Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the report, Perspectives on the future of the harvest labour force, because I think it is an important one in one of many different areas in the extremely multifaceted immigration environment. I should state from the outset that I was not as involved in the inquiry as the previous two speakers; I was not able to get to any of the public hearings, but I did read many of the submissions and some of the Hansard transcripts. For a variety of reasons I will not go into here, I was not as fully involved in a few other stages along the way as I would have liked but, having said that, I think it is a valuable report.

A word I would probably use to describe it is ‘tentative’. Even though it does not have recommendations, it does have components that set forward conclusions and certainly make some very strong suggestions. They are not strong enough to be recommendations, but they are suggestions. I find myself in the not overly common position of agreeing with Senator Barnett, who put in some supplementary comments to this report. His view—if I could speak for him, based on the supplementary comments in the report—is basically that he does propose a targeted and tightly controlled pilot scheme of Pacific island workers to meet a demonstrated labour force need in a certain area over a given period. This idea of taking that extra, still tentative, but concrete step forward—not so much dipping the toe in the water to test the temperature but actually taking a more concrete step than that—of a pilot program is one that I support. My general feeling is less tentative than the body of the committee report about it being worth exploring this proposed measure more specifically.

We have an interesting dynamic operating in the immigration arena, not just in Australia but elsewhere. We have people who are basically running a protectionist line, saying, ‘We don’t want people coming in here and impacting on wages and conditions.’ And we have people from the other side, from what would normally be seen as more of the free market side, and for different, broader immigration policy and so-called border control reasons—a big misnomer—who are also being reticent about letting people in.

It is a curious alliance where you have protectionist sentiments and free market but nationalist sentiments aligning. I think that is undesirable. There is a real problem with the aversion of both the government and the union movement, for different reasons, to considering the approach of allowing people from the Pacific island region, New Guinea, East Timor and countries like that to do short-term work—whether you call them guest workers or short-term seasonal labour—whilst very consciously and deliberately bringing in over 100,000 people a year through the working holiday visa program, predominantly from Europe, North America, Japan and so on. I do not think it is any great surprise that people in the Pacific island region see a double standard there—that we are willing to allow over 100,000 people a year from Western Europe and North America through on working holiday visa programs to fill these sorts of seasonal jobs.

That working holiday visa program is very much promoted. When the numbers were expanded by Minister Vanstone just recently it was very strongly promoted. The reason for doing that was to meet demand for seasonal work. I do not have a problem with that, I might emphasise, but we have a program that brings in 100,000 people a year specifically to address shortfalls in the seasonal labour market and yet we are saying to people from our own region, the Pacific islands and nearby, ‘No, you cannot come in and do that short-term work.’ There is a double standard there that I have a lot of problems with, frankly. That is why I am supportive of the flavour of Senator Barnett’s additional comment of having a trial pilot program.

There were recommendations along similar lines, particularly in the submission from Oxfam. The two submissions I found of most benefit—although, certainly, others were good—were the Oxfam one and that from Peter Mares from the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University of Technology in Victoria. I think there is a valid argument for enabling labourers from our region to fill gaps. It is true it is hard to determine precisely how big, how extensive and how permanent those gaps in the unskilled seasonal labour market are. It is one of those perplexities of the debate that it is hard to pin down. There is a valid concern about people who can be easily exploited getting stuck in poor conditions and exploited.

The sort of program that is used in Canada is one that was recommended as being worth particular attention. It seems to be working quite well. I particularly notice that Senator Barnett says in his comments that this is not just about being nice and neighbourly and helping people from less well off neighbouring countries to come in and earn a bit of income; there are benefits for the Australian economy. As mentioned in Senator Barnett’s additional comments, the evidence from Mr Mares and Nic Maclellan was that such a scheme would create jobs and investment in the local area concerned rather than take jobs from locals. In fact, the Canadian experience has been that temporary labour schemes create 2.6 jobs in the supply and processing sectors for every one in horticulture.

There are economic benefits for Australia, and that is logical. If there is a genuine gap in the labour market that has not been adequately met, and if we can get it met that would ensure that the full wealth-generating opportunities that are there are maximised. It is worth emphasising, though, that this certainly should not be seen as the panacea, that we should just open this up and let any number of people in as the single solution to gaps in the lesser skilled labour market. It is best addressed on one front.

One issue that I think we need to look at again is some of the restrictions in our social security laws. We actually have a very strong disincentive built into our social security laws for people on income support payments to go to regional areas because they get penalised for moving to areas of higher unemployment. If they are going to get enough work to not qualify for income support then that is not a problem, obviously. But that is not always guaranteed; as has been mentioned, this is an unreliable labour opportunity area. It just adds that bit of extra disincentive to people who think, ‘If I am going to go to try my luck somewhere else, I will end up being penalised in my income support payments.’ It really means that they have to be absolutely certain that they are going to earn enough reliable income for them to take that leap. Given the current wider employment market circumstances, that is an issue we need to consider as well.

Whilst the committee report does not have specific recommendations, I do concur with its findings and conclusions, particularly at the end of chapter 2. It suggests that an immediate seasonal contract labour scheme is not justified, and I agree with that. We do not need to put in place a fully fledged scheme straightaway. But it does also emphasise that this does not mean government policy inaction. Pronouncements by the government which categorically reject the use of unskilled workers from the Pacific region are neither forward looking nor conducive to policy development. Similarly, claims by sections of the union movement that bringing in unskilled seasonal workers from overseas would steal local jobs, drive down wages and inevitably create a new class of working poor, is not an automatic argument against doing anything. As it says there, the answer lies in adequate regulation, and adequate enforcement of that regulation.

The report is fairly honest about why it is tentative. It has the interesting sentence:

It is difficult for committee members to disregard the influences which affect them as party members at this moment in the electoral cycle.

I think that is a coded way of saying, ‘This is too big a political hot potato for all of us to go too far at the moment.’ I think it is best to be upfront about those things, and I am not seeking to attack that. It is a perfectly understandable position. It is a difficult issue from a range of perspectives. As the committee recognises, that is no excuse for inaction, and it does not suggest action; it suggests movement. My view is that the movement suggested is a bit more tentative than is necessary. I think we can go further; I think we can go to a pilot program, as Senator Barnett suggests. Personally, I will keep pushing that, as my individual view. I think it is a view that would also be much more comfortable for our Pacific island neighbours. I seek leave to continue my remarks. (Time expired)

Leave granted; debate adjourned.