3.1
Temporary visa holders play an important role in Australia's economic growth and development as they meet local labour market needs, transfer knowledge, foster innovation, and support regional communities.
3.2
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical role that temporary visa holders play in filling skill shortages across many industries in Australia. The pandemic has further exposed the overreliance of some industries on these workers. This was particularly evident in the agricultural and horticultural industry following the return of many working holiday makers (WHMs) back to their home country.
3.3
With chronic skill shortages across multiple industries, recruiting and employing Australian workers needs to continue to be the first priority for Australian employers. However, attracting Australians to relocate to regional areas to fill seasonal, low-skilled and semi-skilled roles has always been challenging.
3.4
This chapter examines the evidence received in regard to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on a number of industries; the challenge of attracting Australians to take up roles in industries experiencing labour shortages; and the different temporary visa types used to address skill shortages and meet the increased demand for labour in Australia.
Impacts of temporary migration
3.5
Temporary migration provides a number of positive outcomes for Australia, both economic and social. For example, the committee heard that temporary visa holders are important to Australia's economy, through addressing skill shortages, and fostering innovation. Moreover, temporary skilled visa holders are frequently highly-educated and highly-trained individuals who tend to be in their prime working years.
3.6
The Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) contends that temporary skilled visa holders do not displace Australians in the labour market. DESE explained that the Shaping a Nation (2018) report, jointly prepared by the Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) found 'almost no negative outcomes for those born in Australia caused by migrant flows'.
3.7
DESE outlined that the Shaping a Nation report built on the Productivity Commission (2016) findings that 'on balance and in aggregate, recent immigration had negligible effects on the labour market outcomes of the local labour force'.
3.8
DESE further reiterated that:
This conclusion is consistent with the department's own experience engaging stakeholders who have revealed how temporary skilled migrants are meeting local labour market needs, transferring knowledge and skills and fostering innovation.
3.9
The Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) similarly submitted that 'analysis shows that an increase in the recent migrant share is associated with a positive effect on the labour force participation rate and annual wages of local workers'. CEDA outlined that temporary skilled migration 'has [also] played an important role in developing global talent and importing unique overseas experience into Australian company workforces'.
3.10
The committee received evidence from both state and territory and local governments regarding the impacts of temporary migration in respective jurisdictions. For example, the ACT Government submitted that over the past five years, 'net overseas migration has accounted for nearly half of the ACT's population growth and has made a significant contribution to the strong performance of the Territory's economy'. Further, the ACT Government highlighted that temporary visa holders 'can provide stability to communities in Australia by offsetting the impacts of ageing and declining populations, as well as contributing to workforces and economies'.
3.11
Similarly, the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA) acknowledged 'the opportunity both strategic temporary and permanent migration generally provides to address the state's demographic and economic challenges'. The LGASA told the committee that it encourages temporary skilled and unskilled migration to regional and rural areas, noting that job vacancies in regional areas can occur in lower skill and unskilled level roles, including seasonal work. The Northern Territory similarly noted it is 'heavily reliant on skilled and employer sponsored migration to fill key skill shortages and diversify its workforce'.
3.12
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's (DFAT's) submission also highlighted that temporary migration supports foreign investment by allowing companies with major investments in Australia to bring skilled employees into Australia to fill temporary shortages, which also contributes to investor confidence.
3.13
While there are positive benefits to Australia’s temporary migration programme, the committee acknowledges the impact temporary migration can have on the suppression of Australian wages and conditions.
3.14
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, more temporary visa holders addressed Australia’s skills or labour shortages. Mr Philip Lowe, Governor, Reserve Bank of Australia, observed that ‘[i]n some cases, firms hired workers from overseas directly to fill specific gaps, but in other cases they hired people who were already in Australia for other reasons, including to study and on working holidays’. As a result:
… the strong growth in labour demand was closely matched by a strong increase in labour supply. With both demand and supply rising, there was little need for the price – that is wages – to move.
3.15
Mr Lowe acknowledged that the closure of Australia’s international borders has contributed to labour shortages in some areas and some workers have received sizeable wage increases. However, Mr Lowe said ‘the spill over effects to the broader labour market have been limited to date, and wage increases remain modest for most workers’.
3.16
However it should be noted that other contributory factors to keeping wage growth low include caps on public sector wages, the lowering of penalty rates in awards, industrial relations reforms that strengthen the hand of employers in wage enterprise bargaining, and the growing casualisation of the workforce.
International education
3.17
In addition to the economic and social contributions that temporary visa holders collectively make to Australia, the committee received evidence about the benefits that specific cohorts of temporary visa holders have on specific industries in Australia. For example, the committee heard from multiple stakeholders about the importance of international students undertaking study in Australian educational institutions.
3.18
DESE submitted that the international education sector is of immense value to the Australian economy, drawing international talent, and building capacity in Australia. In 2019, a total of more than 750,000 international students studied in Australia, representing the second largest cohort of temporary migrants, with 559,536 student visa holders in Australia at 31 May 2020.
3.19
In 2019, the international student industry supported the Australian economy to the value of $40.3 billion. As the country's fourth largest export industry, international education supported nearly 250,000 jobs.
3.20
Stakeholders emphasised that the benefits of international students were not just economic, with international students bringing a diversity of perspectives, cultures and languages, enriching the experiences of domestic students on campus, as well as the Australian communities in which they live and work.
3.21
Innovative Research Universities (IRU) further explained that international students do not deprive Australian students of access to university courses, as 'the arrangements to support Australian students are distinct'. IRU submitted that international graduates contribute to Australia's economy because they 'add to consumption, contribute to tax revenue and raise the level of human capital, leading to increased productivity'.
3.22
Universities Australia similarly submitted that international students make valuable contributions to local economies in regional areas.
These contributions come not simply through payment of student fees, but the multiplier effects of students' accommodation and living costs, which support local businesses and retail trade. Relatives and friends visiting international students also make a significant contribution to the regional areas' tourism sectors.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
3.23
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia had one of the largest temporary visa labour workforces in the world. In 2017, Australia issued the second highest number of visas to temporary migrants after the United States, followed closely by Japan and Canada. In 2017, Australia issued the third highest number of international tertiary-level student visas of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, after the United States and the United Kingdom, and only New Zealand had a higher proportion of working holidaymakers than Australia. On 31 December 2019 there were 2.4 million people in Australia on temporary visas.
3.24
As at 30 April 2021, there were 1,720,957 temporary visa holders in Australia, a reduction of 17 per cent compared to the same time the previous year, 30 April 2020. A breakdown of the number of visa holders in each temporary visa category for the last two years is below, including the percentage change from year to year.
Table 3.1: Temporary visa holders 30 April 2019 to 30 April 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bridging
|
193,062
|
269,267
|
39%
|
346,016
|
29%
|
|
Crew and Transit
|
13,884
|
9,739
|
-30%
|
10,646
|
9%
|
|
Other Temporary
|
5,798
|
5,463
|
-6%
|
4,134
|
-24%
|
|
Special Category
|
674,716
|
671,001
|
-1%
|
656,402
|
-2%
|
|
Student
|
618,855
|
559,755
|
-10%
|
374,574
|
-33%
|
|
Temporary Protection
|
15,030
|
17,397
|
16%
|
18,224
|
5%
|
|
Temporary Resident (Other Employment)
|
125,662
|
138,240
|
10%
|
136,191
|
-1%
|
|
Temporary Resident (Skilled Employment)
|
150,160
|
136,192
|
-9%
|
102,722
|
-25%
|
|
Visitor
|
316,189
|
163,108
|
-48%
|
33,559
|
-79%
|
|
Working Holiday Maker
|
144,669
|
98,830
|
-32%
|
38,489
|
-61%
|
|
Grand Total
|
2,258,025
|
2,068,992
|
-8%
|
1,720,957
|
-17%
|
Source: Source: Department of Home Affairs, answers to written questions on notice, 13 May 2021, received 2 June 2021, [p.12].
