Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Jobs and Skills Australia Acting Commissioner, David Turvey, has said overseas agricultural labourers could be included under a new visa for lower-paid employees to fill workforce deficits; and

(b) the agriculture sector was in contention for the lowest-tier visa, announced after the Government's review of the migration system;

(2) condemns the Government for its treatment of the agriculture sector including:

(a) scrapping the previous Government's agriculture visa designed specifically to address labour shortages; and

(b) failing to address the labour shortfall estimated at 172,000 workers, putting a handbrake on production and profitability of agricultural businesses; and

(3) calls on the Government to introduce a specific agriculture visa to address the serious gaps in the agriculture workforce.

In August 2022, the Food Supply Chain Alliance highlighted the serious shortage of around 172,000 workers overall in agriculture. This figure was well understood when Labor held its Jobs and Skills Summit in September 2022. The leader of our party, the Leader of the Nationals, went to the summit in a bipartisan way, rolled up his sleeves—as they often are!—and said, 'If we don't face this together, we won't have a worker crisis; we will have a food security crisis.' And, more than a year on, that's where we find ourselves.

I'm so disappointed that Labor haven't managed to address this worker shortage crisis in agriculture in the time they've been in government. We had a solution prior; the previous government introduced the ag visa. That was, I thought, a very good solution, and it was well appreciated by those in the agricultural sector. Labor scrapped the ag visa but have come up with nothing to replace it. This private member's motion is an effort from me and others to implore Labor to get on with replacing the ag visa with something. You don't have to call it the ag visa; call it the 'Joel Fitzgibbon memorial worker entitlement scheme', going back to when Labor had people who cared about agriculture!

People know I'm from the electorate of Nicholls, which has a very proud history of developing agriculture, growing fruit and creating the dairy products that are enjoyed here and overseas and that contribute greatly to our export dollars. There are waves of immigrants who have come from all over the world to work; what happens is they come to Nicholls or the Goulburn Valley, which has been happening for over 100 years, to work. They get enough money and they buy their own farms, and then they employ people from other parts of the world who work hard, get enough money and buy their own farms. It's one of the most incredible success stories in Australia, and it leads to Australians having a better situation in terms of the cost of living. We grow our produce here. We grow it efficiently, and we have generally had high productivity in the agricultural sector. That means that, when you walk into the supermarket, you can find a cauliflower, a kilo of apples or a lettuce for a reasonable price. If we take the tools to produce that away from the farmer, those things either are imported or go up in price—probably both. That's not in the interests of anyone struggling through this cost-of-living crisis.

Labor has not been a great friend of agriculture since coming to office in May 2022. I would argue this government is the worst in terms of agriculture. The IR legislation is making it impossible for the PALM scheme to operate, for business productivity. There is the atrocious attitude to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, ripping irrigation water out of production. There is the biosecurity tax, making farmers pay for their competitors to send products into this country to compete with them. The list goes on. We are 18 months down the track, with no dedicated visa in place. The dairy industry is struggling. The horticultural industry is struggling. All agricultural industries are struggling.

At the Senate food security inquiry last September, AUSVEG reported that 30 per cent of vegetable growers are considering leaving the industry within the next 12 months, while 72 per cent are currently experiencing workforce shortages. Imagine walking into the supermarket and we've got some Soviet Union type situation where the shelves are bare. None of us want that. It needs to be fixed by bringing in overseas workers to contribute to Australian agriculture and by a pathway to permanency, which is what the ag visa did. As I said, if you don't want to call it the ag visa, find something else to call it; I'll support it. But just get something in place so our farmers can do what they need to do, which is make sure that people working in the supermarket have got good, clean, affordable produce to ease all the other issues they're facing in the current cost-of-living crisis.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think the member for Nicholls was here during the glory days of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments! The last government promised the world when it came to agriculture.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The glory days!

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I say that with sarcasm in inverted commas. They promised they would have an agricultural visa. In fact, they were going around with the National Farmers Federation saying 100,000 people would come here with no TSMIT, no industrial protection, for workers. That's what they were going around doing. They got elected in 2013. They announced in 2018 that they would have this agricultural visa. Of course, Prime Minister Turnbull didn't want to have a bar of it. They announced it in 2018 and what happened? Nothing happened. In 2021, the now Leader of the Opposition—he was the immigration minister at the time—started running around the countryside saying for months that the promised ag visa would be up by Christmas. What happened? Nothing at all. How many workers came by Christmas 2021? None—not one. How many workers had come by the election in 2022? None—nil. None came. Those opposite were in power for nine years and had done absolutely nothing by the 2022 election. And they proceed to give us lectures about getting this ag visa.

