Schedule (MBS) items when a GP holds advanced skills in a rural area to compensate GPs for gaining additional expertise.[82]

10.96Instead of compulsion, the RACGP encouraged a ‘blended approach encompassing rurally scaled incentives and support to attract doctors to choose rural general practice.’[83] Similarly Mr Peter Barns, Chair of the RWA, suggested that to make the prospect of practice in regional areas more attractive, the Australian Government could introduce scaled reimbursement of the registration and examination costs incurred by IMGs. He explained:

If you are coming into Melbourne, you get zero support and zero money. If you move out further, you scale it and say, 'Okay, your registration costs and your cost for the exam are all reimbursable the further you go.'[84]

10.97Associate Professor Clements considered a collaborative approach was required from all tiers of government to consult with locals and find out what infrastructure or other measures were needed in their region, and to engage with the local practices and distinguish the barriers they face. He also reminded the Committee that ‘[i]t's not all about money, but money does need to be part of the conversation’.[85]

Committee Comment

10.98The Committee acknowledges that the Independent Review of Australia’s Regulatory Settings Relating to Overseas Health Practitioners, conducted by Robyn Kruk (the Kruk Review), that was released during the course of the current inquiry. While having a very broad remit, the Kruk Review recognised that ‘[s]hortages are particularly acute in distinct locations and care settings, and key specialities’, and those who live in regional, rural and remote areas ‘find it harder to access many forms of care’.[86]

10.99The Kruk Review made 28 recommendations many of which respond to the concerns raised with the Committee in relation to operation of regional healthcare and the challenges of recruiting and retaining healthcare practitioners. To expand the pool of migrant applicants, the Kruk Review’s recommendations included measures to streamline migration, registration, and other processes; remove barriers to migration; enhance flexibility by using technology as an option to provide remote testing, supervision, and support tools.

10.100Among the recommendations were several initiatives that focused on ‘acknowledged areas of shortage’. These included:

• removing or reducing requirements such as satisfying the Skilling Australians Fund levy and Labour Market Testing;
• providing more flexibility by broadening the age exemption on skilled visas;
• providing an expedited pathway to registration; and
• granting a ‘quicker and easier’ pathway to permanent residency.

As part of a long-term strategy, the Kruk Review’s recommendations also encompassed planning for future workplace needs, the collection of data, and the development of performance indicators to document progress made towards the recruitment of migrant health practitioners in areas of shortage.[87]

10.101The Committee believes that the adoption of the Kruk Review’s recommendations, particularly those targeted towards areas with acknowledged shortages, address many of the concerns raised by those presenting evidence to the current inquiry.

10.102The Committee notes that the report was endorsed by National Cabinet and the Health Workforce Taskforce appointed to ‘oversee implementation of the recommendations over the next 18 months’.[88] As noted in Chapter 7, the Committee will monitor the progress of these reforms, particularly the progress of those measures that are intended to make an impact in areas with acknowledged shortages.

10.103In addition to the measures in the Kruk Review, the Committee believes there is an urgent need for the Australian Government to investigate and invest in, initiatives that both attract and foster the long-term retention of healthcare professionals in regional Australia.

10.104Initiatives are particularly warranted in the wake of the expansion of the DPA for the 10-year moratorium. The Committee does recognise that this measure provides IMGs with greater choice as to where they live and practise while they satisfy the regional service requirements for the moratorium period. Yet, the Committee shares the concerns expressed by witnesses that this expansion will further disadvantage more remote rural areas seeking to attract GPs.

10.105To this end, the Committee believes that it is necessary to counterbalance the expansion of the DPA with measures that afford greater support and concessions to those working in those more outer regional or remote areas.

10.106In relation to incentivising the long-term settlement of healthcare professionals, the Committee looks favourably on the proposal that access to parent visas be prioritised for IMGs that spend a predetermined period of time working in outer regional or remote areas.

10.107The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with all tiers of government and major stakeholders to develop a package of scaled incentives that foster the long-term settlement of healthcare professionals in outer regional or remote areas.

10.108The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers offering prioritised access to parent visas to International Medical Graduates who spend a predetermined period working in regional, rural, and remote areas to incentivise those doctors to remain in regional areas.

Semi-Skilled Migrants and Essential Workers

10.109Many submitters railed against the characterisation of workers in agriculture and horticulture as being unskilled labourers. They noted that the work they undertake entailed training and employees who mastered the requirements of the position were valued members of the business. To employers, these were essential workers who filled semi-skilled roles.

10.110Dr Kaya Barry pointed out that there is recent academic work that ‘shows that farm work is incorrectly assumed to be “low-skilled” or “unskilled”’. A view reinforced by a system that she asserts:

… seems to have little value placed on the knowledges that workers gain in farm work roles, let alone the importance of retaining dedicated and proficient workers in low-skilled farm jobs who are willing to remain in regional places through permanent migration.[89]

10.111The Robinvale & District Table Grape Growers Association (RDTGGA) stated that ‘any discussion on migration policy and associated visas must include the unskilled worker cohort’, maintaining that it is ‘essential to attract and retain both skilled and unskilled migrants equally’. And, questioning the appropriateness of the latter term as, in their view, these ‘so called “unskilled migrant workers”’ were ‘only unskilled until trained effectively’.[90]

10.112Migrant workers, the Committee heard, also helped to invigorate regional economies. Settlement Services International (SSI) highlighted research from the OECD that demonstrated:

… that regional areas with higher proportions of migrants tend to have higher productivity levels finding that: “On average, a one percentage point higher share of migrants in the local [regional] population is associated with higher labour productivity of roughly A$1,490.”[92]

10.113Further, the RDTGGA were one of several submitters who argued that the efforts of these workers in helping to ensure the long-term prosperity of regional Australia should be acknowledged with access to a pathway to permanency. They called on the Australian Government to:

Recognise the amount of time that migrant farm workers spend working and living in regional communities, focusing on the skills they have acquired after significant training while in “seasonal” and casual work. With this in mind, find pathways to permanent migration.[93]

10.114Similarly, NFF affirmed how the agricultural workforce had ‘benefited significantly from migration streams, not only the low and semi-skilled workers on temporary visas but also through skills shortage visas that develop long-term relationships with employers’. They particularly highlighted the economic and social gains yielded when ‘both employer and worker have certainty regarding an employment arrangement’:

Employers are more willing to invest in the worker through training and expanded responsibilities. Workers are increasingly productive as they develop skills and experience on a particular farm. And their permanence enables them to connect and engage other community members and groups.[94]

They, too, considered that permanent migration ‘must be a central feature of future migration settings’.[95]

10.115Speaking of the aged care sector, Mr Tim Hicks, Executive General Manager of Policy and Advocacy at Bolton Clarke, noted the importance of migrant workers that his company brought in to help fill shortages and invested in their training, that they have ‘some prospects of being rewarded’.[96]

10.116The provision of pathways to permanency for these essential workers was an investment not only in the individual and the business they worked in, but also for the community in which they lived. Equally important, the Committee heard, was that pathways to permanency were ‘realistic and achievable’ for working migrants, encompassing recognition of the skills that migrants acquired after spending time working and living in regional communities.[97] Indeed, the research of Kaya Barry found that ‘most people in regional communities who are involved with migrant farm workers’ wanted reform that enabled ‘easier and realistic pathways to permanent migration as a reward and goal for dedicated migrant workers’.[98]

10.117To assist in alleviating workplace shortages in the region, Australian Pork Ltd advocated additional training for lower skilled workers. They suggested two strategies:

• A joint Federal and State/Territory government investment in agricultural workforce and training ‘hubs’ located in rural Australia; and
• Ensuring that the Skilling Australians Fund expenditure is directed to benefit the agricultural industries that contribute to it.[99]

Income Threshold Challenges

10.118As foreshadowed in Chapter 7, the tying of visas to an increased Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold, or TSMIT, and occupation lists has proved to be a barrier for employers trying to access lower skilled workers in rural areas. In regional Australia, pay rates were more likely to fall below the TSMIT and frequently occupations needed were not on the occupation list.

10.119The challenge for some occupations was, as the Law Council of Australia pointed out, their inability to gain adequate recognition of their skills and transition to a skilled visa. The Law Council observed a skills assessment was mandatory for the Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 494) and that skills assessing body VETASSESS required farmers to possess a bachelor’s degree.[100]

10.120Clubs Australia pointed out that the most common skilled workers engaged by clubs on TSS visas are chefs and cooks whose wages vary, particularly ‘between and within metropolitan and regional areas’. They feared the impact of raising the TSMIT above the market salary rate operating in regional and rural areas that were ‘already struggling to attract workers’ and where wages were typically lower. They called for any increase in the TSMIT to:

… carefully consider the impact on the ability of regional and rural hospitality businesses to engage chefs and cooks on the TSS and boost overall regional productivity.[101]

10.121NFF, anticipating an increase to the TSMIT, considered that if it was to rise to ‘even’ $70,000 then:

… the likely result would be that agriculture will no longer be able to use the skilled migration program — or at least have its use severely restricted — thereby losing yet another important avenue for accessing labour.

NFF cited research conducted by the Grattan Institute that the agricultural, forestry and fishing sectors would lose 84 per cent of its skilled visa workers, a ‘gut punch’ that would ‘cripple many parts of the industry’.[102]

10.122NFF acknowledged that the skilled visa system, while intended to target high skilled and specialist employees, had been used by farmers (before the TSMIT increased) ‘as the only system open to them to meet their labour requirements’. And, in the absence of a purpose-built stream, it was likely that farmers would ‘continue to use the skilled migration stream for this end’. [103]

10.123The RDTGGA was one of several witnesses that lamented the ‘demise’ of the proposed Australian Agricultural Visa (AAV) which, in their view, had the potential to offer ‘a more streamlined and efficient process for bringing in unskilled migrant labour’ and called for it to be revisited.[104]

10.124The staged introduction of an AAV program was announced in August 2021. The program, intended to supplement the PALM scheme, targeted skilled, semi-skilled and low-skilled workers in particular occupations across a range of agricultural and primary industry sectors, as well as support services and primary processing. The program was repealed in September 2022, following the change of government, and relocated within the PALM scheme.[105]

10.125NFF, while not calling for reinstatement of the AAV, lamented what they believed were likely benefits of the program. In particular it highlighted that the visa would have been more accessible to smaller growers and offered a sustainable alternative to WHMs. Further, its focus on Asia—a MOU was signed with Vietnam and preliminary discussions were held with other Asian nations—the AAV prudently diversified the global markets for labour that agriculture could access.[106]

10.126Instead, NFF called for the Australian Government to consider introducing ‘a dedicated semi-skilled visa option specific to the agricultural sector’ and pointed to Canada’s Agricultural stream in its Temporary Foreign Worker Program as a potential model. The Agricultural stream allowed for the recruitment of a foreign worker (in the absence of suitable domestic workers) for up to two or three years (for low wage and wage above the median respectively), crucially it had no equivalent to the TSMIT, just a requirement that the worker be paid above the provincial median.[107]

Committee Comment

10.127The evidence heard by the Committee outlined above reinforced the ongoing need in regional Australia for a reliable source of semi and lower-skill workers. Acute shortages in the regions have resulted in employers using whatever visa categories offer the simplest and most timely access to migrant workers (regardless of whether or not they were intended to target this cohort). Recent increases to the TSMIT have curtailed these avenues.