3.25
The committee received evidence highlighting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on different industries in Australia with the reduction of temporary visa holders in Australia. In particular, for the agricultural industry, the committee heard that there are workforce shortages and persistent difficulties in sourcing Australian workers.
The agricultural industry
3.26
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) submitted that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on temporary migration and the agricultural workforce. The NFF submitted that in regards to productivity shortfalls, 'the threat is once again particularly acute for the horticulture sector for unskilled workers and for the grains and pastoral sectors for skilled workers'.
3.27
According to the NFF Horticulture Council, findings released from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) confirmed that the severe labour shortages in the horticulture industry have led to a fall in horticulture production across the country. The NFF Horticulture Council outlined that:
According to ABARES, the lack of supply in overseas harvest workers, particularly from the Working Holiday Maker program, will result in a forecast drop in fruit production by as much as 17% and vegetable production by around 2%.
This drop in production will ultimately impact consumers, with ABARES forecasting prices to increase between 7-29%.
3.28
Mr Nathan Free, President, Horticulture Group, Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), further reiterated that the COVID-19 pandemic has 'impacted on labour shortages that the agricultural industry had been facing for many years now'. Mr Free reflected that:
Over that time it has affected a lot of businesses in the primary production of agriculture, and also in secondary, third and like industries, such as transport, machinery resellers and the like, and their ability to support them with the diminishing lack of labour.
3.29
The committee heard that agriculture was aiming to be 'the growth industry as part of our $100 billion goal by 2030 for Australian agriculture'. However, the NFF highlighted that without 'an efficient, competent and reliable workforce to get the crop picked and packed, we will struggle to reach that goal'.
Calls for a purpose built industry visa
3.30
The committee heard that the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the perils of the agricultural industry relying on temporary migration programmes which are not purpose-built to meet its labour needs. As such, the committee heard that the COVID-19 pandemic has given impetus to calls from industry groups calling for a visa 'which is built from the ground up to provide farms with a safe, secure and properly able migrant workforce'.
Agricultural Visa
3.31
The NFF called for an Agricultural Visa (Ag Visa) that would be 'purpose built and responsive to the needs of industry'. The NFF provided that the key components of an Ag Visa would include:
Flexibility and portability: Workers would not be tied to a particular employer but would be able to move from job to job (provided they remain working in agriculture) as and when they are needed.
A coordinating body: An industrial sponsor with a strong web-presence would be responsible for monitoring the workers' locations, employment, wellbeing, and providing them with assistance as needed, while maintaining contact with government and employers.
Fair workplaces: workers would only be hired by farms that have demonstrated fair employment practices.
Appropriate length: The visa would have both a short term (up to 12 month) low-skilled and a long term, semi-skilled stream, with a multiple entry component, the option for the worker to return to Australia, and ultimately the ability to transition into permanent residency.
The right numbers: The dedicated Ag Visa would abandon labour market testing, and would set localised visa caps based on reliable data and set in consultation with the regions and industry.
Balanced checks: In addition to the coordinating body logging the worker's whereabouts etc., there would be additional mechanisms to ensure the entrant complies with visa restrictions while in Australia, and the worker departs when the visa expires.
3.32
Mr Free, VFF, also offered support for an Ag Visa, stating that an Ag Visa would be 'part of the solution' to address labour issues in the agricultural industry.
Harvest Work Visa
3.33
The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA) called for the introduction of a Harvest Work Visa that would 'secure a harvest workforce that wants to work in agriculture' and would enable visa holders to move between employers at their own discretion.
3.34
The proposed Harvest Work Visa would allow visa holders to access roles within the agricultural harvest workforce for up to 9 months at a time, with the ability to return to Australia each subsequent year, within the proposed visa parameters. AFPA submitted that importantly:
… this visa would offer visa holders the flexibility to work for an employer of their choice during their time in Australia. This enables workers to relocate according to work locations and seasonal peaks.
3.35
The AFPA proposed that this visa type would allow workers from South East and North Asia to apply, with proposed countries including Malaysia, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The AFPA stated that the 'program should initially be capped at 10,000 visas per year, with an opportunity to review these numbers'.
3.36
On 16 June 2021, the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, The Hon David Littleproud MP, announced a new seasonal agricultural worker visa. Mr Littleproud outlined that the visa would be available to Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which includes Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Brunei and Cambodia.
3.37
Mr Littleproud stated that the new visa would secure a seasonal workforce in light of British backpackers no longer required to work on Australian farms for 88 days as part of the new UK free trade agreement announced in June 2021.
3.38
The Australian Government aims to have the new visa in place by the end of 2021. However, the Department of Home Affairs, when appearing before the Committee, provided very little detail as to how the proposed agricultural visa will be implemented or interact with existing visas.
3.39
In a media release on 23 August 2021, the Australian Government announced that the new Ag Visa is to be operated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and 'will be available to workers across the agriculture (including meat processing), fisheries and forestry sectors and provide a basis for the ongoing growth of Australia's primary industries'. The Government contends that regulations for this upcoming visa will be in place by the end of September 2021, with the full conditions of the visa to be implemented over the next three years.
3.40
The committee is of the view that any proposed Ag Visa established for this purpose should mirror the same protections to workers as those provided by the Seasonal Worker Programme (SWP), so as not to undermine the integrity of this programme and that the Pacific Labour Scheme (PLS). Any new visa arrangements cannot mean more exploitation of workers, or have the potential to undermine key elements of the Pacific Step Up. Last year, Mr Littleproud repeatedly pointed to 25,000 pre-vetted Pacific workers that would help fix labour shortages. Further, the Australian Government needs to detail how it intends to work with the states and territories over quarantine arrangements.
3.41
The committee notes that the Australian Government is still yet to respond to the recommendations of the National Agricultural Workforce Strategy handed to it in October 2020 and released in March 2021.
The meat industry
3.42
The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) submitted that while the meat industry is one of the largest employers in rural and regional Australia, the industry has a shortfall of workers. Mr Patrick Hutchinson, Chief Executive Officer, AMIC, explained that:
… we still cannot find sufficient labour to run our plants across Australia processing beef, lamb, mutton, goat meat, and pork to full capacity. We have a shortfall on any one day of anything up to 4,000 workers across Australia. If this is not reversed it's going to have a larger, more significant effect on the meat industry and, consequently, as I said, on Australian rural communities and, more importantly, the overall Australian economy.
The pork industry
3.43
Australian Pork Limited (APL) submitted that while the Australian pork industry is small globally, there is a high demand for skilled, experienced labour. However APL informed the committee that regrettably, the pork industry, like many Australian agricultural industries, is suffering from a chronic workforce shortage and difficulties sourcing local skilled workers.
3.44
Ms Margo Andrae, Chief Executive Officer, APL, noted that a recent APL survey reported that 74 per cent of producer respondents believed labour and skill gaps were the main impediment to their business.
Accommodation and Tourism
3.45
Australian Hotels Association (AHA) and Tourism Accommodation Australia (TAA) explained to the committee that over the past 12 months:
… our industry has endured shutdowns, lockdowns, border closures and capacity restrictions, many workers have found alternative employment in other industries less exposed to the impacts of COVID-19. Given the uncertainty hanging over the hospitality and accommodation industry, these workers have not returned.
