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

I have spoken previously on this report, Perspectives on the future of the harvest labour force, by the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education and I want to make some further comments on the potential future of a harvest labour force in Australia. This is quite an important report, albeit one that I personally found a little disappointing. I was disappointed I was not able to participate more fully in the inquiry for a few different reasons I will not go into, apart from workload. I was also disappointed that it was not a more conclusive report—but, having said that, it is more conclusive than it probably appears on first reading. It is a rare report that does not make any recommendations, but if you read into the detail of this report it certainly does make suggestions, inferences and urgings of varying degrees of strength.

The main issue involved here is whether or not Australia should consider allowing what are often termed guest workers—I am not sure that is a terribly helpful term—or temporary, unskilled workers from the Pacific islands to come here to do seasonal work, particularly fruit picking and other agriculture related activities. There are differing views, and the inquiry found it difficult to nail down precisely how great the labour market shortages are in these particular industries. I do not think there is much doubt that they exist and that they have an impact on the ability of growers in particular and others in seasonal industries to maximise the value of their crop and their resource. That is a negative not only for them, of course, but for the entire economy of their region and of the country as a whole. So it is in our interests to ensure we have labour available for seasonal work that needs to be done straightaway in order to get the maximum economic outcome and the flow-on effects for the wider community.

I should say that I do not think the only reason it is hard to find labour for some of those seasonal work tasks is purely that people are not available in Australia to do it. There are certainly people who are long-term unemployed who have difficulty getting unskilled work. There is also a very real issue of infrastructure, particularly housing. I cannot speak as knowledgeably about other states but I do know that in parts of my own state of Queensland there are people who are prepared to go and do the work but there is nowhere adequate for them to live whilst they are doing that work. That is a significant problem, and it is not going to be overcome if you import people from the Pacific islands or anywhere else—they are still going to need decent accommodation. That issue is touched on a bit in the report, but I want to emphasise that it is not just a matter of scooping up a group of people and dropping them in where the work needs to be done and it will all magically get done. There is infrastructure, particularly housing but also other social infrastructure, required as well—and because the work is seasonal that creates an extra problem.

The members of the committee were reasonably frank about saying that other political issues at the moment, particularly the controversy over the 457 temporary skilled worker visas and over the workplace laws changes, and looming elections and all those sorts of things made it a bit difficult to be definitive in this area. I think they deserve some credit for being somewhat up-front about that. But they also indicated that in not coming to a recommendation they were certainly not suggesting that we should just dismiss the idea. I think there was a very clear indication from the committee that the idea was worthy of further exploration, that it was likely to still be needed, that it was not likely to be a temporary problem that will go away and that it would need further consideration. I urge the government and the relevant ministers, in particular the immigration and employment ministers, to consider this report more fully. I urge other senators as well, because I think it is an issue that needs to be grappled with.

I would have liked to go further and, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett, I agreed with your additional comments. You quite wisely said that the time is right and the evidence is sufficient to give it a trial in a particular region and see how it goes. There are examples we can draw on—and the report does this—of other countries that have similar programs. Canada in particular was touched on, and I think the evidence shows that that works fairly well.

I know from the immigration side of things, where I have got more expertise, there is always what I would call a paranoia about people coming into this country and not leaving. That is a valid concern, and some—not all, but some—of the Pacific island nations that we would potentially draw seasonal workers from do have a higher proportion of overstayers. But I do not think we can turn away from the potential economic benefit for our country. There is also a clear economic benefit for some of those Pacific island countries, and that is important both for them and for our nation’s wider relationships with them. I do not think we can turn away from that purely because a few people might overstay. The Canadian experience has shown that overstaying is not a significant problem if you structure the visa appropriately. There is a very strong incentive to go home again so you can come back again and get further work.

I appreciate there are always difficulties and administrative problems. As senators probably know, literally millions of people enter this country each year. We now have close to half a million come in on various forms of temporary or permanent residency visas, as well as millions who come in on tourist visas, visitor visas and others. So the only way to solve the problem of overstaying is to stop people coming in, and clearly that is ludicrous and very much against our own interests. So you should take all steps to minimise overstaying and other issues like illegal working, but you certainly should not respond to that by stopping people coming altogether.

For me, the most compelling argument—and this is the core reason why I think we should progress with this—for exploring immediately and moving immediately towards trialling Pacific island labour is the reality of what we already do. We already have a working holiday visa program which is growing enormously each year. It is now taking in nearly 110,000 people a year. It is the program in which people can come here, as the visa says, and work, including in seasonal industries. They also go off and have some holidays. If they do enough work in that period then, depending on which country they are from, they can stay a second year. We have had over 100,000 for at least two years in a row, and it is projected to continue to increase. They come predominantly from Europe, North America and Japan.

That program, and particularly so when the number of places was increased most recently by the minister, was actively marketed as a solution to the problem of seasonal labour. And it certainly is part of the solution. But that is a group of people—over 100,000—who are coming here, as the visa says, partly to have a holiday. They can come here and do a bit of work, and if it is a bit of a pain in the neck and they do not need any more money or if they hook up with somebody then they can go. It is not exactly the most reliable labour force for people. Compare that to people who are brought in on a visa that is specifically to do work in a certain area for a certain period of time on a specific task; I would suggest that is much more manageable and much more likely to result in fewer administrative problems and less overstaying and those sorts of things than with people who just come in and who can basically come and go as they please.

We cannot underestimate the reality, and I think it is quite a reasonable perception, frankly, from people in Pacific island countries who know that we are bringing in 100,000 and more people from western Europe and North America to do precisely this sort of work and have a holiday while they are here but we will not let people from the Pacific islands in to do it. I am not surprised that some of them get a bit offended about that and ask: ‘Why not us? Why can’t we come in and do this work? Why are you letting other people come in from western Europe and North America to do it?’

That is the clearest argument. We already have people coming here on temporary visas to do this. Let us do it in a more organised and focused way, and let us do it with people from our own region. It would benefit our networks with our region. It would benefit relations in our own region. It would benefit the economies of those nations in our own region who very much need that help. I am not saying it is the panacea; I am not saying it is going to make everything perfect for those nations either, but it is a positive step forward and I think with the right protections it could be done. I strongly urge the federal government to take up your suggestion, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett.

Question agreed to.