10.128As remarked in Chapter 7, the Committee is interested to see how the Government’s new Essential Skills Pathway provides a ‘more regulated pathway for lower paid workers with essential skills’.[108] As this pathway is in its early stages, the Committee makes no recommendations on this issue, but will monitor its implementation and impact.

Labour Agreements

10.129Australia’s Migration Program includes a range of labour agreements that span regions, industries, specific businesses, projects, and a skilled refugee pilot.[109] Visas granted under a labour agreement are employer sponsored and form part of the Skilled stream of the Migration Program.[110]

10.130In common across all the forms of labour agreements is that they encompass a negotiated set of concessions and streamlined processes and, through this, provide access to a wider pool of potential applicants.[111] The concessions that are granted vary, but might include less stringent English language or skill requirements, a shorter path to permanent residency, and/or access to occupations not on the skilled occupation list. The Horticulture Industry Labour Agreement (HILA), for instance, provides for the following concessions to the standard skilled visa requirements:

• Discount of up to 10% on the Temporary Skill Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) where it is demonstrated that equivalent Australian workers do not receive annual earnings equal to TSMIT;
• A broader range of monetary payments (e.g. regularised overtime) and non-monetary benefits (e.g. accommodation) can be counted as guaranteed earnings;
• For the TSS visa—overseas workers must score at least IELTS 5.0 overall, and at least IELTS 4.0 in each individual component score. For the Employer Nominated Scheme (ENS) and Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (SESR) visas—overseas workers must score at least IELTS 5.0 overall, and at least IELTS 4.5 in each individual component score and
• Overseas workers can be up to 50 years of age when they apply for an ENS or SESR visa.[112]
  131. During the course of this inquiry, the Committee heard most commonly about industry labour agreements and Designated Area Migration Agreements (DAMAs) in the evidence presented on regional migration.
  132. Industry labour agreements are made between the Australian Government and a particular industry to provide streamlined recruitment of overseas workers where an appropriately qualified local workforce is not available. Of the ten existing industry labour agreements, half have a rural focus—dairy industry, fishing industry, horticulture industry, meat industry, and pork industry—while other agreements, particularly the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement, reflect needs that span rural and urban communities.[113]
  133. DAMAs are similarly a formal agreement between the Australian Government and a Designated Area Representative (DAR) that is usually a state or territory government or a regional body such as a shire council or chamber of commerce. They are intended to provide ‘flexibility’ for a defined region to ‘respond to their unique economic and labour market conditions’.
  134. The current process is two-tiered—once the ‘DAMA head agreement’ is in place, then individual businesses within that region (endorsed by the DAR) can apply for an individual DAMA labour agreement under the terms established by the head agreement. The existing 13 DAMAs have a strong focus on rural, regional and remote areas, comprising 9 regional agreements (4 in Western Australia, 2 each in Queensland and Victoria, and 1 in New South Wales), 1 urban agreement for metropolitan Adelaide, and three state- and territory-wide agreements for South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.[114]
  135. Looking forward at how DAMAs would figure in Australia’s migration strategy, MrMark Wright, National Leader, Immigration Services at KPMG Australia, considered that there continued to be ‘a very strong role’ for DAMAs, provided that they are:

… carefully structured and appropriately targeted, with the appropriate integrity measures in place and supported by the relevant regional authority.

In his view, DAMAs could be a ‘powerful tool to ensure that the appropriate labour is targeted to the appropriate location in the right numbers’.[115]

10.136Peak bodies supporting Australia’s agricultural, pastoral and horticultural needs expressed mixed feelings about the value of labour agreements. APL, for example, stressed the importance of both the Pork Industry Labour Agreement (since 2011) and the Meat Industry Labour Agreement to their industry. They argued that the ‘Government should continue to recognise the role of Labour Agreements in providing tailored migration solutions with high levels of worker protections, particularly given current “one size fits all’’ standard skilled migration settings’.[116]

10.137At the same time, APL also noted the downside of the associated application process being ‘resource intensive, costly and lengthy processes’ resulting in delays that can impede business. They highlighted that timeliness remains imperative in industries like theirs:

Being based in remote areas and part of the food and fibre supply chain — which cannot absorb delays given we are dealing with biological systems, animal welfare, and perishable goods — a fast and responsive migration system is key for agriculture and the processing sector.[117]

10.138This sentiment was echoed by the joint submission from growers Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and their legal representatives Elmtree Migration Lawyers. They pointed out that the horticultural sector required ongoing employees, not just harvest workers, to service the fresh produce needs of consumers. The Horticulture Industry Labour Agreement Program they note, ‘goes some way to till this gap’ as it enables growers to sponsor both low-skilled and semi-skilled horticultural workers and take advantage of concessions not available under the standard visa programs.[118]

10.139Yet, they added, costs remain high, especially as ‘[m]ost foreign workers do not have the financial capacity to contribute to their visa fees’. The various fees they argue, ‘makes sponsoring foreign workers and expensive process that only large growers can afford’ with the risk largely borne by the employer. Processing times of some six months under the HILA, in their view, ‘is simply too long and does not meet most business’s operation needs’. Added to this is the cost and time required to conduct Labour Market Testing which they note is ‘unnecessary’ in towns and regions with low populations in which the supply of local workers has been exhausted and it is known that a shortage exists.[119]

10.140The Committee heard from Mr Gaethan Cutri, Managing Director of Cutri Fruit, who spoke candidly of his experience applying for a HILA:

My gosh, that's a lot of work. It seems so obvious and so easy to fill in, but it's not. It took ages. I'm a frigging lawyer and it took me ages. I had to give it to a migration lawyer because that is the process. There are a couple of things we couldn't answer. It cost me $10,000 and I did the majority of the work. … There's no logical reason to make it so hard to get a HILA. It's so difficult.[120]

10.141Some also argued that the settings for labour agreements were not fit for purpose. Among them, Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and Elmtree Migration Lawyers expressed frustration at the English language and skill assessment requirements. They judged that the requirement for low and semi-skilled workers sponsored under the 482 HILA program to obtain a IELTS English score of 4 was ‘unnecessarily high’. In their view, the level of English required should be pegged at a level that ‘supports understanding operational instructions and Workplace Health and Safety rules’. Similarly, they were baffled as to why applicants were required to provide evidence of their work experience for low-skilled positions such as a forklift driver. They point out that this is an unrealistic expectation as the work of many of these employees would have been paid in cash and their work largely undocumented in their home country.

Requiring low-skilled workers to obtain tax documents/payslips from countries where they don’t receive them, is simply not practical and unnecessarily eliminates the most highly valued workers from the visa program.[121]

They argue that a sponsor would not invest in a worker if they did not have the skills to perform the job.[122]

10.142Moreover, the Committee heard that the time and complexities entailed in securing a labour agreement, could backfire on sponsoring employers. Mr Gaethan Cutri, of Cutri Fruit, related that at the end of the application process:

… we've lost people we've brought in. We've spent hundreds of hours trying to get them their visa because it takes so long for no apparent reason. There's literally no reason [for the Department] to sit on a visa for a year or two. They [the migrant workers] get spooked and go, 'Gee, I'm not going to get my sponsorship. I'm not going to get my pathway to PR.' Then they go to another person who has no better chance but they tell them a story. All we're doing is transferring staff around.[123]

10.143The Committee was also informed that labour agreements lacked flexibility, assuming that business operations remained static. Mr Cutri, for example, found that after an equity partner buy-in, he was unable to transfer his labour agreement to the new business. Frustrated by the rigidity of the agreement, he complained:

It's the same farm. It's the same farmland and the same employees. I am still probably the biggest single shareholder yet I can't transfer it. I am having to run an old business combined with a new business because it's just too difficult to transfer. It's completely crazy.[124]

10.144Regional Development Australia bodies representing the Gold Coast and the Darling Downs and South West shared their investigation into whether setting up a DAMA would prove beneficial to their region. To Ms Estella Rodighiero, Director of Regional Development Australia Gold Coast Inc., DAMAs initially appeared to ‘be the saviour’ for their region. But, upon investigation, time and expense proved to be significant barriers, especially in a fluid job market:

It can take up to 18 months to two years, and we don't know what our skills gap is going to be then. The horse has almost bolted.[125]

10.145While they had hoped that DAMAs offered a way to leverage migration to support worker shortages, they found that the process was too long (extending up to two years), expensive and risky, especially as ‘success is uncertain’.[126]

10.146Further, the Committee heard that the establishment of a DAMA could create inequity and undermine the efforts of businesses in surrounding areas to recruit migrant workers. Mrs Lauren Russell, Projects Officer at Regional Development Australia Darling Downs and South West Inc. explained that concessions attached to a DAMA could draw migrant workers away from one regional area to another. She explained that:

… for someone working in aged care in our region, it's much more attractive for them to go up to Townsville or somewhere else where there is a DAMA and there's a pathway to permanent residency. We can't offer them that here without the DAMA. So we're already competing in the difficult global market, but then without a DAMA we're not competing on a level playing field within Australia.[127]

10.147In the assessment of NFF, problems faced by rural industries and businesses under the skilled visa system had resulted in ‘commodities resorting to bespoke ‘industry labour agreements’.[128] It is a view that has garnered traction, with the Australian Government’s Migration Strategy acknowledging that the:

… significant growth in the number of labour agreements is a clear indication that the current temporary skills program is failing to meet Australia’s skilled workforce needs.[129]

10.148Alongside outlining actions to reform the permanent and temporary skilled migration programs[130], the Strategy identified the need to produce ‘[c]learer guidelines for labour agreements’ alongside ‘simpler approaches to skilled migration’. Moreover, it committed to ‘evaluating the role of DAMAs, including how to improve the process’ in order to ‘help meet regional workforce needs’.[131]

Committee Comment

10.149The Committee acknowledges the view that the proliferation of labour agreements is potentially a symptom of a broken migration system. These programs have often been reactive to problems in the existing skilled migration program. The establishment of Industry Labour Agreements has largely been in response to the difficulties faced by industries when they have endeavoured to swiftly recruit workers with particular skills to identified locations, especially if those locations are in regional or remote areas. As recorded in the evidence received by the Committee, while such agreements are intended to streamline processes, labour agreements were still considered to be too complex, the process too slow, and the concessions insufficiently generous.

10.150The Committee also acknowledges that labour agreements, and particularly DAMAs, may create a two-tier system where employers and regions not included or signed up, miss out on concessions and are disadvantaged in their ability to attract migrants. This inequity is compounded by the time and cost entailed in establishing these agreements, as it tends to favour larger entities with the financial and administrative capacity to invest—be it a regional body setting up a DAR or a business wanting to take advantage of a labour agreement. Given this inequity, the Committee considers that it is essential that these elements of the skilled migration program be reviewed to provide smaller employers with a viable alternative method of recruiting migrant workers, that is cost-effective and timely.

10.151The Committee also urges that the Australian Government’s review of the role of DAMAs be mindful to consider the impact of their establishment on workplace shortages in the surrounding regions.