3.46
AHA and TAA outlined that in a recently conducted nationwide survey of its members, 73 per cent of responses reported that their business 'is suffering financially because of a shortage of skills'. 56 per cent of responses reported labour and skills shortages in the cook occupation, while 66 per cent of surveyed members reported shortages in the chef occupation.
3.47
Across New South Wales alone, TAA estimated a labour shortage in accommodation hotels of 3247 workers.
3.48
Mr Michael Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, TAA, told the committee:
We're very concerned as well, particularly at the moment, with how vulnerable our industry has been through COVID-19 and the impact on our industry for the future. Parents are looking at the vulnerability of our industry and saying, 'Look, we've seen what's just happened. Maybe go to an industry that wasn't affected as heavily as tourism and hospitality was throughout COVID.'
3.49
The Australian Tourism Industry Council (ATIC) submitted that until the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, tourism had been one of Australia's fastest growing industries over a long period and had become an established economic pillar. As an individual industry it is amongst the largest within many of Australia's regional and rural economies.
3.50
ATIC stated that the extent of the damage to the tourism industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic was 'at least 40 per cent to over $54 billion due to border closures and restrictions'.
Businesses
3.51
The committee heard from the Australian Chamber of Commerce (ACCI) that Australia's skilled migration programme is a high priority issue for business, due to 'the skilled migration's program virtual shut down over the last 12 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic'. ACCI noted that this 'has created major concerns as shortages have been exacerbated'.
3.52
According to ACCI, the December 2020 NSW Business Conditions Survey indicated that 'almost half of businesses in NSW currently experience a skills shortage'. In addition:
Our member out west, CCIWA [Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia] in their December 2020 member survey reported that 1 out of 3 (33 percent) businesses identified skilled labour shortages as the largest barrier to growth over the coming year, including 52 percent businesses in the resources sector.
3.53
ACCI stated that job vacancies reached 254,000 nationally in November 2020, higher than they have been at any point in the last 10 years.
3.54
Further, there is concern the global demand for highly skilled talent such as medical specialists, scientists, and research and development staff will be particularly high post-COVID. ACCI explained that global demand may also mean that pre-existing skills shortages will be exacerbated in certain industries due to fewer skilled migrants, such as construction, hospitality and advanced manufacturing.
Higher Education
3.55
The committee heard that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the higher education sector with the closure of Australia's international border resulting in international students unable to enter or return to Australia.
3.56
Ms Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive Officer, The Group of Eight (Go8) stated that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced universities to rethink existing business models, with large numbers of international student arrivals not anticipated until Semester 1 2022. Ms Thomson, told the committee that:
… as soon as that international student market stopped in February, our universities and particularly our research universities suffered because we lost an incredible proportion of our students and their fee revenue.
3.57
In its submission, Universities Australia highlighted the impact of the absence of international students on Australia's local and national economies.
The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the significant contribution international students make to our local and national economies. When the Federal Government implemented border closures in response to the pandemic, tens of thousands of currently enrolled students were unable to travel to Australia, and during the past few months, some students already here have chosen to return home. As of 19 July, around 20 per cent of Australia's international student visa holders are located offshore. The impacts of their continued absence will be felt not only by their education providers, but local retailers, accommodation providers and the private rental market, all important components of local economies.
3.58
Mr Luke Sheehy, Executive Director, Australian Technology Network of Universities also highlighted that at a time of a global pandemic:
… world-class research is required to help us combat the COVID pandemic, and world-class teaching is required to particularly assist Australians to get the skills they need to get back into work after the disruption that the economic shutdown has caused. So for us it's a very difficult time for the sector.
Employing Australians first
3.59
With many industries facing workforce shortages due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the committee heard that recruiting and employing Australian workers should be a priority.
3.60
The committee received evidence from many stakeholders that while employing Australians is always an employer's first preference, when local vacancies cannot be met by Australians, temporary visa holder's act to fill shortages in the labour market.
3.61
For example, Mr Johnson, TAA, explained that employing Australian workers is always the first priority of the licensed hospitality and accommodation industry as '[t]his is the cost-effective, more reliable, long-term solution'.
3.62
AUSVEG, representing Australia's vegetable and potato industry, submitted that 'ideally, growers would be able to access their workforce locally through domestic channels', however:
… for various reasons, such as disinterest in working in the regions, and a lack of interest in working in the industry, growers have had no option but to turn towards migration as the main solution for their workforce needs.
3.63
Similarly, Mr Glenn Southward, Group Human Resources Manager at HW Greenham and Sons Pty Ltd, a family owned meat processing business, explained that when recruiting, Greenham 'will always employ Australians first', however:
Australians do not want to work in the meat industry. We ensure we operate as efficiently as possible when we recruit local workers through numerous channels—local residents' word of mouth, high schools, newspapers, websites and traditional avenues to recruitment.
3.64
Ms Andrae, APL, also reiterated that the pork industry supports employing Australians first and always seeks to attract Australian workers but receive few applications. As a result, the pork industry remains heavily reliant on temporary visa holders.
Attracting Australians to the agricultural industry
3.65
The committee heard that while employing Australian workers is always the first priority of employers, attracting Australian workers to seasonal less skilled and lower paid roles is challenging. This can be due to an unwillingness to relocate and perceptions of different industries.
Unwillingness to relocate within Australia
3.66
Ms Jenny Lambert, Acting Chief Executive Officer Lambert, ACCI, explained that there are a number of factors contributing to the unwillingness of Australians to relocate within Australia to take up positions in regional areas. Ms Lambert stated that:
People in Australia have their own local family connections, personal reasons, kids' school reasons, a whole range of reasons, why they don't want to take up jobs elsewhere. Particularly if you're seeking someone who's had a few years experience, then you're seeking someone who's usually established a family and connections by then.
3.67
Ms Heidi Reid, Policy Director, APL, further explained to the committee that it is a 'significant ask' of employees who have previously been employed in an urban setting to relocate to a regional area. Ms Reid stated:
… particularly if there are issues around infrastructure, regardless of whether it be housing, access to health or any of those sorts of issues. It's also about having to think about relocating your family out into regional areas—looking at providing support back over to your partner that might be going with you and being able to find some type of employment, and also making sure that your kids are going to be able to get into a school. We know a lot of those critical services are under pressure in a lot of the regional areas where we operate.
3.68
Mr Brett Millington, Chief Executive Officer, Mildura Regional Development (MRD), stated that from a regional perspective, there needs to be a whole focus on housing to support the migration population arriving in regional communities. Mr Millington stated that currently ‘there is a significant housing shortage in our region, and the rental vacancy rate is about 0.8 at the moment and has been down as low as about 0.5’.
Perceptions of work in the agricultural industry
3.69
The committee also heard that jobs in regional areas are perceived as uncertain, manually demanding and poorly paid, making these roles an unattractive proposition to the majority of Australians.
3.70
The NFF submitted that '[i]t is an unfortunate reality that many Australians do not look favourably on agricultural work, despite the fact that farming and farmers are generally held in high esteem by the general public'.
3.71
Mr Ben Rogers, General Manager, Workplace Relations and Legal Affairs, NFF, informed the committee that work in the agricultural industry:
… is culturally undervalued, physically demanding and requires long and unsociable hours. The industry has a wide geographic spread, and the work tends to be remotely based. It can be socially isolated.