There were shocking examples of exploitation in the sector. We saw unions and other people who were interested in this sector talking about what was going on in the sector. But did those opposite protect anyone? Did they do anything about protection? No. I had forums all around the country, from Melbourne to Brisbane, talking to migrant workers in the sector who were being ripped off, and those opposite did nothing. They come in here and say it was all wonderful during the glory days when, in fact, they did nothing. Now we've been in power for 18 months and have reformed the PALM Scheme. That's what we're doing: creating a well-run visa system, including the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme. We're going to do it the right way. How about you protect workers in the sector? How about you make sure you give a helping hand to the farming sector so that farmers get access to not just the workers but their families to work in the sector? That's what we're doing. How about you make sure that our relationship with the Pacific is enhanced and improved? How about you make sure that those farming communities are sustained, and you don't just run off at the mouth and say, 'We should do something about it,' as so many people opposite did during those nine dark years when they were actually in office.

Now we're in power and we've reformed the scheme. There are about 38,000 people who come to this country under the PALM Scheme, and it's growing all the time. This is good for our relations with the Pacific. It's good for our relations in the farming sector. Those opposite proceed to talk about regional Australia. How about they prioritise those ag visas for regional Australia? None were prioritised. We are doing that in the PALM Scheme. It's not just about aged care, which is another area; agricultural communities like in my electorate of Blair, up in the Brisbane Valley and rural Ipswich, get prioritised by what we're doing in the PALM Scheme. Those opposite spent the best part of a decade undermining and devaluing the administration of the visa system, doing not a single thing in this space to help farming communities, doing nothing to stamp out the unfair practices in the sector and doing nothing to support those regional communities by making sure that the workers that they needed in their workplaces were there.

The member for Nicholls talked about Mr David Turvey, the acting Jobs and Skills Commissioner. I see he was quoted in the Australian in relation to this matter. Don't let a headline or, indeed, a motion get in the way of the facts. Mr Turvey did not say at all that there should be a special agriculture visa. If you listen to what he had to say, he did not say that at all. Of course, he's been fitted up in this motion. This motion also claims the agriculture sector was in contention for the lowest tier visa announced by the government after the review of the migration scheme. However, the government's migration strategy clearly states that it does not propose a special agricultural visa. Rather, it identifies that further consultation be undertaken on a more regulated pathway for low paid workers with essential skills and the role of the Working Holiday Maker program, both of which will take into consideration skills needs in the agricultural sector. So we're prioritising the agriculture sector. Those opposite over nine dark years did nothing.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A little bit of history—history's important and context is important. The current Leader of the Opposition was never the agriculture minister. The Nationals would never give that up, quite frankly, in government or in opposition or at any other time, with all due respect to my great friends in the Liberal Party. The agriculture portfolio belongs with and stays in the National Party, even though I appreciate that the member for Braddon, who is right here, has probably raised more cattle and done more farming than most of us will ever do. That said, I'll take the member for Blair up for asking what we did. He did not give any opportunities or talk about what Labor is doing. I will fill in some of those details for him in a moment.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've had your turn. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme was introduced in April 2022 by the Morrison coalition government. It replaced the Seasonal Worker Program, and that came in under Julia Gillard's ALP government in 2012. The Pacific Labour Scheme came in in 2018, when Malcolm Turnbull was Prime Minister. The PALM scheme allows Australian businesses to hire workers from nine Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. It helps to fill labour gaps in rural and regional Australia by offering employers access to a pool of workers—and they are good workers. They are vital workers. They are essential workers. And not only do they add to all components of industry and agricultural endeavour in rural and remote areas of this fine country but they add so much vibrancy to our local communities, and we thank them for that.

If ever there were a diplomatic way to ensure that the Pacific knows that we care—and I know the member for Blair appreciates this too—it is through the PALM scheme. It is through this labour scheme. I say 'labour' with a 'u', labour scheme. When we talk about labour without the 'u'—another bit of a history lesson. I think Labor dropped the 'u' in 1912. For those listening, for those tuning in, they've forgotten about 'you' ever since.

Honourable members interjecting—

I knew that'd get them going! It's like shooting fish in a barrel, really—because they know how true it is. This is the Labor way. They're forcing farmers to offer a minimum of 30 hours a week over four weeks to PALM workers. Farmers will then be forced to offer 30 hours a week every week from 1 July 2024. This is despite agricultural work being seasonal and weather dependent. The member for Braddon knows that. He knows how seasonal and weather dependent the farm he runs and the operation he has in Tasmania are, let alone anywhere else. The new rules do not work for farmers, particularly in the horticulture sector. What if it is too wet to work? We have workers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing.