10.152The Committee recommends that the Australian Government reviews Designated Area Migration Agreements and Industry Labour Agreements to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Working Holiday Maker Program

10.153The Department of Home Affairs notes that the Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program ‘promotes cultural exchange and boosts people-to-people connections between young adults from Australia and partner countries’.[132] A reciprocal program, it has been in operation for almost 50 years, and encompasses almost 50 countries/jurisdictions.

10.154The program is split into the Working Holiday (subclass 417) and the Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visas.[133] In common, these subclasses have entitlements to work and undertake limited study, and provide opportunities (after meeting certain work/location requirements[134]) to extend an applicant’s stay beyond the initial 12-month visa. Eligibility for each subclass is determined by the country/jurisdiction where the applicant holds citizenship and a valid passport. Applicants from one of the 29 countries eligible for the subclass 462 visa, however, need to satisfy additional minimum education and English language requirements that applicants who are citizens of the 19 countries eligible for the subclass 417 visa do not have to meet. Further, with the exception of the United States of America, all countries/jurisdictions named in the 462 visa, are subject to caps on the number of places granted each financial year that range from 100 to 5,000.[135]

10.155Several submitters noted the importance of the WHM program to regional Australia. The Backpacker & Youth Tourism Advisory Panel (BYTAP), for example, pointed out that one in three jobs held by WHMs are located in regional Australia and that, compared to other international visitors, WHMs tended to ‘stay longer, spend more and disperse more widely’. They also stressed the importance of WHMs in filling casual temporary roles and seasonal work, including 8 per cent of hospitality jobs, 14 per cent of farm jobs, and 80 per cent of workers harvesting fresh produce.[136] NFF, when reflecting on those same statistics, remarked that ‘it cannot be overstated’ how important backpackers are to the agricultural sector and reminded the Committee that ‘the sector was brought to its knees when borders closed during the pandemic crisis’, and backpacker numbers dropped.[137]

10.156Yet this reliance on the WHM program also suggests that there is a tension between the aim of the program as a cultural exchange that fosters bilateral relations, and Australia’s dependence on the program to fill workplace shortages in particular sectors and geographic locations.

10.157Responding to a question on notice, the Department of Home Affairs informed the Committee that:

The ‘specified work’ requirement; was introduced in 2005 to address chronic and severe labour shortages, particularly in Australia’s major agricultural regions.

‘[O]ngoing labour shortages’ was also the reason given for the expansion to a second working holiday visa, with a third visa added in 2019.[138]

10.158The Department indicated that administering the programs was a delicate balancing act with:

Adjustments in relation to eligible industries, regions and subclasses aimed to maximise the benefit to these regions and industries, while increasing WHM program numbers and prioritising local job opportunities for young Australians.[139]

10.159The Business Council of Australia (BCA), however, considered that bilateral aspects of the WHM program (among others) created preferential arrangements that were not always in the national interest. They drew attention to caps on the number of applicants drawn from countries that, in effect, limited access to workers. From the BCA’s perspective, if a change was in Australia’s interest, it should be pursued to ensure that Australian businesses could…

… access the best workers, regardless of whether they come from a country with which we have a free trade agreement in place.[140]

10.160The independent migration review, following its examination of the WHM program, encouraged the Australian Government to consider strengthening the focus of the program on cultural exchange by limiting visas to one year.[141] The Australian Government’s discussion paper on regional migration, however, made it clear that the Government would not adopt that recommendation as it ‘would significantly damage local economies in regional Australia’.[142]

10.161Dr Kaya Barry also spoke about the reliance of many farmers and regional towns on the ‘labour, spending, and tourism’ of WHMs for their ‘survival’. The main issue evident to Dr Barry is that while WHMs (similar to PALM workers) stay for up to three years and deliver ‘essential labour’ to regional hubs and industries, they have no existing pathways to permanent migration. Instead, they seek ways to migrate permanently, typically via lengthy and convoluted employer sponsorship visas or by pursuing further study.[143]

10.162Yet, it is WHMs’ desire to stay, be it for additional WHM visas or permanently, that can make them more vulnerable and open them up to exploitation. As the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) observed:

Visas that tie migrants to an employer diminish the ability for workers to report illegal practices and harassment due to fear of losing their job, income, safety at work and their right to live in Australia.[144]

10.163Both FECCA and VETASSESS pointed to past reports documenting the extensive underpayment of students and backpackers, including the Migrant Justice Institute’s 2017 publication, Wage Theft in Australia, that recorded underpayment being particularly prevalent among those engaged in food services, and fruit and vegetable picking, and a 2022 Senate Economics References Committee inquiry, that found underpayment was, in many industries, ‘deliberate and systematic, and often normalised, especially for migrant workers’.[145]

10.164VETASSESS called on the Australian Government to ‘[a]gressively address migrant exploitation’. FECCA recommended ‘increased monitoring and oversight’ of both the WHM program and the PALM scheme. While submissions made by the Community and Public Sector Union and the Migration Youth and Children Platform called for a two-pronged approach that involved both education programs to ensure visa holders are aware of their rights, alongside stronger protection and compliance activities to shield migrants from unscrupulous employers.[146] Further, for migrant’s seeking redress from exploitation, the introduction of a short term ‘Workplace Justice visa’ was suggested to allow WHMs (among other exploited migrant workers) to undertake employment while taking legal action against their employers for significant breaches of labour laws.[147]

10.165Acknowledging the findings of past reviews and the evidence provided by stakeholders, the Australian Government identified the WHM program as an area for future reform to ensure that it ‘supports development objectives in regional Australian and does not contribute to the exploitation of workers’.[148] In line with this direction, the discussion paper on regional migration pointed out that the past reviews found that the ‘[w]ork requirements in the Working Holiday Maker Program increase the risk of exploitation’ and that the vulnerability of these workers was exacerbated by the remoteness of their workplace, a lack of knowledge of their rights, poor English language skills, as well as cultural and language barriers.[149]

10.166The Committee was also made aware by the Department of Home Affairs of differences between where specified work can be performed depending on the visa subclass:

The specified work that can be undertaken in each industry and area is specific, albeit similar, to each visa subclass, with the main difference being that only

subclass 417 holders can count mining as specified work.[150]

10.167A closer look at the eligibility requirements indicates that the locations for certain types of work are more restricted for those applying for a subclass 462 visa. 417 visa holders can satisfy the specified work requirements by gaining employment in:

• plant and animal cultivation;
• fishing and pearling;
• tree farming and felling;
• mining; or
• construction,

so long as the work takes place in ‘Regional Australia’. Yet 462 visa holders are unable to undertake work in mining; can undertake fishing and pearling, or tree farming and felling in Northern Australia only; and plant and animal cultivation, or construction in Northern Australian and other specified areas of regional Australia. It was noted that it was the Minister who determined the types of specified work and eligible regions, but no reasoning was given for the discrepancies between the two subclasses.[151]

10.168Currently eligibility for the WHM program requires most applicants to be up to 30 years of age. This age increases to 35 for applicants from selected countries under the Working Holiday Visa (subclass 417), currently Canada, Denmark, France, Republic of Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Calls for the increased age to be uniformly applied to all applicants, regardless of their country of origin, was frequently made in the evidence presented to the Committee.

10.169The Australian Private Hospitals Association (APHA) was among those who argued for the age of to be increased. Like other submitters the APHA pointed out that people were working longer and demonstrated changing attitudes towards their work-life balance. They observed that ‘[c]hoices to combine travel and work are not limited to young adults’. The health sector, they reasoned,

… stands to benefit by welcoming skilled and experienced workers of all ages including those who may be attracted by the option of a working holiday later in life.[152]

10.170BYTAP likewise called for the age limit to be expanded to 35 for all participating countries. Reform of the visa and policy settings, they argued was necessary to further maximise the benefits of the WHM program. Among them, they recommended that the Australian Government:

• Fast track agreements with new countries to participate in the program;
• Remove visa caps on countries that have been identified as low risk; and
• Remove English language, educational and letter of support requirements from the 462 subclass visa.[153]
  171. Several of the recommendations made by BYTAP highlighted the lack of consistency between the two visa subclasses, with additional eligibility requirements specified for the subclass 462. They draw attention to some countries being subject to extraordinarily low caps on visa places—with those allocated 100 places being quickly exhausted. Further, BYTAP argues that the language, educational and letter of support requirements are ‘onerous imposts that are not evenly applied to all countries in the program and are not requirements under the 417 Working Holiday visa’. They contend that a major motivation to take part in the WHM program is for backpackers to improve their English language skills and they add that this is ‘not a reciprocal requirement for Australians travelling overseas on a WHM visa’.[154]
  172. More generally NFF argued that there was a need to improve Australia’s attractiveness by providing ‘clear and simple pathways for visa applications’. Expensive costs of flights along with ‘international exorbitant’ visa application fees, they point out are a significant barrier in the competition for backpackers.[155] To mitigate these expenses, the joint submission from the Accommodation Association of Australia, Australian Hotels Association and Tourism Accommodation Australia, suggested rebating visa fees in the short term and benchmarking the pricing and timeliness of Australia’s visa processing with key competitors such as Canada and New Zealand to ensure that the nation is competitive in the longer term.[156]
  173. The WHM program allows visa holders to undertake ‘any kind of work’, not just lower paid, unskilled or semi-skilled work. The Committee heard that veterinarians commonly make use of the WHM program to undertake work in Australia as a way of helping to ‘immediately address the veterinary profession skills shortage’.[157]
  174. The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), Australasian Veterinary Boards Council and Vetlink Employment Service each told the Committee of the ‘dire and escalating critical workforce shortage’ in their sector.[158] They pointed out that while the WHM visa is available to undertake any work, it is not fit for purpose for many roles in the veterinary profession. While recognising the temporary waivers in place at the time they made their submission, veterinary peak bodies argued that the six-month work limitation (under visa condition 8547) made the WHM program too time consuming and expensive to recruit and induct vets. Instead, they argued for a relaxation of the requirements more in line with the United Kingdom’s Youth Mobility Scheme visa[159], that has no restrictions on the length of time worked with a single employer or a requirement to undertake work in a rural location.[160]

Committee Comment

Immediate Considerations

10.175The Committee considers that the current arrangement of the WHM scheme would benefit from simplification through adopting a more consistent approach, both across and within the two visa subclasses. The current arrangement is two tiered, with privileges and concessions accorded to one visa subclass and not the other. While the Committee recognises that this results, in part, from bilateral agreements, the extent of the disparity makes the program overly complex for applicants, employers and those administering the scheme.

10.176The Committee was convinced by the evidence of the benefits of increasing the age limit for eligibility to participate in the WHM program up to 35 across both visa subclasses.

10.177The Committee also agrees that there should be a re-examination of some of the eligibility criteria and restrictions placed on 462 subclass visa applications. The Committee notes the wide disparity between caps on places ranging from 100 to 5,000. Further, the Committee considers that caps of 100 are so low as to almost negate their apparent usefulness to either Australia or the home nation.

10.178Similarly, the Committee is concerned by the degree of disparity in educational requirements. It notes that while the applicants of some nations are only obliged to have completed a senior secondary certificate, others are required to complete a tertiary qualification. The underlying reasoning for this disparity is not apparent and, from the Committee’s perspective, this requirement would benefit from the Australian Government taking a more standardised approach.