3.72
Another factor that discourages employment in the agricultural industry is 'that farms have a reputation for underpaying and exploiting their workforce'. Mr Rogers explained that '[a]lthough it's wrong to tar all farms and all commodities with that brush, the reputation is not completely unearned'. However, Mr Rogers acknowledged that the NFF is attempting to improve the industry’s reputation:
Without making excuses, we try to own the problem, supporting programs like Fair Farms and labour hire regulation, stressing that new entrants find work through trustworthy sources like the Harvest Labour Services, encouraging those who are aggrieved to contact the authorities, and campaigning for the creation of a dedicated ag visa.
3.73
Cases of exploitation in the agricultural industry are discussed in Chapter 4.
3.74
Mr Tyson Cattle, Executive Officer, NFF Horticulture Council, explained that 'certainly in horticulture, I think, there's definitely a perception around that it's still an industry that is picking fruit off a tree and throwing it in a box'. Mr Cattle further highlighted that 'industry needs to do a much better job in terms of its own promotion and self-promotion of the skilled opportunities that currently exist'.
3.75
Ms Andrae explained to the committee that the perception of the pork industry is a huge barrier to attracting Australian workers.
The best way I can describe it to you, if you're driving down the road, you often see cattle out in the paddock or sheep out in the paddock or horses, and you see the clean air, the green grass and the running water. It's a perception we have of agriculture. You don't see pigs like that. Our pigs can't live like that. They are inside sheds where they're protected from the weather. They're highly susceptible to disease. So the general public doesn't have an understanding of pig production as a whole.
Relocation incentives to encourage Australians to work in the agriculture industry
3.76
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian Government announced relocation assistance to take up short term agricultural work to incentivise people to assist with harvest roles. As part of the 2021–22 Budget, the Australian Government announced changes to the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job programme and rebranded the initiative as AgMove.
AgMove
3.77
Under AgMove, if an individual relocates to find a harvest job, the Australian Government will help pay for relocation costs. From 5 May 2021, Australians can receive up to $6000 in relocation assistance. This includes:
relocation costs covered up to $2000 after completing 40 hours of work in at least two weeks; and
up to a further $4000 of relocation costs after completing 120 hours of work in at least four weeks.
3.78
For a temporary visa holder with general working rights, including WHMs and international students, up to $2000 is provided:
with up to $650 for relocation costs after completing 40 hours of work in at least two weeks; and
up to a further $1350 for relocation costs after completing 120 hours of work in at least four weeks.
3.79
DESE advised the committee that as at 31 May 2021, 2,100 people had taken up relocation assistance. Of that total, 1,600 were temporary visa holders and 548 were Australians.
3.80
The committee heard that, even with relocation incentives, there was a lack of appetite for Australians to pursue a career in the agricultural industry. Ms Reid, APL, stated that the uptake of the Australian Government's relocation package 'hasn't been huge, which is probably an indication that, even if we're providing these incentives, urban based workers are still not interested in heading out to regional areas'.
3.81
Mr Ferguson, AHA, further explained the importance of advertising government incentives so job seekers are aware of them. Mr Ferguson emphasised:
We have these schemes, and I don't think anyone is aware of them, unless you're perhaps engaging with Jobactive or somewhere. No-one knows about the schemes that are out there.
Career pathways for the agricultural industry
3.82
The committee received evidence that there is a lack of awareness around pathways that exist for Australian students to pursue a career in the agricultural or horticultural industry. Mr Cattle, NFF Horticulture Council, explained to the committee that:
… there's nothing in horticulture specifically that is tailor-made across the industry to represent horticulture as a skilled career pathway. And, as it currently stands, I don't think there's anything on the table to expand that.
3.83
To address this issue, stakeholders made a number of suggestions regarding how the industry could be more effectively promoted and career pathways improved. For example, the committee heard that educating school students regarding career options has been an important part of trying to attract local workers. Mrs Donna Fuller, Operations Manager, EC Throsby Pty Ltd, told the committee that the Australian meat industry is trying to engage with schools to highlight career pathways in the meat industry. Mrs Fuller explained:
We're trying to get into schools to show them there are jobs in the Australian meat industry. You don't have to stay a meat packer forever. I started as a meat packer and now I help run the business. Our CEO did the same thing. So did our general manager at the plant in Young. We as an industry need to get back out there and show the people that there are jobs in the Australian meat industry and you can work your way up. They are good jobs and fantastic careers.
3.84
Ms Andrae, APL, further highlighted the importance of providing information to school students. Ms Andrae explained that APL has been looking at technology, such as virtual reality, to allow tours of a piggery 'without actually going into a piggery', and that the COVID-19 pandemic has acted to facilitate this.
3.85
In addition, Mr Millington, MRD, outlined that MRD has been working with SuniTAFE farm, the SMART farm within the Sunraysia Institute of TAFE, to create awareness with students of the value and the opportunities that exist within the agricultural industry. Mr Millington stated that this arose from the Victorian Skills Commissioner's report, which identified 'some 1,500 jobs in our region that we didn't have the skills for locally that would be required and created over the next five years'.
Temporary visa programmes to meet labour shortages
3.86
As noted above, though Australian industries prioritise the employment of Australians, the shortfall of workers across different industries has resulted in temporary visa holders being an important part of Australia's workforce matrix. A range of different temporary visa types are used to fill skill shortages and meet the increased demand for labour, including:
the temporary skilled migration programme;
Pacific mobility schemes, including the SWP and PLS.
3.87
The following sections outline the evidence received in relation to the use of the temporary visa programmes listed above to meet labour shortages.
Temporary skilled migration visa programme
3.88
As previously discussed, the temporary skilled migration programme is used as an important tool to fill vacancies in the labour market. DESE submitted that under this programme, there are a number of safeguards in place to ensure that the temporary skilled migration programme does not have a negative impact on the employment prospects of Australians, including labour market testing, the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold, skilled occupation lists and the Skilling Australian Fund levy.
3.89
DESE stated that temporary skilled migration programme 'supports Australian businesses to access critical skills in a timely way if workers are unavailable locally'. Further, DESE stated that intent of the Temporary Skilled Shortage Visa (TSS) is that 'employers should look to the local labour market prior to sourcing overseas workers to fill vacancies'. DESE noted:
The employment prospects of Australian citizens and permanent residents are protected through the legislative requirements that ensure there is no financial advantage to an employer through sponsoring a TSS visa holder rather than recruiting and employing Australian workers.
Labour market testing
3.90
Ms Benedikte Jensen, First Assistant Secretary, Labour Market Strategy Division, DESE, informed the committee that a key feature of the Temporary Skilled Migration Programme is labour market testing (LMT).
3.91
As outlined in Chapter 2, LMT requires an employer to provide evidence when submitting a nomination application to demonstrate that they have tested the local labour market within the four months prior to nominating a skilled overseas worker for a TSS visa, over at least four weeks.
3.92
In October 2020, new requirements were introduced to LMT, where employers seeking to sponsor an overseas skilled worker must first advertise their vacancy on the government website 'jobactive', in addition to at least two other national-reaching advertisements. DESE stated that advertising the vacancies on the 'jobactive' website 'ensures those vacancies reach a nationwide audience, maximising access to job opportunities for Australians across the economy'.
3.93
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) submitted that the LMT requirements currently in place under the TSS visa programme are 'important to ensure that employers have a legal obligation to employ Australians first'. ACTU attested that LMT provides assurances to the Australian community and Australian workers that 'they will have priority access to local jobs' before employers can use temporary workers from overseas.
