Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to be speaking on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's final report of the inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker program. The committee was tasked with inquiring into the Working Holiday Maker program. It's a reciprocal program of 45 years standing and one which is an important component of Australia's migration program.

The Working Holiday Maker program usually sees about 200,000 young people from 44 countries that we have bilateral agreements with come to Australia to do some work and largely enjoy an Australian experience in travelling and learning about Australia, its culture and its people. At the same time, these young people also fill skill shortages largely in the horticulture and agriculture sectors but also in the tourist and hospitality sectors. The travel restrictions on the global movement of people resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic year has placed immense pressure on regional Australia. The inquiry heard evidence from a cross-section of stakeholders—some 90 submissions—who impressed on our committee a sense of urgency in addressing the labour shortages across Australia, especially in the horticulture and agriculture industries, which traditionally have had great difficulty attracting Australians to fill these positions and as such have relied heavily on the Working Holiday Maker program.

The migration committee's terms of reference sought to examine the purposes of the program, to look at the value of the program to the Australian economy, especially in the horticulture, tourism, healthcare and agriculture sectors, to examine the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on the program, both nationally and internationally, and to look at the potential economic impact on regional economies from a disruption to the Working Holiday Maker program and to see if there were indeed any capacity for Australians made unemployed by COVID-19 to fill the labour shortages. The committee also looked at the existing visa conditions and criteria of the program to see if they were still adequate, especially within the context of cultural exchange, and also to look at how they may impact on the creation of job opportunities for Australians.

I want to make the point that COVID-19 also impacted on the ability of the migration committee itself to travel across the country in order to take evidence. Like many other committees, we had to resort to conducting our public hearings via teleconference. There were over 12 public hearings and some 30 hours of evidence taken by teleconference. At times it was challenging, and I want to thank all the witnesses for their patience and for their contributions. But we are thankful the capacity was there for the committee to continue its work, and I do want to thank all those who gave evidence.

The submissions were comprehensive and constructive. We heard from many stakeholders. They were honest and stark in their testimonies and assessments, and from a large number of them came an urgent call to address the labour shortage in regional Australia as farmers, tourist operators, hospitality owners and others struggle to recruit unemployed Australians. The committee has made 14 recommendations that seek to address issues around flexibility for the Working Holiday visa subclass 417 and the Work and Holiday subclass 462 visa holders. We also recommended that the government review the definition of 'regional' for the purposes of migration to look at increasing the working holidaymaker upper age limit to 35 years of age from the existing 30 years where bilateral negotiations yield reciprocal agreements for Australians, and to also consider expanding the program to new countries. These recommendations respond to a recognition that the Working Holiday Maker Program is important to Australia both in helping out where there are seasonal labour shortages and in adding value to our tourist sector. It is estimated the program is worth some $3.1 billion annually to the Australian economy, especially in rural areas.

The committee maintained a strong focus and interest in looking at how we could encourage unemployed Australians to take up work in regional and remote Australia. We heard evidence that there were many impediments to this, ranging from a reluctance to move into the regions, especially from the big city centres, mainly because this kind of employment is seasonal and not necessarily viewed as a desirable employment or career option because it's not by nature secure or long-term. Even in cases where there were more secure opportunities, distance and difficulty relocating and availability and cost of accommodation were major issues. So too was the view that this kind of work was potentially viewed as exploitative with low wages and inadequate conditions. Sufficient evidence was also received about negative experiences that many working holidaymakers have had. The committee took this evidence of accounts of exploitation and bad behaviour by some employers very seriously. This is evidence which is detrimental to the reputation of the Working Holiday Maker Program. In order to address this, the committee recommended that the government expediate the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce.

In addition, we recommended that the development of an app to augment the recommendation that a hotline be established where working holidaymakers can access all the advice regarding their work rights and to talk about any workplace exploitation concerns they may have. To this, the committee also recommended the Fair Work Ombudsman develop an embassy liaison group to liaise on a regular basis about workplace issues raised with embassies by their citizens. Embassies are an obvious source of information because they are likely to get feedback from their citizens about their working holidaymaker experiences in Australia. It makes absolute sense that there are formal channels of communication where issues can be addressed and resolved in a manner that protects the integrity of the Working Holiday Maker Program as well as protecting the rights of the working holidaymakers, ensuring as best we can that their experience of staying in Australia is a positive one.

Given the extent of the labour shortage resulting from COVID-19, the committee sought to encourage all available people in Australia to take up work in agriculture and horticulture. This included a focus on those who are currently on temporary visas. As foreshadowed in the interim report, the Refugee Council of Australia, in its submission, proposed putting in place special arrangements to encourage those on protection visas and the Safe Haven Enterprise visas holders to undertake work in these areas. Although there were no legislative barriers to SHEV and TPV holders working in regional industries facing labour shortages, and many were keen to take up jobs in regional areas, there were other issues that created a disincentive, and these were largely due to the uncertainty around their futures and the uncertainty about the prospects of being granted clear pathways to permanent residency. We heard from the Hazara coordination groups specifically about these issues, and I want to support the additional comments made by my colleague the member for Bruce and support the proposal put forward by the Refugee Council of Australia to offer permanent residency to SHEV and TPV holders who undertook a year of work in a regional area in industries suffering critical labour shortages.

The committee, in recommendation 14, took steps to address some of the issues that were raised with us. We recommended:

… that the Government consider additional concessions to SHEV and TPV holders who undertake at least one year of agricultural or horticultural work in a regional area, and are prepared to settle in a regional areas, such as:

Subsidised VET training courses for skilled occupations experiencing chronic skills shortages …; and

Other incentives that assist SHEV and TPV holders to meet requirements under a range of available visas, including the skilled migration scheme

Although this was not necessarily what the Refugee Council or SHEV and TPV holders had hoped and argued for, it is a welcomed start to a discussion we must have as a country in relation to the 17,400 SHEV and TPV holders in Australia at the moment who have been here for up to 10 years. These are genuine refugees. They have a strong desire to live here amongst us. They are capable and willing. We should move to resolve their visa status to put an end to their uncertainty and give them realistic opportunities to become permanent residents.

In the time left, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues who are members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, particularly the chair, the member for Berowra. I want to thank the secretariat for the amazing work that they have done in assisting us during what has been a difficult period, this COVID-19 period. I recommend the report to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context