10.179The Committee, does however, see value in the requirement that applicants have a minimum of functional English. While noting BYTAP’s concern that backpackers apply for working holiday programs in order to improve their English language skills, the Committee also recognises that the level specified for a subclass 462 visa, is the lowest level required. The Committee believes that functional English helps ensure that applicants understand what is required of them when employed, and better equips them to understand their rights and help protect them from exploitation.

10.180The Committee recognises that minimising exploitation is a focus of the Migration Strategy and has been highlighted as a particular interest in the subsequent regional migration discussion paper in relation to the WHM program. Like submitters, the Committee believes that the Australian Government should continue to improve the current multi-pronged approach that empowers WHMs through education and support, improves oversight of employers of potentially vulnerable migrants, provides protection to migrants who have valid claims of exploitation, and responds strongly to penalise unscrupulous employers.

10.181The Committee also considers that the migration system should take a less complex approach to providing incentives to locations and/or specified work that entitle visa holders to subsequent visas. It is the Committee’s view that maintaining two sets of eligible locations that are similar, but not identical, across the two visa subclasses is counterproductive and not in line with the Migration Strategy’s aims of simplification.

10.182The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increases the age of eligibility for a Working Holiday Maker visa to 35 across the two subclasses of the scheme.

10.183The Committee recommends that the Australian Government reviews the Working Holiday Maker program with a view to standardising requirements and reducing disparities between participating countries and visa subclasses.

10.184The Committee recommends that that Australian Government aligns locations eligible to satisfy specified work requirement across the two visa subclasses of the Working Holiday Maker program.

10.185The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continues to improve the educational program directed at Working Holiday Maker scheme participants to provide them with knowledge of their rights while working in Australia and implement more robust mechanisms to monitor compliance with labour laws by businesses employing Working Holiday Maker visa holders.

A Longer-term View

10.186Like the independent migration review, the Committee considers that the WHM program has strayed from its original purpose as a cultural exchange. At the same time, the Committee acknowledges the Australian Government’s concern that radical change, such as limiting the program to one year, would have a devastating impact on the regions that rely on the program’s contributions to the workforce.

10.187On this issue, perhaps the use of the WHM program by the veterinary sector to help tackle workplace shortages is instructive. While the Committee has sympathy with the challenges facing the veterinary industry, it considers that in a well-functioning migration system, existing visas, such as the Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa (that offers short- and medium-term streams), should be fit for purpose to provide a temporary workforce in a timely manner. Further, such a system would negate the need for temporary waivers, such as the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’ authorisation continuing an exemption process to the WHM program to enable visa holders to work for the same employer for more than six months from 1 January 2024.[161]

10.188As observed in Chapter 7, the Committee hopes that the replacement of the TSS visa with a new four-year Skills in Demand visa, encompassing three pathways that span specialist, core and essential skills, will improve the options available for those who require temporary workers for a more sustained period—be they highly skilled veterinarians or farm labourers crucial to the cultivation of fruit and vegetable crops. The Committee considers that, development of such a visa, as outlined in Recommendation 33, would in the longer term, incentivise and attract some of those who currently use the WHM program as an opportunity to pursue temporary work in Australia.

10.189The Committee believes that, if the operation of the Skills in Demand visa proves successful, the Government should reconsider the settings in place for the WHM program and realign its focus to providing shorter term arrivals from diverse backgrounds with the opportunity to be part of a cultural exchange.

Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme

10.190The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, known as the PALM scheme, is part of Australia’s broader International Development Policy to foster a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific.[162] It is managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Employment and Workplace relations, aided by the Pacific Labour Facility.

10.191The scheme operates as a temporary migration program offering unskilled, low-skilled and semi-skilled employment to Pacific and Timor-Leste workers that allows them to ‘develop skills, earn income and support their families back home’. The scheme also helps fill workforce gaps in rural and regional Australia, as well as in agricultural and specified related sectors, providing employers with ‘access to a pool of reliable and productive workers’.[163]

10.192Under the scheme, approved businesses (or businesses using an approved labour hire company) can engage workers to fill either short-term seasonal placements (up to 9 months) or longer-term positions of one to four years in duration. PALM participants are drawn from Timor-Leste and nine Pacific Countries: Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. The scheme is demand driven and roles undertaken span agriculture, hospitality, tourism and the care sector.[164]

10.193Mr Tim Hicks, Executive General Manager of Policy and Advocacy at Bolton Clarke, speaking of his experience in the aged care sector, was one of several that the Committee heard from who praised the PALM scheme as having ‘worked incredibly well at bringing in workers and upskilling them’. These workers, he said, were some of their ‘best and most dedicated’, attributes that encouraged his business to invest heavily in assisting them to complete formal vocational qualifications as well as additional training and support.[165]

10.194Yet, not all employers considered the cohort of workers who arrive under the PALM scheme to be fit-for-purpose. The horticultural sector, in particular, questioned the appropriateness of PALM workers’ skills and capabilities in relation to manual labour associated with picking table grapes and stone fruit at a profitable level. Mr Fred Tassone, for one, told the Committee that he and his colleagues in the sector had repeatedly complained that the workers were unsuited to the job required. Remarking of the system:

If we ask for a particular skill set of workers, it is ludicrous that we are being delivered a totally opposite skill set of people to what we need.[166]

10.195To help meet their operational needs, the horticultural industry called for the PALM scheme to be expanded to other locations, particularly Southeast Asia. Growers argued that workers from these locations had the attention to detail and work ethic required to excel in the sector.[167]

10.196To this end, the Australian Table Grape Association Inc. (ATGA) was encouraged by the Australian Government’s commitment to honour a pre-existing memorandum of understanding signed with Vietnam to enable 1,000 workers to work in the agricultural sector.[168] As part of the MOU, the ATGA called on the Australian Government to incorporate a pilot program with international students from Vietnam. Under their proposal, students from Vietnam would undertake formal TAFE training in horticulture alongside on-the-job training, moving between the Citrus, Summerfruit and Table Grape industry in the Sunraysia district. At the end of the program students would be able to take their skills and accreditation back to Vietnam, or have the opportunity to see if they qualify for permanent residency.[169]

10.197Dr Rachel Stephens, Research Fellow at the Research Centre for Refugees, Migration and Humanitarian Studies, Australian Catholic University, also called for expansion of the PALM scheme into South Asia but for humanitarian reasons. Australia, in her view, needed to be mindful that they did not deplete Pacific islander nations of their human resources so:

… perhaps another consideration is that we should be expanding the PALM scheme to include South Asian countries, for example, where there are surplus human resources.[170]

10.198NFF, while acknowledging the success and growth of the PALM scheme, also highlighted the barriers that discouraged many employers from participation. In addition to being responsible for the pastoral care of workers, they noted that employers were required to…

… negotiate a complex bureaucratic approval process, arrange and make upfront payment of airfares and transport, ensure suitable accommodation, guarantee the worker at least 30 hours work per week, comply with government’s reporting requirements, and obtain approval before making any changes to their dealings with the PALM workers.[171]

10.199Managing these responsibilities, they added, put it out of reach of many smaller businesses. To enhance access and maximise the scheme’s potential NFF proposed a concierge service to assist new employers and smaller businesses to better engage with the scheme.[172]

10.200Like other migration programs in regional Australia, the Committee heard of the need for PALM workers who made longstanding contributions to the communities in which they live and work, to have the prospect of a pathway to permanent residency.

10.201NFF highlighted the need for permanency to be an ‘option’ for PALM workers. They observed that while farmers often made inquiries as to how they could enable their ‘valued migrant employees to remain on the farm permanently’, they were frustrated by the existing visa system that, among other things, did not accommodate workers without credentials recognised by the skills list.[173]

10.202Independent writer and researcher, Peter Mares, raised concerns that PALM workers as a group were becoming ‘permanently temporary and permanently unrepresented’. That through the process of one group of workers staying for an extended period before being replaced by a new cohort, they fail to gain a voice. Mares argues for the application of democratic principles and principles of fairness in the consideration of the rights of these workers.[174]

10.203Similarly, cultural geographer, Dr Kaya Barry, considered the replacement of a seasonal workforce with the ‘certain and longer-term contract’ entailed under the PALM scheme merely shifted ‘the focus from one temporary visa cohort to another’ and did nothing to ‘resolve issues and uncertainties that working migrants face about future migration prospects’. She observed that there are some workers who have undertaken the journey multiple times, including on former schemes, who ‘start to build that double life and aren't necessarily desiring to have that circular mobility for decades’.[175]

10.204Dr Barry, like the historian Professor Joy Damousi, welcomed the Albanese Government’s promise to create permanent migration pathways for some Pacific Island workers.[176] Approximately a year after this promise was made, in April 2024, the Australian Government announced the commencement of the Pacific Engagement Visa program. Under the visa up to 3000 places would be available annually via a ballot process to applicants from specified nations whether located onshore (if they hold a temporary visa or bridging visa A, B, or C) or offshore.[177]

10.205A strong thread in the evidence was the need to improve the ‘working relationship between all the tiers of government and the community providers’, as identified by Mr Dennis Hovenden, Economic Development Manager, Swan Hill Rural City Council, in order to produce positive outcomes.[178]

10.206Mr Scott Barber, Chief Executive Officer of the Swan Hill Rural City Council, told the Committee that there was a ‘clear disconnect in the information flow’ between government agencies, the council, and local providers. While they noted there had been some improvement following their feedback, the existing process was one where the council found that it was ‘trying to play catch-up on issues’. They relayed the example that:

… seasonal workers from different Pacific islands are brought into our community on a Friday afternoon. Nobody from council or the people that can support those workers firstly are aware that they're coming; secondly, know the numbers; and, thirdly, know what their cultural background is and where they're actually going to be working.[179]

10.207As illustrated in the Case Study below, the Committee heard of the extraordinary efforts of non-government organisations, local councils and regional development bodies to welcome PALM workers, foster respectful cultural exchange, and work cooperatively with employers and service providers to deliver settlement support, despite being constrained by inadequate capacity and funding.[180]

10.208The temporary visa status of PALM workers, Wimmera Southern Mallee noted, was a particular challenge as they are unable to access settlement support, compromising the ability of local service providers and community organisations to develop tailored induction and inclusion activities, such as English language classes or driving lessons. This in turn, they maintained, is more likely to lead to negative settlement experiences and anti-social behaviour that has the potential to create ‘complex local community relations’.[182]

10.209Know Your Roots Inc. (KYR) also highlighted the ineligibility of PALM workers to access Medicare as a barrier to inclusion. They reported with frustration that these workers pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and have the same health needs as residents but are not entitled to access Medicare (unless part of the family accompaniment program pilot). Instead, they are personally liable for their health care costs and are required to have adequate health insurance.