3.94
However, Unions NSW submitted that there needs to be more stringent regulation of LMT so that the system cannot be manipulated to facilitate industries acquiring cheaper foreign labour.
3.95
The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) submitted that evidence of national and local advertising in conjunction with local and national recruitment policies is a logical condition of LMT. However, the ANMF also submitted that current LMT requirements need to be strengthened to include employer obligations such as:
the need to advertise vacancies locally and more broadly at market rates;
offering relocation, housing and utility assistance where required;
reporting on specific measures taken to employ disadvantaged groups, local job seekers and recently retrenched workers; and
where possible making sure that new nursing and midwifery graduates have a reasonable chance of filling vacancies.
3.96
The committee received a range of evidence on LMT, including that LMT is onerous on businesses and delays the time it takes to obtain much needed workers. For example, Ms Lambert, ACCI, told the committee that LMT is another regulatory barrier for employers and does not add value to the recruitment of Australians first. Ms Lambert explained:
Those employers that have to turn to the skilled migration programs to fill gaps already have huge barriers. They have cost barriers. They have delay barriers. They have red tape barriers. There is already a range of disincentives for employers to have to reach out to skilled migrants. The labour market testing is just another regulatory barrier.
3.97
The NFF argued that LMT is a 'poor mechanism' for ensuring that Australians are prioritised for many agriculture-specific jobs and is 'an inefficient procedural hurdle that serves only to frustrate and lengthen the process of filling job roles when time is often a sensitive factor, such as during harvest seasons or shearing'.
3.98
Universities Australia similarly submitted that requirements to conduct LMT within university recruitment processes 'impose a redundant and time-consuming hurdle for institutions'. In its submission, Universities Australia stated '[g]iven the rigorous nature of university recruitment procedures, LMT is unnecessary and can cause delays that may compromise universities' ability to secure and retain the best candidates'.
Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold
3.99
According to DESE, the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT), currently set at $53,900, is an important safeguard of the temporary skilled migration programme, designed to protect lower paid Australian jobs and ensure skilled migrants can support themselves while in Australia.
3.100
While stakeholders were supportive of the TSMIT to allow temporary visa holders to support themselves while in Australia, the committee heard that the threshold does not reflect current Australian wages. For example, the ACTU submitted that TSMIT, set at $53,900, has been ‘frozen’ since 1 July 2013. Unions NSW explained that as a result of the failure to increase the TSMIT, employers are able to employ temporary visa holders on a lower wage than Australian workers:
This is a clear example of why temporary migration facilitates the stagnation of wages, with the salary expectations on employers lower for migrants than for local workers. The net result is that roles can be filled by migrants on a 2-4 year basis on a lower starting wage and can then be replaced by another who fits that category.
3.101
The ACTU similarly argued that without indexing the TSMIT in accordance with the seasonally adjusted Wage Price Index, the 'TSS visa can increasingly be used to employ temporary migrant workers in occupations that attract a far lower salary than that earned by the average Australian worker'.
3.102
ACCI told the committee that:
The problem with the TSMIT is that when the market wage in certain regions is lower than the TSMIT it creates problems. It creates problems, because there's a potential difference between what the migrant is paid versus what the Australian is paid.
3.103
Under the Horticulture Industry Labour Agreement, a concession of up to 10 per cent on the TSMIT is available where it is demonstrated that equivalent Australian workers do not receive annual earnings of $53,900.
Skilled Occupation lists
3.104
As outlined in Chapter 2, Australia's skilled visa programmes are underpinned by the following three lists, the Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL), the Medium and Long-Term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL), and the Regional Occupation List (ROL).
3.105
DESE submitted that only occupations, for which migration is the appropriate solution to that shortage, are placed on a skilled migration occupation list, deeming them eligible for skilled migration.
3.106
However, the ACTU submitted that the 'current process for determining the skilled occupations is flawed'. The ACTU argued that various occupations included in the skilled migration occupation lists 'do not, in fact, appear to be suffering from a shortage of appropriately skilled Australian citizens and permanent residents'. The ACTU submitted:
Given that the stated purpose of the TSS visa is to fill critical skills shortages and ensure that Australian workers are given the first priority for jobs, the primary basis for occupations being included on the occupation lists must be empirical evidence demonstrating a genuine labour market shortage that cannot be resolved through increasing wages or training Australian workers.
3.107
The ACTU concluded that many occupations on the list are not reflective of genuine skills shortages and should be removed. The ACTU provided examples of occupations on the STSOL and MLTSSL including, sales, marketing, advertising, corporate services, finance and human resources managers, accountants (general), taxation accounts, school principals, faculty heads and university lectures, newspaper editors and print and television journalists, bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers and electricians.
3.108
Stakeholders also raised concern regarding a perceived lack of transparency in the data and methods used to assess whether occupations should be included on skilled occupation lists. The Regional Australia Institute submitted that:
There is no robust data on the extent that regional jobs rely on temporary skilled and unskilled migrants. RAI suggests that quantifying the reliance of temporary workers in particular occupations and regions may be a useful exercise to determine whether the current system of skilled occupation lists is effectively meeting local labour needs.
Skilling Australian Fund Levy
3.109
Home Affairs submitted that all businesses nominating overseas workers for temporary or permanent employer sponsored visas are required to pay a Skilling Australian Fund (SAF) levy. Home Affairs stated that the SAF 'prioritises apprenticeships and traineeships in occupations that are in high demand, rely on skilled migration or have future growth potential, including in rural and regional Australia'.
3.110
Home Affairs advised that for businesses nominating overseas workers for a TSS visa, the amount of SAF levy payable depends on:
The size of the sponsoring business:
For businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million the cost is AUD1200 per nominated overseas worker per annum; or
For businesses with an annual turnover of $10 million or above the cost is AUD1800 per nominated overseas worker per annum; and
The proposed period of stay of the overseas worker in Australia.
3.111
Some witnesses gave evidence that the SAF was not of benefit to industries that were contributing to it. For example, Mr Hutchinson, AMIC, noted that the meat industry makes significant contributions to the SAF but receives little benefit. Mr Hutchinson stated:
We're putting the money in. For every dollar we might put in, we only get five cents back out if we are accessing it. There are a lot of more metropolitan areas that are accessing that as well, because it's a pool. A lot of our members say, 'What is the Skilling Australia Fund that I'm this putting money into? How do I get access to it?'
3.112
ACCI also noted that the levy is payable up front for the full duration of the visa with a refund available only in limited circumstances and that this was proving to be a significant burden for small business. Similarly, Mr Tony Cantwell, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Committee for Gippsland, explained that the SAF:
… has created a further burden for regional businesses, who are unable to receive a refund in the event that the nomination fails. There is a considerable risk that these microbusinesses will simply choose not to use the programs.
3.113
Other witnesses made suggestions for the improvement of the operation of the SAF levy. For example, CEDA submitted that the SAF levy could be improved by aligning the use of the levy to training initiatives that alleviate the skill shortages driving skilled migration, and by changing the point of levy collection from the visa nomination stage to the visa approval stage so that employers do not incur the levy if a visa nomination is refused.
3.114
Mr Jarrod Ball, Chief Economist, CEDA further stated that:
There also needs to be a clearer nexus between the temporary skilled migration program and education and training, including aligning the Skilling Australians Fund to the skills shortages that drive the use of temporary skilled migration in the first place.