I appreciate that we have to look after PALM workers; I get that. And exploitation of PALM workers is beyond the pale. I know the member for Bendigo in her contribution, and I'm being a little bit psychic here—not psycho but psychic! I should probably go to that. So I'll say it before she does: you can't exploit workers. No-one should do that. It is so egregious that some people think that those workers are there to be exploited. And, if anybody has any examples of that, please report them, because it is so important. They need to be paid the right amount of money, they need to be given the right conditions and they need to be treated as equals to Australians, because they are.

But you can't also have that impost on farmers, whereby it's going to make them walk away from the PALM scheme. And that is actually happening. It's happening in Queensland. It's happening in my state of New South Wales. It's happening right across the country. Farmers are now determining that the PALM scheme is all too difficult. They can't afford to pay somebody who is not working, and they're walking away from it. You heard from AUSVEG through the member for Nicholls's contribution. That is why this motion is so important. That is why it is important to make sure we get the PALM scheme right.

It's also important that we get agriculture right, and Labor has walked away from our farmers. They've walked away through the changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They're taking productive water out. That's going to force the price of groceries up. It's going to force the amount of imported food up. We know that the best food is grown in Australia by Australian farmers, and we should thank them three times a day every day when we tuck our knees under the table and eat.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina is right: I will address worker exploitation in the agriculture industry at some point in my remarks today. But first I want to talk about how hopeless the design of the former government's ag visa was. There is a very good reason why no workers were ever granted entry into this country under that visa. It is because, when they designed it, there were fundamental flaws. It was a moment to politicking to try to buy off the farming community as opposed to really delivering for them. This visa was a free-for-all. This visa was proposing that a country could enter into an agreement with Australia and allow workers in to work in agriculture, but they weren't tied to an employer and they weren't tied to a region. All they had to do was enter this country and say they would work in agriculture. That was it. They could go anywhere. We had to take it on good faith and value that they would work in agriculture. It's not going to fix your labour problems on farms if all they have to do is tick a box on their way into our country.

International students, to enter the country, have to demonstrate before they enter the place that they are enrolled to study. If people are employer sponsored to enter the country, they have to demonstrate who they're going to work for and show proof of that. Under the design of the agricultural visa, they didn't have to demonstrate that. Farmers—you're right—did not want to be connected to these workers, so they left that out of the visa design. So there's a very good reason why the former government did not let anyone in. We know how bad and unscrupulous these labour hire companies are in the agriculture industry. I've met workers who've come into this country, thinking that they're going to work in higher education, thinking that they're going to work in the city, only to be picked up at the airport in a black van and driven all the way to Wagga Wagga or driven all the way to somewhere else, dropped off at a caravan park and told: 'We've taken your passport. You are going to be working on this farm until I come pick you up.' People are literally trafficked here. We have seen through report after report people tricked into working out in the regions.

How many media, government, and committee reports does the opposition have to have received? Blueberry pickers are being paid less than $4 a day to pick blueberries. Strawberry workers, people picking tomatoes—when we talk about horticulture and the exploitation of temporary migrant workers in this country, it is just mind-blowing that we have not done more to protect them. Yet the agriculture visa didn't offer any protection to those workers. How in good conscience could any government continued to have that visa on offer given the treatment of workers in this country? Clean-up needed to happen.

I remind those opposite that no visa applications were received or granted within the program prior to the swearing in of the Albanese government on 23 May 2022. So why are we here are debating this? You want to keep a visa that no workers entered the country on. What's the point of that? You're offering false hope to farmers to try to fix their labour hire problems. We should be working with the farming sector to improve the PALM scheme, making sure that it is working and flexible. We need to ensure that any worker coming here, particularly to work in agriculture, has protections. There's a reason why backpackers are reluctant to go to the bush. It is because of the experience of other backpackers, who don't have to wait for the media reports to tell us that working in agriculture is not only a tough job; it can be a very dangerous job and we have seen far too many examples of backpackers being exploited, and they are now choosing not to go to the bush, which is tough for those who do the right thing.