10.210In KYR’s experience, despite private health cover, these workers had restricted access to hospitals without the payment of an upfront fee. Among the effects they observed was, poorer health management as workers delayed seeking health support until desperate. In turn, the delays being more likely to impact their work, mental health and ability to provide for families at home, and increase the likelihood of unpaid debt to public hospitals.[183]

10.211For the Swan Hill Rural City Council, a core part of migration policy should be ‘to embrace migrants and to minimise separation from family members, as the current system can [take] years to reunite families’.[184]

10.212Evidence heard by the Committee highlighted the damaging impact that ‘fragmentation and dislocation from family’ had on some PALM workers. Ms Sara Barron and Mr Chris Sounness, speaking on the situation in the Wimmera Southern Mallee, called for a multi-pronged approach. They argued for the development of long-term relationships between the receiving locality and the sending nation:

Local governments would have a lot more capability to deal with, say one country and build a really strong relationship with one particular PALM country and develop that relationship and really make sure that their community is on board in supporting a particular island, rather than trying to develop multiple relationships.[185]

And, to help counter the isolation and long-term separation from home they called for workers to be accompanied by families, provided that they were adequately supported with access to education, health and social services.[186]

10.213Mrs Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, praised recent Australian Government commitments to improve the PALM scheme through reforms that strengthen oversight and increase support for workers. These she regarded as ‘a welcome first step towards ensuring that migrant workers are appropriately protected from labour exploitation and that appropriate attention is given to this important issue’.[187]

10.214Although contested, particularly by individual employers[188], the Committee did hear about the vulnerability of PALM workers to exploitation. Poor language skills, cultural unfamiliarity, isolation, a lack of awareness of their rights and entitlements, and the power imbalance between workers and their employer or labour hire company, contributed to making PALM workers more likely to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous actors.

10.215 The Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, for example, shared the case of a group of PALM workers who sought their help after being pressured by a labour hire company to sign a contract that incorporated vastly higher transportation fees and repayment of the difference accrued over the period of the previous contract. The WDA explained that, all up, this would leave the workers with ‘virtually no remaining salary after deductions for 20 weeks’. Faced with punitive deductions, they left the region.[189] In this context, alongside enforcement and oversight, measures to improve settlement, enhance cultural literacy, are vital elements to empower PALM workers.

Committee Comment

10.216The Committee welcomes recent reforms to the PALM scheme announced in the 2023-24 Budget that endeavour to minimise worker exploitation and enhance supports.[190] Further positive steps have been taken to aid in the settlement of workers and counter anti-social behaviour through the piloting of a family accompaniment program and the provision of avenues for pacific workers to have a pathway to permanency. These are measures that invest in the long-term future of the scheme, and, in due course, the Committee looks forward to seeing them yield positive outcomes.

10.217The Committee believes that these initiatives can be enhanced by better cross-government communication to help make sure that PALM workers are provided with a soft landing in regional Australia. The Committee heard that local councils and community groups are often caught unaware or excessively stretched by the demands placed on them by the arrival of a cohort of PALM workers. At the most basic level, information about the arrival of PALM workers in a region needs to be delivered well in advance to ensure the preparedness of local support networks.

10.218Likewise, the Committee believes that regional communities in Australia that take in PALM workers should be given the opportunity to build on their experience and make longer-term connections. As one witness suggested, this could be in the manner of a ‘sister’ like relationship built up with a single PALM nation to ensure that both communities build up knowledge and awareness of each other, their attributes and their needs.

10.219The Committee is encouraged by the establishment of the PALM Family Accompaniment Pilot. As the Committee heard, it is hoped that such measures will minimise the impact of separation and improve settlement outcomes. It is particularly pleasing that this pilot incorporates access to Medicare for both the worker and their accompanying family members. Particularly for those PALM workers on the longer-term basis the Committee considers that the provision of adequate healthcare is essential to safeguarding the treatment of citizens of our partner nations.

10.220The Committee recommends that the Australian Government improves communication systems to ensure that local councils and relevant community and government organisations are given adequate prior notice of the arrival and composition of PALM workers.

10.221The Committee recommends that Australian Government initiates longer term relationships between a receiving region in Australia and a participating PALM nation to develop culturally specific programs to foster productive cultural exchange and participation.

10.222The Committee recommends that, in due course, the Australian Government reviews outcomes relating to the expansion of Medicare to participants in the PALM Family Accompaniment Pilot.

Settlement Services in Regional Settings

10.223Successful migration, particularly to rural and remote areas, has historically been accompanied by a receptive and supportive host community and processes that ease the settlement experience. A community that welcomes migrants, recognises the skills and other attributes they bring with them, and assists migrants in their transition into becoming a valued member of their adopted community. In such a society it is the kith and kin network that spreads the word and fosters further migration.

10.224Success stories of this kind hark back to the early nineteenth century. Among the earliest, German Lutheran migrants, tradespeople who were initially sought out by the South Australian Company in 1836 and 1837. Waves followed, settling in communities on the banks of the River Torrens, the Adelaide Hills and the Barossa Valley in the colony of South Australia.[191] Regional Australia continues to be enriched by chain migration. Among the recent examples, the Committee heard of the Karen community in Nhill, as well as the Yezidi in Toowoomba and in Armidale.[192]

10.225This section of this chapter explores what successful settlement might look like in a regional setting. It considers the constraints, the challenges, and service gaps faced by those working with, employing and supporting migrants in regional Australia, alongside the initiatives considered necessary to overcome these barriers.

10.226The Committee notes the Australian Government’s new Regional Investment Framework outlining its approach to supporting ‘strong and sustainable regions’ by:

… valuing local voices and priorities, being informed by and building the evidence, operating with flexibility, integrity and transparency, and coordinating across governments to make investments work better for regions.[193]

10.227As indicated in the evidence below, the priority areas of the framework (see Figure 10.2) align with the approach called for by many stakeholders that the Committee heard from in relation to settlement services in regional settings.

Source: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, 'Regional Investment Framework: The Australian Government's approach to supporting strong and sustainable regions’, July 2023.

Constraints, Planning, and Capacity Building

10.228Comparatively few in the migrant cohorts discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter have entitlements to access funded settlement services. As observed in Chapter 8, at present, these services are mainly confined to refugee and humanitarian entrants. Eligibility otherwise is limited to the holders of specified family and partner visas that have low English proficiency; and the dependants of holders of specified working and skilled visas, provided that the dependents are located in rural and regional areas and have low English proficiency.[194]

10.229Yet, as the Wimmera Southern Mallee Development remarked of PALM workers in their region:

None of the visa holders qualify for SETS [Settlement Engagement and Transition Support program] support. However, they do need Settlement support.[195]

10.230Ms Catherine Scarth, Chief Executive Officer at AMES Australia, called for ‘broad-based settlement services based on need’. A service that recognises that migrants do not all require the same level of support, but that is available, particularly in regional areas, to:

… make sure that people can find work quickly and all of those other things—connect to the local community—so that we do have cohesive, integrated communities.[196]

With access to these supports helping to ‘connect people to the local community, which enhances and fosters good integration’.[197]

10.231SSI argued that there is a lack of understanding by those developing regional migration settings of ‘local settlement capacity and capability’ and their limitations. This in turn, constrains the effectiveness of regional migration policy. In their view:

… while successive governments have sought to promote regional migration, there has been overreliance on visa conditions to drive this agenda with insufficient attention on ways to retain newcomers and to promote and sustain secondary migration to regional areas.[198]

10.232To Ms Shama Pande, Service Manager, Multicultural Communities, CORE Community Services, this lack of forward planning was a contributing factor to the poor retention of migrants in regional Australia. As she explained:

There is a huge government push for regional migration, but what we are seeing is that, if that infrastructure's not put in place, the services are not there and wraparound services are not built, we are setting up our migrants and refugees for failure. That will not work.[199]

10.233Further she, like other witnesses the Committee heard from, was critical of the then policy of limiting settlement services to five years:

There might be people who might not need support as much as the other people do, but prescribing time and putting settlement in one blanket is absolutely putting us back and not allowing us to move forward with our cohort.[200]

10.234In her view there had been too much focus on the economics, rather than ‘the importance and the value of social integration’. While acknowledging that ‘as a nation, we want people to be economically integrated and give back to the nation’, she argued that ‘until we provide that sense of social cohesion and belonging to this new country, we won't be able to achieve a lot’.[201]

10.235The Grattan Institute highlighted the poor retention rate of migrants in regional or remote Australia. They cited research that indicated that about half of the migrants who chose to live in outer regional, remote of very remote regions, left within five years. To the Institute, migration policies that required migrants to move to regional areas was likely ‘to reduce the net benefits the community derives from skilled migration’, in addition to poor retention rates, the cost of regional moves to migrants in terms of lower wages and in turn the fiscal dividend they provide to the community.[202]

10.236Yet to SSI, the finding that a high proportion of migrants left regions within five years, only served to highlight the need for ‘a greater focus on retention and supporting lasting connections for newcomers in regional areas that benefit them and the regional communities where they settle’.[203]

10.237SSI recommended ‘multi-year forward planning to ensure that social and physical infrastructure capacities and constraints are managed’. Collaborative planning was required, led by the Australian Government, and spanning all tiers of government, as well as settlement providers, and local stakeholders in order to ‘manage gaps in social and physical infrastructure proactively’.[204]

Place-Based, Person-Centred, and Community-Led

10.238While many who provided evidence pointed out the distinctive aspects of regional Australia as compared to urban centres and cities, equally apparent in the evidence was the differences experienced across regional Australia. It was clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to policy and procedures was not likely to be effective in regional Australia.

10.239The NSW Government advocated that the Australian Government takes a place-based approach to ‘empower communities to respond to local needs and improve social and economic outcomes for regional areas’. They suggested trialling such an approach with states and territories playing a coordinating role accompanied by targeted migration measures to ‘support regions to secure skilled migrants who will remain in that region’.[205]

10.240SSI, likewise, advocated a targeted localised approach that engaged both the local community and migrants. In their view:

Coordinated, place-based community engagement initiatives provide a platform to recognise the shared aspirations of the local host community and newcomers while also creating a welcoming and socially inclusive environment.[206]

SSI particularly pointed to the importance of ‘social connections and belonging’ to increase the retention of migrants in regional Australia. They recommended that the Australian Government, alongside state and territory governments:

…invest in tailored and holistic support for newcomers who migrate or relocate to regional areas by scaling up programs that successfully facilitate access to the labour market and place-based community engagement initiatives in regional locations where there is a high demand for newcomers (in partnership with local governments).[207]

10.241The Refugee Council of Australia drew the Committee’s attention to research assessing what constituted positive settlement programs in regional Australia. Examining the settlement of Yezidi refugees in Armidale, New South Wales, SSI and the University of New England found that ‘successful regional settlement is built on a multi-partner approach’, that mutual adaptation was required from both the host community and the new arrivals and required initiatives that cross the spectrum of community attitudes and concerns. These elements were also identified in a review of evidence relating to regional migrant settlement in Australia conducted by the Monash Migration and Inclusion Centre and Welcoming Cities. The report determined five key factors for success that RCOA summarised as:

• Locally driven coordination, consultation, planning and budgeting;
• Meaningful consultation and a culture of welcome in receiving communities;
• Employment that matches demand with the characteristics of new migrants;
• Accessible housing, transport and culturally appropriate services; and
• Established ethnic communities and multicultural organisations (desirable).[208]
  242. Yet, as Ms Pande (CORE Community Services) pointed out, community-led settlement activities were too often conducted without adequate government support:

We have seen on the ground, at the coalface, that the prescriptive time frame does not work. What happens, 60 to 70 per cent of the time, is that the community organisation, the place based organisation, at its core ends up doing the heavy lifting for the government, because the people can't live in the community on their own.[209]