3.115
Nonetheless the committee acknowledges the importance of the SAF’s purpose, namely to provide for the skilling of Australians to meet the labour demands of industry and to 'deliver improved employment outcomes by supporting Australians to obtain the skills and training they need in industries and occupations in demand, by increasing the uptake of apprenticeships and traineeships, pre-apprenticeships and pre-traineeships, and other employment-related training opportunities'.
3.116
The Committee therefore notes with concern the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s Final report of the inquiry into Australia's Skilled Migration Program, which would seek to undermine the role of the SAF in providing advancement opportunities for Australians in priority industries.
Working Holiday Maker (WHM) Program
3.117
As outlined in Chapter 2, the WHM program provides work rights for visa holders. If visa holders wish to obtain a second-year or third-year visa, this can be achieved through employment for a specified period, in a specified regional industry.
3.118
Mr Rogers, NFF, informed the committee that the number of WHMs on farms had been on the rise:
In the 2019 calendar year, there were 43,219 applications for second-year class 417 and 462 visas, up from 38,862 in 2013. This suggests the number of working holiday-makers working on farms has actually risen by roughly 11 per cent in five to six years.
3.119
The committee received evidence that WHMs have made an important contribution to the seasonal agricultural workforce. In addition, the expansion of participating countries, increases to the number of caps on the number of visas allocated, and the increased length of time a visa holder can work for an employers, saw an expansion of the number of WHMs.
3.120
The flexibility and low administrative burden for employers accessing WHMs also made the programme an attractive option for businesses seeking seasonal or low-skilled staff. Mr Rogers, NFF, also explained that:
… working holiday-makers tend to be geographically mobile and more willing than permanent residents to follow the work. In addition, the labour patterns of backpackers are flexible. They're able to work for discreet periods of time—for example, during the harvest, when labour needs are the greatest.
3.121
Throughout the inquiry, the committee was made aware of a number of issues relating to workplace safety and underpayment for WHMs working in remote locations as part of their requirements to undertake three months of 'specified work' to secure a second year visa. The exploitation of WHMs is discussed in Chapter 4.
Reliance on the WHM program
3.122
However, the committee received evidence that, especially within the agricultural industry, there is an over reliance on WHMs as the industry's core workforce. The committee also received evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risks involved in such a reliance on an overseas workforce.
3.123
For example, AFPA stated that 'the agricultural industry is overly reliant on the WHM visa holders, who make up 80% of the harvest workforce'.
With the closure of Australia's international border, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a significant decrease in the number of WHM in the country, with approximately 80,000 WHM visa holders currently in Australia, down from the usual 140,000 WHMs. This poses a significant risk to industry.
3.124
AUSVEG similarly submitted that 'the impact of COVID-19 on WHMs and on the horticulture industry should also not be understated'. The decline in WHMs in Australia highlights the heavy reliance the horticulture industry has on backpackers and the need to have other available workforce streams.
Seasonal Worker Programme
3.125
As outlined in Chapter 2, the SWP provides citizens from nine Pacific countries and Timor Leste access to work in Australia's agriculture and accommodation industries in regional locations. The SWP provides for employment opportunities of up to nine months where there is insufficient local labour supply available.
3.126
The committee received a large volume of evidence from stakeholders who were supportive of the SWP due to the productivity of the workers and the inbuilt safeguards to protect workers from exploitation. This evidence is outlined below.
Productivity
3.127
The committee received evidence that a contributing factor in the broad support of the SWP is the productivity of workers employed under the scheme. ABARES found that seasonal workers are on average 20 per cent more productive than WHMs. Mr Peter Gooday, Assistant Secretary, ABARES Branch, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, further explained that 'for returning seasonal workers, 15 per cent are more productive than new seasonal workers, mainly because they require…less training the second time around'.
3.128
Mr Cattle, NFF Horticulture Council, also explained that the 'productivity aspect is the reason why the SWP and the PLS are so successful'. Mr Cattle highlighted that:
When push comes to shove and it's harvest time and you have to get the crop off and time is precious, that's obviously where productivity is at its absolute peak for a grower. So there's definitely a leaning towards a seasonal worker program type of mentality…
Inbuilt protections to reduce exploitation
3.129
The committee heard that a particular strength of SWP was the inbuilt safeguards to protect workers from exploitation. DESE submitted that the SWP is designed to ensure workers are supported through their journey 'from seeking to participate in the SWP in their home country, preparation for departure, through their arrival and stay in Australia, and return and reintegration home'.
Approved employers
3.130
A key feature of the SWP is that employers seeking to participate in the programme must be approved by DESE. To become an approved employer under the SWP, organisations must among other things, demonstrate a commitment to employing Australian job seekers first, good workplace relations and immigration practices and demonstrate an understanding of an approved employer's obligations under the SWP.
3.131
The United Workers Union (UWU) submitted that the requirement for employers to be approved by DESE provides an important mechanism to hold employers accountable.
3.132
Professor Stephen Howes, Director, Development Policy Centre, Australian National University (ANU), explained that the process of becoming an approved employer requires the employer to register, acting as a deterrent for the exploitation of seasonal workers. Professor Howes said approved employers need:
… to make certain assurances but it also means—and this has happened—that if you are found to have mistreated workers, or even if an allegation has been made that you have mistreated workers, you will lose your licence and ability to participate in the Seasonal Worker Program.
Pre-departure and arrival briefings
3.133
Before departing for Australia, workers participating in the SWP must also undertake a pre-departure briefing. This is provided by the workers home country Labour Sending Unit (LSU) and covers a broad range of information to help workers understand their employment contract, Australian workplace laws, visa arrangements and workplaces health and safety. A pre-departure booklet is also provided to the worker in their local language before departure to Australia.
3.134
When seasonal workers arrive in Australia, an approved employer must give a face-to-face, in person briefing with easy to understand information. The approved employer must invite the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and a relevant union to the briefing.
3.135
The committee heard that the requirement for the FWO and a union representative attend the arrival briefings was a positive feature of the SWP. Mr George Robertson, National Coordinator for Farms, United Workers Union (UWU), explained that the design of the SWP recognises that temporary visa holders coming to Australia are vulnerable to exploitation, and therefore protections have been built into the design SWP. Mr Robertson explained that the formal role of unions in the arrival briefings has seen a reduced incidence of exploitation:
As a result, because they have been built into the program—in that there is a formal role for unions not only in the governance of the program but also in meeting, speaking to and educating workers when they arrive— there has been a reduction in the incidence of exploitation in that program. So the Seasonal Worker Program isn't perfect, but it is working on the ground today to ensure that there is a lower incidence of exploitation.
3.136
Further, the Development Policy Centre submitted that the SWP has resulted in better worker experiences and fewer incidences of exploitation through a more 'migrant informed and centred approach':
Workers receive tailored support to facilitate integration into life and work in Australia. Pre-departure briefings are conducted with workers to build understandings of workplace rights and responsibilities, the terms of their employment contracts, and avenues for support. The SWP mandates that Approved Employers provide pastoral care support to workers, and additional third-party welfare support has been provided to support workers during COVID-19.
Community groups
3.137
In its submission, DESE outlined that approved employers must also assist seasonal workers to connect with local community groups, for example churches, Pacific Islander and Timor-Leste groups or other community fellowships and sporting groups.
3.138
DESE advised that in March 2021, the Salvation Army was provided $1 million to deliver Community Connections, a programme to help bring Pacific and Timorese workers and their local communities together and build inclusion and cultural awareness.
3.139
Dr Mark Zirnsak, Senior Social Justice Advocate, Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania (Uniting Church) explained the reach that churches can have with workers under the SWP:
On the ground, our churches have direct contact with both employers and workers. The contact is with hundreds of workers; in fact, it would probably be into the thousands now over the period that we've had engagement around that.