I should say that we know it is not all of the farming community and the farming sector who mistreat their workers, but there is that old saying: a few bad apples do disrupt the applecart. That's the problem that we have. Workers don't want to work in agriculture because we haven't cleaned up the seedy bottom, and the agriculture visa does not fix that. The fact that we have an opposition that are still trying to push it means they have not learned from their mistakes. They've not learned that the reason they didn't grant any visas is the flaws within the visa. If you're serious about helping the farming sector, then you would work with the government, the unions and with the sector to improve the PALM program.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A newsflash from me this afternoon comes to you from the National Farmers Federation, God bless them. They found in a recent survey that the majority of farmers found that the Albanese government's policies were harming the agriculture sector. That's not very nice. At best, this is a poor reflection on a government who promised the world. They promised to leave no regional community behind. Remember the newsflash? At worst it's just another sign that Labor continues to forgo the needs of rural and regional Australia to win votes in the cities. This betrayal is not simply a domestic issue. Australia's agriculture sector is important on a global scale. In fact, we produce enough quality food—ethical food—for 80 million people. Imagine that for a moment. We need to be very clear, everyone: whether you live in the bush or the city, everyone is being impacted by Labor's bad agricultural policies as backed in by the National Farmers Federation. It might be targeted at farmers, but it insidiously weaves its way right down through the supply chain and finishes with the consumer. With a cost-of-living crisis in which families are struggling to pay their grocery bills, everyone will notice that every time they go to the supermarket.

Labor's anti-farming changes to the Pacific Australian Labour Mobility scheme commenced in January. Our farmers now must offer a minimum of 30 hours per week over four weeks to workers from nine Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. Farmers will then be forced to offer an additional 30 hours per week every week from 1 July this year. That's what it says. It appears that everyone except Labor politicians knows that agriculture work is seasonal and weather dependent, as the member for Riverina pointed out. They're pretending to fix a problem that doesn't even exist, given that short-term workers already receive an average of 42 hours per week. It's predicted that this policy will decrease the agriculture workforce by 20 per cent. The PALM scheme has the potential to provide 42,000 workers, but Labor has made it almost unworkable for farmers to sign up.

As a farmer, I understand the basic principles of farming, and I understand that flexibility is the first pillar that underpins any farming operation. Mitigation of risk is another one. My father was a farmer as well, and so was his father before him. When we had a problem with the weather, the old saying was that we just 'farm around it'. They understand that. We farm around it. In order to do that, we need a workforce. Many of our Pacific Islanders end up in the great state of Tasmania picking our strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and blackberries. They then move on to brassicas like cauliflower, broccoli and Brussels sprouts. We all love a good Brussels sprout, don't we? After that, they come up to the really heavy country in the north-west where I farm and where we grow potatoes, peas, beans, broccoli, carrots and onions.

You will see that the workers move around to extend their duration so that they can maximise their visit to Australia and return to their country to look after their families. That's the entire premise behind their coming here. If we are going to inhibit that by restricting that movement, then we owe it to those good folk who do return. The other day I was talking to some Pacific Islanders who work for Costa's, Driscoll's and Harvest Moon. There was one fellow who had brought his family out 13 times. It was his 13th year of coming to Tasmania, and he loved it. We owe it to these island countries to make an investment in their coming back. We don't want to use them as slave labour; we want to invest in them. We need future farm managers. We need people doing courses and investing in IP—agriculture excellence—so that they can then take that back to their own home countries. We do the right thing.

Doing the right thing starts at government level. It starts at the legislative level. And I can't believe, I can't fathom, I can't get my head around how anyone could put our Pacific islander scheme at risk like this, given that what we are dealing with here is the fact that we need to feed a nation—and more. And it's getting worse. So wake up and start thinking about all that goes on in the real world in regional Australia.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the motion from my friend the member for Nicholls. The issue of agricultural visas is a matter of significant importance to the agriculture sector and to our relationships with our Pacific neighbours. It is essential to note that the history of this visa highlights a tale of promises unfulfilled and opportunity squandered by those opposite.

You see, the previous government promised big things about the agricultural visa, but Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rightly questioned it, worried it might cause problems with our friends in the Pacific. However, Prime Minister Morrison, in a turnabout to appease the Nationals, performed more backflips than an Olympic gymnastics team and broke their promise.

Despite its announcement in 2018, there was a pitiful silence for three long years, a period marked by inaction and broken promises. In 2021, the Leader of the Nationals, in a frenzy of activity, crisscrossed the nation, assuring citizens that this visa would be operational by Christmas. Yet, come Christmas 2021, not a single worker had arrived. By the time the 2022 election rolled around in May, the tally remained unchanged—a big fat zero; doughnuts.

Instead of taking accountability, the Nationals leader resorted to scapegoating and blaming everyone but himself for this failure. In his firing line was the AWU, the Australian Public Service and even his own cabinet colleagues. Well, it's high time he looked in the mirror.