10.243The Committee heard from the Swan Hill Rural City Council on the work they do to foster migration and encourage long-term settlement. The Council told the Committee that it was a municipality in ‘desperate need of skilled migrant workers in a variety of industries’. Among its initiatives the:

Council acts as a skilled migration certifying agent, works very closely with service providers who are supporting migrants and temporary workers arriving in our Municipality, is actively involved in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) Scheme and has been seeking to establish a Designated Area Migration Agreement (DAMA) with neighbouring Councils on both sides of the Murray River.[210]

In addition, the Council had prioritised ‘social inclusion’ in its strategic documents, promoted cultural diversity through Harmony Day and other events and assisted migrant groups with meeting facilities in Council buildings.[211]

10.244Likewise, the Wimmera Southern Mallee Development told the Committee that in their region of Victoria they delivered the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support (SETS) program, acted as a regional certifying body, and convened the bi-monthly settlement committee meetings with regional representatives, as well as working more generally with local employers, Neighbourhood House and Shire Council to support PALM workers and organise community integration events.[212]

10.245Based on their experience working with migrants in the Shepparton region of Victoria, Know Your Roots strongly argued for the voice of organisations, such as their own, to contribute to the evidence base used by government to develop policy and other initiatives:

Enable community organisations who are working directly with people from birth countries to report directly to both governments to provide sure evidence of growth, change and care of people and grow stronger ties. Enable such organisations to be at the table where policies are being written for such programs of attractions and retention to be present and provide valuable lived experience, observation to policies that will drive not only skilled migrant pathways to permanent residency but also developing skills onshore for potential migrants to permanent residency.[213]

10.246Ms Laureta Wallace, Director of External Affairs at the RAI noted the innovative approach taken by one of their members, Work+Stay. A social enterprise, their goal is ‘to support regional Australian employers find people with the right skills for their business’ and provide the migrants they support with connections in their new community to ensure that they become long term members of that community. Taking a holistic approach, they undertake ‘pastoral care on behalf of the employer’, by ‘going into communities and connecting with real estates, connecting with the health community, connecting with the school and taking that burden off the actual employer’. Ms Liz Ritchie, CEO, RAI, explained:

They're not quite settlement services. They're actually being funded by the employers to be the intermediary, which is actually a different take on some of the challenges that we've experienced.[214]

Secondary Migration

10.247The challenges of supporting secondary settlement to regional localities recurred in the evidence heard by the Committee. Most noted that by the time these migrants made their second move, they were unlikely to be eligible for further settlement support.

10.248At the commencement of this inquiry, migrants who were eligible for funded settlement support under the SETS program were limited to five years of assistance. While providers welcomed the removal of the ban on providing services beyond five years, this 2023-24 Budget measure was not accompanied by additional funding to aid expanding services to beyond the five-year period, entailing that service providers stretch their existing funding to cover this work.

10.249Among them, Mrs Sara Barron from the Wimmera Southern Mallee Development expressed frustration that there was no ‘correlational resourcing component’ that accompanied the removal of the five-year barrier. Secondary resettlement in her district, she noted, included many who were ‘still very high-need migrants with big English language barriers and skills barriers’. So, while she welcomed the announcement:

… there definitely needs to be a more joined-up approach in terms of: if you're going to remove that barrier, how do you scale up the resourcing to support that demand?[216]

10.250Ms Mirta Gonzales, General Manager, Education and Social Participation, AMES Australia, affirmed the need for this change:

We and the sector have been arguing for a long time that settlement after migration or after arriving in Australia does not stop at five years or four years or any other number—that people may take a long time to actually settle and that secondary migration takes into consideration that factor.[217]

10.251Drawing on their experience of supporting secondary settlement in regional Queensland, Multicultural Australia identified the following factors as ‘critical’ for success:

• Appropriately matched local community and refugee community needs;
• A ready and welcoming local community;
• Tailored settlement services;
• Appropriate infrastructure and services; and
• Capacity for economic integration.[218]
  252. They also made the point that secondary settlement was not a short-term commitment, rather it was based on ‘years of work’ that involved working ‘intensively and collaboratively with several local partners’. That this process was not without challenges and that these continue to be addressed in a collaborative format. Among many factors, they highlighted the need for a ‘holistic’ model and recognition that ‘client choice and participation’ was required ‘at every state of the process’.[219]

Housing

10.253The paucity of suitable housing in regional Australia, while acute, is not new.

10.254The former Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s Inquiry into Migration in Regional Australia, although cut short in early 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulted in a report to record ‘recurrent issues’ that appeared in the evidence, amongst which was housing. While variation from place-to-place was noted, it was acknowledged that a lack of housing could ‘present a real issue’, especially in smaller communities.[220]

10.255The evidence heard by the present Committee reinforces this earlier finding. For example, Clubs Australia observed that the impact of limited housing availability, particularly in regional areas, serves as a preventive barrier for attracting migrants.[221]

10.256AMES Australia agreed that access to suitable and affordable housing was a major barrier to people resettling in regional and rural areas. They called for the National Cabinet to focus on addressing the national housing crisis, and suggested a new tack be taken on how to support migrant home ownership such as, public housing on a rent to buy scheme.[222]

10.257Mr Dennis Hovenden, Economic and Development Manager, Swan Hill Rural City Council, described the housing dilemma in regional Australia as a chicken and egg-like scenario:

this goes back to your skilled migration and your migration program in general—is the difficulty in attracting trades. We've got plans to build homes—we just haven't got people to build them. … So I think it's an issue that the committee needs to be very mindful of when you're looking at trying to put migrants into communities. We welcome them—we've got employment. But we also need the infrastructure—for example, housing—to ensure that the migrants and seasonal workers coming into our area actually have a roof over their head.[223]

10.258The NSW Government recommended a cooperative approach to ‘[i]mprove housing supply and affordability in regional communities to facilitate migration flows, in partnership with states and territories. This should include increased support for connecting infrastructure to expedite housing in these communities.’[224]

10.259APL were one of several submissions that highlighted housing as part of a broader suite of infrastructure required to support migrants in regional Australia. They highlighted the need for ‘adequate and affordable accommodation’ alongside support for ‘roads, transport and electricity infrastructure, connectivity and services (social, health, childcare and education)’. Implementation of this investment in their view required ‘nationally coordinated cross-agency strategies at all levels of government’ that was ‘informed by accurate data and input by industry and community groups’.[225]

10.260To meet these needs, the APL called on the Australian Government to support a national regionalisation agenda that was ‘underpinned by appropriate levels of investment, to provide economic and social infrastructure to ensure equitable access to opportunities’. They also suggested this approach presented an ‘opportunity to enhance outcomes by supporting and partnering with large regional businesses and organisations who already invest and have significant experience in delivering migrant worker community support activities’.[226]

10.261The final report of the Review of the Migration System recognised that [r]egional development is a whole-of-government issue that can only be addressed in small part by migration’. In line with this broader approach, they suggested linking the number of migration places open to states or territories to ‘specific regional economic and community development plans’. In doing so, they argued that:

Such plans could highlight how and when housing, infrastructure and services will be provided to support the existing community and proposed migration flows.[227]

Committee Comment

10.262 The Committee welcomes Ministerial direction 105 that prioritises skilled visa application for employer sponsored visas related to occupations carried out in a designated regional area. But as witnesses have pointed out, the arrival of migrants in regional areas must be accompanied (and ideally preceded) by support to deliver on-the-ground settlement assistance and investment in infrastructure.

10.263It is clear from the evidence received by the Committee that existing settlement services are struggling to adequately support migrants in the regions. Shortfalls encompass funding, staffing, access, and facilities. The Committee recognises that uplift in support is required not only to meet the current needs, but that funding and other assistance is required to ensure that settlement services can support growth in the regional migration program.

10.264The Committee is encouraged by the Regional Investment Framework and its commitment to listen to local voices, adopt a place-based approach to investment. We look forward to seeing how this framework translates into funding commitments, particularly in the areas of settlement support, community building, and infrastructure needs in both the short term and in planning for the future of regional communities.

10.265The Committee reiterates its recommendation from Chapter 8 that settlement services be extended to a wider range of visa holders on the basis of need. Given the unique challenges faced by regional, rural, and remote Australia, the Committee believes it particularly important that governments work together and with community service providers to ensure that local settlement services are adequately resourced to deliver services required for successful regional migration.

10.266Lack of housing is a perennial issue across the Australian landscape, and one that is exacerbated in regional, rural, and remote settings. While the Committee can offer no recommendations on how this issue may be overcome, it is crucial that all tiers of government collaborate to devise solutions that are long-term in vision, sustainable, and scalable across the width and breadth of the nation.

10.267The Committee recommends that the Australian Government collaborates with all levels of government to ensure that settlement service providers located in regional, rural, and remote settings are adequately resourced to deliver settlement services uniquely required in regional Australia.

What Next?

10.268Regional migration remains a fluid area of reform. As noted throughout this chapter, reviews have occurred regularly over a long period and are ongoing.

10.269Given the state of flux, the Committee is vitally interested in the how the Australian Government addresses the existing challenges through its Migration Strategy and other measures.

10.270In the past, successive Governments have been reactive, typically employing a carrot and stick approach via a combination of rules and restrictions alongside incentives. The Committee believes that, while these approaches have their place, increasingly the perspective of stakeholders (shared by this Committee) is that a longer-term view is necessary, one that is not so fixated on economic imperatives and instead adopts a more holistic approach that focuses more on creating a supportive environment that fosters long term settlement of productive migrants in regional Australia and the cultivation of stronger, more vibrant regional communities.

10.271To this end, the Committee believes more work is required and it intends to conduct a deeper examination into aspects of Australia’s regional migration program.

Footnotes

[1]Australian Government, ‘Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper – June 2024’, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/PDFs/supporting_strong_and_sustainable_regions.pdf, viewed 25 June 2024.

[2]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Regional migration’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/working-in-australia/regional-migration, viewed 25 June 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Designated regional areas’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/working-in-australia/regional-migration/eligible-regional-areas, viewed 25 June 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Designated regional area postcodes’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/working-in-australia/skill-occupation-list/regional-postcodes, viewed 25 June 2024.

[3]Pacific Australian Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, ‘Welcome to the PALM scheme’, https://www.palmscheme.gov.au/, viewed 25 June 2024; PALM scheme, ‘Eligibility’, https://www.palmscheme.gov.au/eligibility, viewed 25 June 2024.

[4]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Specified subclass 462 work’, Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-462, viewed 25 June 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Specified subclass 417 work’, Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-417, viewed 25 June 2024.

[5]Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Remoteness Areas: Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Edition 3’, July 2021-June 2026, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/remoteness-structure/remoteness-areas, viewed 1 July 2024.

[6]Although not including secondary processing or provision of plant and animal products e.g. milling or retailing dairy products.

[7]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Specified subclass 462 work’, Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-462, viewed 25 June 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Specified subclass 417 work’, Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-417, viewed 25 June 2024.

[8]Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, pp. 32-33; and Skymirror Australia, Submission 128, p. 1.

[9]Skymirror Australia, Submission 128, pp. 1-2.

[10]Tasmanian Government, Submission 115, p. 7.

[11]National Rural Health Alliance, Submission 130, pp. 6-7.

