Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in relation to the PALM scheme, which is so important to so many regional communities around our country. I also want to express the significant nervousness that exists within our agricultural sector, and particularly our horticultural sector, in relation to some of the changes that the government is considering making to the PALM scheme at the moment, especially with the overlay of some of the other industrial relations changes that are being proposed at the moment. Growers, farmers and those who are coming to Australia under the PALM scheme are quite nervous about many of these changes.

This program, which has been in place for a while, is a very important one for a whole range of reasons. It's an extremely important scheme in relation to our regional partnerships. Many people come to this country to assist in growing and harvesting crops that just would not get grown, or harvested, without access to the labour that the PALM scheme brings to this country, from South Pacific countries, East Timor and a number of other countries in the region. It is valued from both sides of the equation. The remittances that are sent back to these countries make an important contribution to their economies, so ensuring that the program works on both sides of the equation is extremely important.

We need to ensure that there is integrity and that it's maintained from an Australian perspective. The circumstance that we saw arise earlier this year on the north-west coast of Tasmania, where there were 18 PALM workers in one room in a residential property on the north-west coast, is completely unacceptable. These things cannot be allowed to happen. The integrity of the scheme is vital. Each level of government needs to play its part properly in managing the process. We can't have one level of government passing things back onto other levels of government. Each level of government needs to properly understand and enforce its role under the scheme.

We cannot allow any shifting of blame to undermine the integrity of the workforce. We don't want to reduce the confidence that exists in the scheme by having occurrences like the one in north-west Tasmania occurring again. People need to play their role. They need to understand their role. The scheme needs to work effectively alongside the way that farming and horticulture work. Genuine concerns are being expressed to me by some users around minimum hours in a weekly period. For example, averaging that over a longer period of two or four weeks, to ensure that the workers receive the income they should receive—they're going to get the work because the crop needs to be grown and to be harvested—but also to allow some flexibility in the way that that work is conducted, is also an important factor. It's an important factor in managing the operation of the scheme. Nature doesn't understand work to rules. When the crop is ripe to be picked, it needs to be picked. It needs to be processed and it needs to be taken to market, and that needs to be done quickly and effectively.

The growers do their very best to ensure an even growth, to bring the crop on in a way that they can predict and then manage their labour. They are getting good at that and they work very hard at it. The changes in environmental, atmospheric and weather conditions can vary the best-laid plans for those growers. The government needs to be prepared to allow the scheme to work to ensure that there is enough flexibility not only for the growers to be able to manage those variations but also, as I have said, to protect the workforce. It is very important that they also retain confidence in the scheme.

There are growers who have developed relationships with particular workforce segments in various jurisdictions around the region, and those workers come back year on year on year. They are becoming very skilled and valued employees of these growers, extremely valued. So we need to be able to maintain the reliability of the relationship, the longevity of the relationship to the benefit of all concerned and to the Australian consumer, who receives the benefit of the produce that is being put into the market, cost effectively and efficiently.

The workers coming to Australia from those other jurisdictions are receiving the benefit of the training, the regular work, the opportunity to send remittances back to their country and the opportunity to take those skills back to their country. Many of them open their own businesses back in their local communities. There are a whole range of benefits to be gained and are being gained from this very important scheme that provides capacity in the agricultural sector, particularly the horticultural sector, in the country to ensure that crops not only get grown but are then harvested and sent to market.

But what we do not want is big city union decisions being imposed in a way that completely misunderstands how farming works, jeopardising the structure of the system. The government needs to properly engage with farmers, growers and their representatives to ensure that the system works effectively for all of the parties to this process. We know that the government does not understand because we have seen that with changes to horticultural law, which have negatively impacted on the farming sector and community. Those who are driving a rules based system do not understand farming and agriculture and the natural variations which come with growing things and then harvesting them when they are ready to be harvested. When they are ready, they are ready; they have to be harvested.

Anyone who has worked on the land understands those cycles and understands how much extra you put in during the harvest season. All of us who have worked on the land understand that. But the government needs to be prepared to understand and recognise that as well and work not only with our communities but also with state and local governments so that everybody in the supply chain understands what their role is, particularly with respect to ensuring that the facilities and amenities available to these workforces are what we would all expect they should be and that there is not capacity for people to pass the buck or pass the blame when somebody does the wrong thing. Those who have the responsibility should meet the responsibility and enforce the regulations at their respective levels.

So I would urge the government, as I've said, to work closely with the growers and listen to those who have practical experience and knowledge in these matters to ensure that the integrity of the scheme is maintained for the benefit of everybody who is benefiting from it. That ranges from the Australian consumer, who enjoys the fruits of these horticultural practices, and businesses across the country right through to the workers who come to Australia to support the growing and harvesting of those crops.