3.140
Dr Carina Garland, Assistant Secretary, Victorian Trades Hall Council, emphasised that the SWP provides for 'different community organisations and local government and unions all working together to make sure that there is really holistic support in the community for workers'.
Role in the Pacific
3.141
The committee also heard that the SWP is central to Australia's increased engagement with Pacific neighbours and Timor-Leste, providing employment opportunities for Pacific and Timorese workers to develop skills, earn income and send home remittances to support their families and the economic growth of their countries.
3.142
DESE submitted that a World Bank report released in 2018, found that between 2012 and 2017, the earnings of workers under the SWP contributed approximately $144 million in net income gains for the Pacific region. The World Bank report also found:
On average, workers sent home around $9,000 over a six-month period.
86 per cent of seasonal workers reported a high level of satisfaction with their experience in Australia.
95 per cent of seasonal workers surveyed said they would return in future seasons.
91 per cent felt the skills they had learned improved their employment prospects on returning home.
91 per cent were willing to recommend the programme to others in their village.
Female seasonal workers highlighted positive changes from participating—gaining new skills and knowledge, including increased levels of financial literacy and English language proficiency.
3.143
Ms Danielle Heinecke, First Assistant Secretary, Pacific Operations and Development Division, DFAT, explained that the SWP plays an important role in sending remittances back to Pacific communities. Ms Heinecke outlined that on average, a worker on the SWP will earn $9000 per work placement. Ms Heinecke added:
… so, if they're coming for three or four years, that's enough to start up a business. There are lots of examples of seasonal workers getting back and starting up their own industry. There's one in the chicken industry in Timor, where they've been able to create their own earnings, and that's what we really see as success.
3.144
DFAT submitted that remittances are an important source of income and consumption in Pacific island countries, as well as foreign exchange and investment. DFAT has seen for example, in Tonga net earnings from the SWP have now surpassed Australian annual aid receipts and exports to Australia as sources of national income.
3.145
In addition, DFAT stated that the benefits of temporary migration extend beyond remittances and provide unique opportunities to develop mutual understanding and strengthen connections between people and communities in Australia and the Pacific.
3.146
The committee heard that the Pacific labour mobility initiatives, the SWP and PLS, are valuable in supporting Australia’s relationships with its closest neighbours and are considered vital components of Australia’s Pacific ‘Step up’. DFAT submitted that the two schemes:
… provide valuable employment opportunities for Pacific and Timorese workers, generating much needed remittances and skills development to boost economic growth in Pacific island countries. These Pacific labour mobility initiatives help make our region more secure, stable and prosperous, strengthening Australia’s standing in an important and increasingly contested region.
Calls for the SWP to be prioritised and expanded
3.147
As outlined above, the committee received positive feedback on the operation of the SWP. As such, the committee heard calls from submitters for the SWP to be expanded.
3.148
DESE advised the committee that since the Australian Government announced the restart of the SWP and the PLS on 21 August 2020, all states and territories have opted into the restart of the SWP.
3.149
As at 30 April 2021, 3528 SWP workers have arrived under the SWP Restart and the Northern Territory Mango Pilot to work on farms in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
3.150
The committee received suggestions from submitters that the SWP be expanded and become the predominant source of low-skilled and semi-skilled labour in Australia's agriculture and horticulture industry. For example, the AFPA suggested that the SWP 'can become the core of our seasonal harvest workforce, and we are calling for the continued expansion of the program'.
3.151
Additionally, Mr Robertson, UWU, explained that:
We see significant potential to further expand the Seasonal Worker Program. Some of the critiques of the program that industry had made prior to the pandemic—there have been changes to the program that made it more flexible and easier for workers to move from farm to farm and from employer to employer. What we've seen during the pandemic is that that has only increased.
3.152
Ms Heather Moore, Policy and Strategic Projects Advisor, the Salvation Army Australia, noted:
My understanding from employers, and from workers as well, is that there is plenty of demand to see those programs increase, provided that government resources are in place to match that, so that there is adequate support for the workers and employers on those programs.
3.153
Witnesses also argued that the WHM program undermines the SWP and that WHMs are not the preferred workforce for the agricultural industry. Professor Howes noted that the decision to introduce the second year and third year visa was 'to funnel backpackers into the agricultural sector'. Professor Howes highlighted that '[b]ackpackers wouldn't work in the agricultural sector if there weren't that incentive. So it definitely does undermine the Seasonal Worker Program'.
3.154
AUSVEG stated that, while the 88 day regional component of the WHM program has been successful to ensure a seasonal workforce for horticulture, 'it is not the preferred workforce for the industry and should not be relied upon as the industry's core workforce for those lower-skilled occupations'.
3.155
As such, Ms Moore, the Salvation Army, told the committee that the WHM program should return to its original purpose 'which was cultural exchange, and in turn build out the Seasonal Worker Program and labour hire scheme'.
Reforms to the SWP
3.156
Though a number of stakeholders were supportive of the SWP and spoke highly of the programme, the committee also received a range of evidence regarding ways the SWP could be improved, including through streamlined administration, access for smaller farms through portability and improvements in accommodation. This evidence is outlined below.
Administrative burden and cost
3.157
One of the more frequent criticisms the committee heard from stakeholders regarding the SWP was the increased regulation and cost associated with accessing the programme for employers. For example, Mr Daniel Walton, National Secretary, Australian Workers Union, identified that the SWP is underutilised as there is a perception from farmers that 'it's a bit too cumbersome and costly'.
3.158
Mr Free explained that the process of applying to become an approved employer places an ‘administrative burden’ on the producer.
3.159
DESE advised that while there is no cost to become an approved employer under the SWP, costs are borne through administrative processes. Ms Helen McCormack, Assistant Secretary, Seasonal Work Programs Branch, DESE, told the committee that to become an approved employer, businesses need to submit financial statements, their workplace relations and immigration law history, and once provisionally approved, pay a small cost for obtaining a temporary activity sponsorship from Home Affairs. In certain states, such as Queensland, Victoria and South Australia, there may be a small in labour hire licensing.
3.160
Ms McCormack stated once approved employers become approved, ‘the costs are putting in recruitment plans, accommodation plans, labour market testing, and welfare and wellbeing plans, which the department then assesses’.
3.161
Mr Rogers, NFF, explained that employers had been:
… frightened off because they see the upfront costs, which are around about $5,000 a worker, as just prohibitive'. If you're talking about big farms, they can probably absorb that as a worthwhile investment, but not smaller farms, particularly when they don't have work year round.
3.162
Professor Howes, ANU, explained that as the regulatory burden under the SWP is very high, it is dominated by labour hire companies. Professor Howes emphasised that:
… what we've noticed in the SWP is that it's dominated by very large labour-hire companies who are able to manage that regulatory burden. They then distribute the workers to different farms. Small farms can participate; some do. But many participate in that indirect way, and they pay the labour-hire company not only for the companies but for regulatory burden they've taken.
3.163
Mr Michael Rogers, Chief Executive Officer, AFPA, suggested that in the face of workforce shortages, the process of accessing the SWP could be simplified for employers. However, Mr Rogers stressed that 'standards remain and there's no suggestion that they're removed and that we continue to build on those standards, for example, around accommodation and transport'.