[12]Department of Health and Aged Care, ‘Section 19AB restricted doctors and access to Medicare’, https://www.health.gov.au/topics/medicare/access-practitioners-industry/doctors-and-specialists/19ab, viewed 2 July 2025; Department of Health and Aged Care, ’10-year moratorium and scaling’, https://www.health.gov.au/topics/doctors-and-specialists/what-we-do/19ab/moratorium, viewed 2 July 2024.

[13]National Rural Health Alliance, Submission 130, pp. 6-7; Department of Health and Aged Care, ‘Distribution Priority Area’, https://www.health.gov.au/topics/rural-health-workforce/classifications/dpa, viewed 25 June 2024; Department of Health and Aged Care, ‘Modified Monash Model’, https://www.health.gov.au/topics/rural-health-workforce/classifications/mmm, viewed 25 June 2024.

[14]National Rural Health Alliance, Submission 130, pp. 6-7.

[15]At the time of the NFF’s submission, visa applications made in relation to an occupation to be carried out in a designated regional area was priority 3, after Ministerial Direction No. 105, those applications that were employer sponsored [my emphasis] for an occupation to be carried out in a designated regional area was listed as priority 1. Department of Home Affairs, ‘Skilled visa processing priorities’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/skilled-visa-processing-priorities, viewed 2 July 2024.

[16]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 15.

[17]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, pp. 127-28.

[18]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Specified subclass 462 work’, Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-462, viewed 25 June 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Specified subclass 417 work’, Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/specified-work-conditions/specified-work-417, viewed 25 June 2024; Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Remoteness Areas: Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Edition 3’, July 2021-June 2026, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/australian-statistical-geography-standard-asgs-edition-3/jul2021-jun2026/remoteness-structure/remoteness-areas, viewed 1 July 2024..

[19]Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Final Report of the Inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker Program, November 2020, p. 44.

[20]Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, pp. 7, 9-10.

[21]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p. 123

[22]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, pp. 123-25.

[23]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p. 134

[24]Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, p. 80.

[25]Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, pp. 80, 84-88.

[26]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Regional Migration settings discussion paper released – submissions welcome’, 4 July 2024, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1222, viewed 8 July 2024; Department of Home Affairs ‘Review of Regional Migration Settings discussion paper’, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-publications/submissions-and-discussion-papers/review-of-regional-migration-settings-discussion-paperviewed 8 July 2024.

[27]Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p. 3.

[28]Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, pp. 10, 14, 17.

[29]Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p. 7

[30]Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and Elmtree Migration Lawyers, Submission 123, p. [1].

[31]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Action Plan, [December 2023],p. 4.

[32]Jobs and Skills Australia, Towards a National Jobs and Skills Roadmap: Annual Jobs and Skills Report 2023, October 2023, p. 14.

[33]Jobs and Skills Australia, Towards a National Jobs and Skills Roadmap: Annual Jobs and Skills Report 2023, October 2023, p. 55.

[34]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 8.

[35]Government of South Australia, Submission 84, p. 6.

[36]Government of South Australia, Submission 84, pp. 5-7.

[37]Government of South Australia, Submission 84, p. 6..

[38]Government of South Australia, Submission 84, pp. 6-8.

[39]Australian Pork Limited, Submission 114, pp. 3-4, 6.

[40]Australian Pork Limited, Submission 114, pp. 2-3.

[41]Australian Pork Limited, Submission 114, p. 10.

[42]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, p. [3].

[43]Loddon Campaspe, Submission 109, p. 2.

[44]Ms Sally Urquhart, Business Innovation Manager, HealthWISE, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 14 August 2023, 7.

[45]Ms Sally Urquhart, Business Innovation Manager, HealthWISE, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 14 August 2023, 8.

[46]NSW Government, Submission 57, pp. 4-5.

[47]Regional Universities Network, Submission 94, pp. [4-6].

[48]Mr Mark Wright, National Leader, Immigration Services, KPMG Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 16 May 2023, p. 28. See also Mr Constantine Paxinos, Vice President, Migration Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 45.

[49]Mr Constantine Paxinos, Vice President, Migration Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 47.

[50]Ms Liz Ritchie, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Australia Institute, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 29 November 2023, pp. 2, 4-5.

[51]Department of Home Affairs, ‘The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship programs’, 12th Edition, May 2024, pp. 31-32.

[52]Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, p. 53

[53]Rural Workforce Agencies, Submission 96, p. [2].

[54]HealthWISE, Submission 36, p. [2].

[55]Evidence Base for Additional Investment in Rural Health in Australia cited in National Rural Health Alliance, Submission 130, p. 2, 4.

[56]Dr Gerard Foley, Chair, Primary Care Business Council, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 56.

[57]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 27.

[58]Rural Workforce Agencies, Submission 96, p. [2].

[59]Australian College of Nursing, Submission 90, p. 4.

[60]Dr Raymond Lewandowski, President elect, Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 14 August 2023, p. 23.

[61]National Rural Health Alliance, Submission 130, p. 3.

[62]Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 73, p. 4; see also Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 31.

[63]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 30. Rural Workforce Agencies, Submission 96, p. [1].

[64]Rural Workforce Agencies, Submission 96, p. [3].

[65]HealthWISE, Submission 36, p. [1].

[66]Dr Gerard Foley, Chair, Primary Care Business Council, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 23, p. 56.

[67]Australian College of Nursing, Submission 90, pp. 4-5.

[68]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, pp. 30, 32; Jane Norman, ‘Coptic Orthodox Christian church helps cure Wagga Wagga’s chronic GP shortage’, ABC News, 14 May 2023. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-14/coptic-orthodox-christian-church-attracts-doctors-to-wagga-wagga/102337150, viewed 1 August 2024.

[69]Ms Kristy Challingsworth, Member, Primary Care Business Council, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 23, p. 61.

[70]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 33.

[71]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 33.

[72]Jobs and Skills Australia, Towards a National Jobs and Skills Roadmap: Annual Jobs and Skills Report 2023, October 2023, p. 55.

[73]Primary Care Business Council, Submission 110, p. [4].

[74]Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Guidelines: Supervised Practice for International Medical Graduates, 4 January 2016, pp. 2, 7.

[75]Primary Care Business Council, Submission 110, p. [4]; see also RACO, Submission 73, p. [2].

[76]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 30.

[77]Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Guidelines: Supervised Practice for International Medical Graduates, 4 January 2016, p. 7.

[78]Ms Kristy Challingsworth, Member, Primary Care Business Council, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 59.

[79]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 30.

[80]Primary Care Business Council, Submission 110, p. [4].

[81]Mr Dermot Roche, Director, Primary Care Business Council, and Chief Executive Officer and Director of Ochre Health Pty Limited, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 61.

[82]Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 73, p. 5; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Answer to Question Taken on Notice, Public Hearing,18 May 2023, p. 1.

[83]Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Answer to Question Taken on Notice, Public Hearing,18 May 2023, p. 1.

[84]Mr Peter Barns, Chair, Rural Workforce Agencies, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 14 August 2023, p. 16.

[85]Associate Professor Michael Clements, Rural Faculty, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 32.

[86]Robyn Kruk, Independent Review of Australia’s Regulatory Settings Relating to Overseas Health Practitioners, Final report, 2023, p. 3.

[87]Robyn Kruk, Independent Review of Australia’s Regulatory Settings Relating to Overseas Health Practitioners, Final report, 2023, pp. 13-17.

[88]Department of Health and Aged Care, ‘Independent review of health practitioner regulatory settings’, https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/independent-review-of-health-practitioner-regulatory-settings, viewed 31 July 2024.

[89]Dr Kaya Barry, Submission 15, p. 2.

[90]Robinvale & District Table Grape Growers Association, Submission 63, pp. [1, 3].

[91]Mr Don Albanese, Chairperson, Robinvale and District Table Grape Growers Association, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 8

[92]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 5.

[93]Robinvale & District Table Grape Growers Association, Submission 63, pp. [1-4].

[94]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, p. [2].

[95]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, p. [2].

[96]Mr Tim Hicks, Executive General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, Bolton Clarke, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 16.

[97]Robinvale and District Table Grape Growers Association, Submission 63, p. [4].

[98]Dr Kaya Barry, Submission 15, p. 4.

[99]Australian Pork Ltd, Submission 114, pp. 3-4.

[100]Law Council of Australia, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, 12 May 2023, p. 18.

[101]Clubs Australia, Submission 74, p. 3.

[102]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 15.

[103]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 19.

[104]Robinvale & District Table Grape Growers Association, Submission 63, pp. [2, 4].

[105]Hon. Alex Hawke MP, Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP, Hon. David Littleproud MP and Hon. Marise Payne, ‘Australian Agriculture Visa’, Joint Media Release, 23 August 2021, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AlexHawke/Pages/australian-agriculture-visa.aspx, viewed 6 August 2024; Australian Government, ‘Australian Agriculture Visa Program’, Factsheet 12 April 2022, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian-agriculture-visa-fact-sheet.pdf, viewed 6 August 2024; and Department of Home Affairs, The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, p. 22.

[106]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, pp. 18-19.

[107]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, pp. 18-20.

[108]Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, p. 52.

[109]For further details on the range see: Department of Home Affairs, ‘Labour agreements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/employing-and-sponsoring-someone/sponsoring-workers/nominating-a-position/labour-agreements, viewed 26 July 2024.

[110]Department of Home Affairs, The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, p. 29.

[111]Department of Home Affairs, The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, p. 32; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Designated area migration agreements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/employing-and-sponsoring-someone/sponsoring-workers/nominating-a-position/labour-agreements/designated-area-migration-agreements, viewed 26 July 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Industry labour agreements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/employing-and-sponsoring-someone/sponsoring-workers/nominating-a-position/labour-agreements/industry-labour-agreements, viewed 26 July 2024.

[112]Department of Home Affairs, ‘New Horticulture Industry Labour Agreement’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/skilled-migration-program/recent-changes/new-horticulture-industry-labour-agreement, viewed 29 July 2024.

[113]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Industry labour agreements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/employing-and-sponsoring-someone/sponsoring-workers/nominating-a-position/labour-agreements/industry-labour-agreements, viewed 29 July 2024.

[114]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Designated area migration agreements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/employing-and-sponsoring-someone/sponsoring-workers/nominating-a-position/labour-agreements/designated-area-migration-agreements, viewed, 29 July 2024; Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p 8.

[115]MrMark Wright, National Leader, Immigration Services, KPMG Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 16 May 2023, p. 29.

[116]Australian Pork Ltd, Submission 114, p. 10.

[117]Australian Pork Ltd, Submission 114, pp. 10-11.

[118]Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and Elmtree Migration Lawyers, Submission 123, pp. [1-2].

[119]Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and Elmtree Migration Lawyers, Submission 123, pp. [1-2].

[120]Mr Gaethan Cutri, Managing Director, Cutri Fruit, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 18.

[121]Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and Elmtree Migration Lawyers, Submission 123, p. [3]

[122]Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd and Elmtree Migration Lawyers, Submission 123, p. [3]

[123]Mr Gaethan Cutri, Managing Director, Cutri Fruit, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 18.

[124]Mr Gaethan Cutri, Managing Director, Cutri Fruit, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 21.

[125]Ms Estella Rodighiero, Director of Regional Development Australia Gold Coast Inc., Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 37.

[126]Regional Development Australia Gold Coast Inc, Submission 2, p. [1].

[127]Mrs Lauren Russell, Projects Officer at Regional Development Australia Darling Downs and South West Inc., Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 35.

[128]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 19.

[129]Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, p. 44.

[130]See discussion on key actions 1 and 2. Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, pp. 42-59.

[131]Australian Government, Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, pp.44, 97; Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p. 1.

[132]Department of Home Affairs, The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, p. 18.

[133]Department of Home Affairs, The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, p. 18; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Working Holiday Maker (WHM) program’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program, viewed 11 July 2024.

[134]Note From 1 July 2024 UK passport holders granted a subclass 417 visa are eligible for three Working Holiday visas without meeting any specified work requirements. Department of Home Affairs, ‘Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa arrangements for UK passport holders’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/latest-news/arrangements-uk-passport-holders, viewed 22 July 2024.

[135]Department of Home Affairs, ‘First Work and Holiday visa’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/work-holiday-462/first-work-holiday-462, viewed 15 May 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘First Working Holiday visa’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/work-holiday-417/first-working-holiday-417, viewed 17 July 2024; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Woking Holiday Maker (WHM program: Status of country caps’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/status-of-country-caps, viewed 15 July 2024.

[136]Backpacker & Youth Tourism Advisory Panel, Submission 7, pp. [1-6].

[137]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 9. Emphasis in original.

[138]Department of Home Affairs, A0nswers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. [2]; and Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p. 12.

[139]Department of Home Affairs, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. [2]; see also Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, p. 85.

[140]Business Council of Australia, Submission 56, p. 14.

[141]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, May 2023,pp. 9, 89.

[142]Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p. 12.

[143]Dr Kaya Barry, Submission 15, p. 2. See also Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 87, pp. 20-21.

[144]Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission 52, pp. 7-8. See also ‘Li – Working Holiday visa – ineligibility for next visa’ a case study highlighting the vulnerability of backpackers to unscrupulous employers in: Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW, Submission 32, p. [12].

[145]Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission 52, pp. 7-8; VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 13. See also Grattan Institute, Submission 17, p. 33.

[146]VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 13; FECCA, Submission 52, pp. 7-8; Community and Public Sector Union, Submission 62, Attachment 1, p. [4]; Migration Youth and Children Platform, Submission 99, p. 6.

[147]Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, p. 24.

[148]Australian Government, Migration Strategy: Getting Migration working for the nation. For workers. For businesses. For all Australians, December 2023, pp. 87-88.

[149]Australian Government, Supporting strong and sustainable regions: Review of Regional Migration Settings, Discussion Paper, June 2024, p. 11.

[150]Department of Home Affairs, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. [2].

[151]Department of Home Affairs, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, Canberra, 14 June 2023, pp. [2-3].

[152]Australian Private Hospitals Association, Submission 100, p. 2.

[153]Backpacker & Youth Tourism Advisory Panel, Submission 7, p. [2].

[154]Backpacker & Youth Tourism Advisory Panel, Submission 7, pp. [1-6]. See also NFF, Submission 81, p. [3].

[155]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, p. [3].

[156]Accommodation Association of Australia/Australian Hotels Association/Tourism Accommodation Australia, Submission 83, p. 4. See also the Australian Retailers Association, Submission 108, p. 2.

[157]Australian Veterinary Association, Submission 51, pp. 2-3.

[158]Vetlink Employment Service, Submission 16, p. [1]; Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, Submission 18, p. 1; and Australian Veterinary Association, Submission 51, pp. 2-3.

[159]Government of the United Kingdom, ‘Youth Mobility Scheme visa’, https://www.gov.uk/youth-mobility, viewed 18 July 2024.

[160]Vetlink Employment Service, Submission 16, pp. [4-5]; and Australian Veterinary Association, Submission 51, p. 5.

[161]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Visa conditions: Waivers and permissions’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/already-have-a-visa/check-visa-details-and-conditions/waivers-and-permissions/work-longer-than-6-months, viewed 18 July 2024.

[162]Australian Government, Australia’s International Development Policy: For a Peaceful, Stable and Prosperous Indo-Pacific, August 2023, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/international-development-policy.pdf, pp. 11, 42.

[163]Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, ‘Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme’, https://www.dewr.gov.au/pacific-australia-labour-mobility-scheme, viewed 31 July 2024; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘Pacific Labour Mobility’, https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/pacific/engagement/pacific-labour-mobility, viewed 31 July 2024.

[164]PALM Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, ‘Welcome to the PALM scheme’, https://www.palmscheme.gov.au/; Department of Home Affairs, The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, pp. 21-22.

[165]Mr Tim Hicks, Executive General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, Bolton Clarke, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 12.

[166]Mr Fred Tassone, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 15. See also the testimony of Mr Scott Barber, Chief Executive Officer, Swan Hill Rural City Council, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 12; and Mr Ian McAlister, Chairman, Summerfruit Export Development Alliance, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 14; and Australian Table Grape Association, Submission 72, p. [2].

[167]See for example, Mr McAllister, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, pp. 14-15.

[168]Department of Home Affairs, TheAdministration of the Immigration and Citizenship programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, pp. 21-22.

[169]Australian Table Grape Association Inc., Submission 72, pp. 2-3.

[170]Dr Rachel Stephens, Research Fellow, Research Centre for Refugees, Migration and Humanitarian Studies, Australian Catholic University, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 26 April 2023, p. 31.

[171]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 13.

[172]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, pp. 11-13.

[173]Mr Ben Rogers, General Manager, Workplace Relations and Legal Affairs, National Farmers’ Federation, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 12 May 2023, p. 44.

[174]Mr Peter Mares, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 26 April 2023, p. 54.

[175]Dr Kaya Barry, Submission 15, pp. 2-4; and Dr Kaya Barry, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 15.

[176]Dr Kaya Barry, Submission 15, pp. 2-4; and Professor Joy Damousi, Director, Research Centre for Refugees, Migration and Humanitarian Studies, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 26 April 2023, p. 29.

[177]Department of Home Affairs, TheAdministration of the Immigration and Citizenship programs, 12th Edition, May 2024, p. 35; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Pacific Engagement visa (subclass 192)’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/subclass-pacific-engagement-visa-192, viewed 5 August 2023.

[178]Mr Dennis Hovenden, Economic Development Manager, Swan Hill Rural City Council, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 5.

[179]Mr Scott Barber, Chief Executive Officer of the Swan Hill Rural City Council, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, pp. 4-5.

[180]See for example, Wimmera Development Association, Submission 124, pp. [2-5]; Swan Hill Rural City Council, Submission 31, pp. [2, 5-6]; Know Your Roots Incorporated, Submission 77, pp. [2-4].

[181]Mrs Sara Barron, Migration and Settlement Program Manager, Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, pp. 18-19.

[182]Wimmera Development Association, Submission 124, pp. [2-5].

[183]Know Your Roots Inc., Submission 77, pp. [2, 6]; Department of Home Affairs, “Temporary Work (International Relations) visa (subclass 403): Pacific Australia Labour Mobility stream’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-work-403/pacific-australia-labour-mobility-stream#Eligibility, viewed 6 August 2023.

[184]Swan Hill Rural City Council, Submission 31, p. [6].

[185]Mr Chris Sounness, Chief Executive Officer, Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 22.

[186]Mrs Sara Barron, Migration and Settlement Program Manager, Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, pp. 18-19; and Mr Chris Sounness, Chief Executive Officer, Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 22. See also National Farmers’ Federation’s ‘in principle support’ for such a policy, Submission 81, p. [4].

[187]Mrs Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 16 May 2023, p. 7.

[188]See for example Mr Don Albanese, Chairperson, Robinvale and District Table Grape Growers Association, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 11.

[189]Wimmera Development Association, Submission 124, p. [3].

[190]PALM: Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, ‘Budget 2023-24: Expanding and improving the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme’, https://www.palmscheme.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/PALM%20scheme%20reforms%20Budget%20announcements%20-%20factsheet.pdf, viewed 5 August 2024.

[191]James Jupp (ed.), The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 360-65.

[192]Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Submission 109; Multicultural Australia, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, 18 May 2023, Attachment 1; HealthWISE, Submission 36.

[193]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development Communication and the Arts, ‘Regional Investment Framework: The Australian Government’s approach to supporting strong and sustainable regions’, July 2023, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/regional-investment-framework-july2023.pdf, viewed 7 August 2024.

[194]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Program eligibility’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/settling-in-australia/sets-program/eligibility, viewed 8 August 2024.

[195]Wimmera Development Association, Submission 124, p. [2].

[196]Ms Catherine Scarth, Chief Executive Officer at AMES Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 26 April 2023, p. 10.

[197]Ms Catherine Scarth, Chief Executive Officer at AMES Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 26 April 2023, p. 10.

[198]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, pp. 5, 7.

[199]Ms Shama Pande, Service Manager, Multicultural Communities, CORE Community Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p.11

[200]Ms Shama Pande, Service Manager, Multicultural Communities, CORE Community Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p.11

[201]Ms Shama Pande, Service Manager, Multicultural Communities, CORE Community Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p.11

[202]Grattan Institute, Submission 17, pp. 44-45, 63.

[203]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 7.

[204]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 6.

[205]NSW Government, Submission 57, p. 11.

[206]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 7.

[207]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 7.

[208]Refugee Council of Australia, Answers to Questions Taken on Notice, Public Hearing, 9 August 2023, p. [1]; Susan E. Watt, Tadgh McMahon, and Stefania Paolini, From the ‘resistant’ to the ‘champions’ Community attitudes during the first four years of refugee settlement in Armidale, Final Report, University of New England/SSI, February 2023, p. 4; John van Kooy, Rebecca Wickes and Aleem Ali, Welcoming Regions, Monash Migration and Inclusion Centre/ Welcoming Cities, 2019, pp. 5-13.

[209]Ms Shama Pande, Service Manager, Multicultural Communities, CORE Community Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p.11

[210]Swan Hill Rural City Council, Submission 31, p. [2].

[211]Swan Hill Rural City Council, Submission 31, p. [2].

[212]Wimmera Development Association, Submission 124, p. 2.

[213]Know Your Roots, Submission 77, p. [5].

[214]Ms Liz Ritchie, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Australia Institute, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 29 November 2023, p. 4; Work+Stay, https://www.workandstay.com.au/, viewed 8 August 2023. See also Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 7.

[215]Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, pp. 3-7.

[216]Mrs Sara Barron, Wimmera Southern Mallee Development, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 20.

[217]Ms Mirta Gonzales, General Manager, Education and Social Participation, AMES Australia, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 26 April 2023, p. 10.

[218]Multicultural Australia, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, 18 May 2023, pp. 4-5.

[219]Multicultural Australia, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, 18 May 2023, pp. 3-6.

[220]Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Report of the Inquiry into Migration in Regional Australia, June 2020, pp. 15-16.

[221]Clubs Australia, Submission 74, p. 5.

[222]AMES Australia, Submission 35, p. 2.

[223]Mr Dennis Hovenden, Economic and Development Manager, Swan Hill Rural City Council, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 7.

[224]NSW Government, Submission 57, p. 5.

[225]Australian Pork Limited, Submission 114, p. 3.

[226]Australian Pork Limited, Submission 114, p. 3.

[227]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p. 134.