Employer access
3.164
As part of the SWP, an approved employer must provide a minimum average of 30 hours per week over the duration of an employment period for a worker. However, stakeholders noted that smaller farms have difficulty providing the minimum of 30 hours' work a week required to access the programme. Mr Rogers, NFF, highlighted that the 30 hours of work can be impacted by climate and weather, with harvest work being delayed. Mr Rogers explained that:
If you've brought someone in, you have to give them 30 hours a week. You have to have them working 30 hours a week, but there's actually no crop to pick because of frost or something along those lines. The program just doesn't work, and that's another barrier, particularly for the smaller growers when they can't find other work for these guys to do.
3.165
To address the difficulty of smaller farms accessing the scheme due the minimum hours required, a pilot programme commenced in May 2019 to streamline arrangements for approved seasonal workers to move between farm placements.
3.166
The pilot is underway in the Sunraysia, Goulburn/Murray, Riverina, and Wimmera/Mallee (with effect from 1 January 2020) regions. In regards to the pilot, DESE advised that:
Pilot Approved Employers are able to move seasonal workers, with their agreement, between farm placements during their visa period, without prior approval by the department. SWP Regional Pilot standards, including accommodation, are the same as those under the general program. This allows labour hire companies to bring a worker in for a longer period and respond to business opportunities at short notice by moving workers to farms that require labour when and as needed.
3.167
As at 30 April 2021, 804 places have been approved under the SWP Regional Pilot.
3.168
The committee heard that in addition to the Regional Pilot, the COVID-19 pandemic afforded the opportunity to trial greater mobility with special measures introduced to facilitate the movement of workers between approved employers, based on employer demand.
3.169
DESE advised the committee that following the closure of Australia's international border in March 2020, DESE facilitated over 10,000 redeployments of SWP workers who remained in Australia beyond their original visa, with their agreement, to new placements to meet ongoing labour needs in the agriculture industry.
3.170
Mr Zirnsak explained that during the pandemic, the portability of the SWP 'has worked quite well for the benefit of employers in a very difficult situation and difficult circumstances'.
3.171
The Development Policy Centre submitted research into the impact of such initiatives is required. It stated:
More work is needed to understand the impacts of such initiatives and whether they may provide a promising avenue to empower workers while providing employers and the market with more flexibility to deal with ebbs and flows in these typically seasonal industries.
Accommodation
3.172
Under the SWP, an approved employer must provide accommodation for workers that meets the minimum requirements set down by DESE, and which must meet relevant state or local laws. However the committee received evidence that a range of issues related to the provision of appropriate accommodation for SWP workers exist.
3.173
For example, Mr Free, VFF, stated that farmers engaging workers under the SWP are 'locked into' in a range of obligations, such as accommodation costs and other upfront costs.
3.174
However, other submitters highlighted that despite approved employers being required to provide accommodation for SWP workers, there are concerns regarding the quality of provided accommodation. For example, the Latrobe Council, in northern Tasmania, outlined an incident where an emergency evacuation notice was issued by the Council after reports of worsening sanitation and living conditions at a property within the municipality used to accommodate seasonal workers under the SWP.
3.175
The Latrobe Council submitted that the accommodation had been arranged by a labour hire company engaged by a farming enterprise operating in the region. The Latrobe Council recommended the strengthening of accommodation documentation requirements and more proactive monitoring of SWP accommodation.
3.176
The committee heard from DESE that the accommodation assessment for approved employers is a desktop assessment, whereby an approved employer sends through photos that reflect the current state of the accommodation, ‘with full descriptions of the size of the bedrooms, how many beds, how many facilities like washing machines, fridges and so forth’.
3.177
DESE explained that as part of the SWP monitoring programme, DESE views the accommodation when visiting groups of workers to ensure the accommodation is a true reflection of what was submitted by the approved employer.
3.178
The committee heard that there were approximately 1300 accommodations approved nationally around Australia. Ms McCormack, DESE, advised that in 2018, 109 accommodations were visited, and in 2019 it was 99 and in 2021 it was 185. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, DESE advised that the department has been conducting virtual monitoring, through tools such as Microsoft Teams, and Zoom.
Pacific Labour Scheme
3.179
The committee heard that there was support for the PLS as a labour mobility programme to meet skill shortages. Ms Heinecke, DFAT, explained that compared to the SWP, the PLS is 'relatively new', commencing as a trial in 2018. Ms Heinecke told the committee:
Before COVID hit, we had 18 months to get the scheme started. We had over 1,000 workers just before COVID happened. As I mentioned before, we had 90 employers in Australia who had gone through the process of registering, having compliance checks et cetera and were ready to recruit workers when COVID hit. We were expecting a much more significant scale-up in Australia before COVID, but, obviously, the closing of the borders changed the landscape significantly.
3.180
Whereas the SWP is targeted at short and medium term seasonal work, primarily in the horticulture sector, the PLS was designed to fill labour gaps in Australia for a higher level of skills. Ms Heinecke commented:
For example, we see that there's huge growth potential in the care sector in the future, starting with aged care, and we have a number of workers working in aged care.
3.181
Ms Heinecke further explained that the meat processing industry has one of the largest demands for PLS workers, and that before the COVID-19 pandemic, 'about 82 per cent of demand was from meatworks'. This was supported by Mr Southward who stated:
Greenham…currently employs over 70 Pacific Labour Scheme workers across two of its locations. They are very valuable workers. They add value to our organisation. They actually keep us operating in tough times. We have orders for another 84. That in itself is good advocacy for such a program.
3.182
The committee heard that there is a high level of support offered to workers coming to Australia under the PLS. DFAT submitted that a series of measures to increase PLS worker knowledge and familiarity with Australian workplace conditions has been put in place. DFAT provided that:
PLS workers participate in a briefing prior to departing for Australia which covers topics including understanding contracts, Australian workplace awards, overtime and deductions, and workplace health and safety. PLS workers receive an on-arrival induction upon commencement of their employment in Australia which covers more specific information relevant to their new Australian workplace including workplace health and safety procedures and policies.
3.183
DFAT, through the Pacific Labour Facility (PLF), the contractor engaged to support delivery of the PLS, has engaged a team of worker welfare officers to support PLS workers and has instituted a 24 hour emergency phone line for workers to access.
3.184
PLS workers can call the telephone hotline for help and advice on a range of topics, including:
finding affordable accommodation and appropriate living arrangements;
accessing personal finance, superannuation, insurance and banking services;
what they will need to buy (SIM cards, phones, clothing, etc.);
getting an Australian driver’s licence;
workplace rights and entitlements;
health and medical contacts;
education and training opportunities; and
contacts for any diaspora in the community where they will live and work.
3.185
DFAT is also encouraging partner governments in the Pacific and Timor-Leste to appoint liaison officers in Australia to provide a range of support including pastoral care, incident management, employer engagement and assistance to returning workers. Several countries currently have liaison officers in Australia including Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Samoa. Liaison officers allow workers to raise concerns in their own language and in a culturally appropriate manner.
3.186
The committee notes that the Australian Government has released the Pacific Labour Mobility Consultation and released a discussion paper on options for further enhancing the SWP and the PLS to maximise benefits for employers, workers and participating countries.
3.187
Ms Margaret Kidd, First Assistant Secretary, Workforce and Engagement Division, DESE, told the committee that the review was looking at where there could be efficiencies between the two schemes. Ms Kidd explained that while the programmes are quite similar, there are also a number of differences. Ms Kidd noted that:
Where there's the same approved employer there are benefits, for example, from having a single application process. You apply and enter one of the schemes and you can also access the other. It's things like that, that we're looking at, to make them more streamlined and efficient.