In my electorate in the Hunter Valley, we have a very diverse agricultural sector, from viticulture and fruit and vegetable growing, to dairy farming and—one of my favourites, of course—the meat industry. Every day that I am out speaking with our farmers and growers, the common theme I hear is the need for more workers.

Our government is committed to working with and supporting our agriculture sector to access the workers it needs. To tackle the workforce challenges, this government has undertaken a range of measures in collaboration with state and territory governments and with the industry and unions. The tripartite or three-way Agricultural Workforce Working Group, established as a result of the Jobs and Skills Summit, has been working to pursue solutions to better skill, attract, protect and retain workers in the agriculture and processing sectors. That commitment is unwavering. We pledge to deliver for our farmers through a meticulously managed visa system, including the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. We are sticking to our plan to make sure the visa has the right protections for workers, gives employees some leeway and keeps Australia's ties with the Pacific islands as a top priority.

Also, we are focusing on helping our rural areas in Australia by making it quicker and easier for them to get the workers they need. This shows how committed we are to helping our regional areas grow.

Compare this to the last government, which spent 10 years messing up visa rules, especially with the agricultural visa. They didn't handle it well at all. The failings of the past serve as a stark reminder of the necessity of a competent and diligent approach to governance. At a National Farmers Federation event last year, the Nationals leader acknowledged his failings and said, 'We didn't get it right, like the fact that there were nearly a million unprocessed visas is a failure, and I congratulate Minister Giles for the work he has done in making sure we can move forward.'

Moving the Australian agricultural visa to the PALM scheme and having more than 38,000 PALM workers by December 2023 demonstrated our commitment to building good relationships and fixing the lack of workers in agriculture. The PALM scheme stands as a testament to the commitment to the Pacific and our resolve to tackle labour shortages in regional Australia. The benefits to Australian employers, regional communities and industries such as agriculture, meat processing and aged care are undeniable.

The PALM scheme is incredibly important to an electorate like mine. It helps employers who need more workers, especially in areas like agriculture and aged care, and it gives workers from the Pacific countries a chance to earn money and learn new skills. We have also made it easier for employers and workers by reducing travel costs and improving protections now that we are starting a trial program that will let PALM scheme workers bring their families to Australia. This is how you get on with delivering for the community. Those opposite should pay attention. (Time expired)

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to commend the member for Nicholls for this very important motion when it comes to agriculture and farming and, ultimately, cost of living as well. I want to commend the member for Hunter. He got there in the end. The member for Bendigo and the member for Blair didn't. I was mistaken. I thought that we were potentially still in government because the member for Hunter spent a little bit of time and the members for Blair and Bendigo spent 100 per cent of the time talking about our former government! They had five minutes to outline the Albanese government's plan for agriculture and PALM workers and they couldn't. I think that says it all about this government. They spend more time about talking about the opposition than they do governing. The sad reality of that is that farmers and communities and then consumers feel the effects of that.

In my community of Casey we are lucky to have a strong agricultural community. Agriculture is a big part of who we are as a community because of the contribution it makes to our economy but also our culture. I am proud to be part of a farming family. My family came from Italy in 1952 and established a farm in Silvan. Seventy years later, my uncle has finally retired from strawberry farming. It played a huge part in our lives. There is no doubt that he and every farmer knows that getting access to workers is the big challenge.

As the member for Nicholls said, we are short 172,000 workers for food in this country. The government's solution, as the member for Hunter said, is 38,000 workers on the PALM scheme, leaving us about 140,000 workers short for agriculture. But it's really important we understand what this shortage means. What happens every season for every farmer in the electorate of Casey and every farmer across the country is they make a decision. The decision they make is on the questions: How much crop am I going to plant? How many head of cattle am I going to buy? They make that decision based on many factors. One of those factors, particularly over the COVID years and I know for a fact in 2024 and beyond, is: do I have access to workers to pick my product? The simple reality is that, if they are not confident they'll have access to workers, what do those farmers in those communities do? They do the only prudent thing; they plant less crop. If you plant crops in May and it gets to September, October and November, if we're talking about strawberries as an example, and you do not have workers to pick them, they die. They rot and go to waste, and all that time, money and effort disappears. That's before we allow for weather events and other things they obviously cannot control. So they are controlling the controllables. You don't have to be a genius to understand that, if farmers make the decision to plant less crop, there is going to be less product during that season. Supply and demand tells you that, if there is less supply and there is the same level of demand, prices will go up. Then, when people walk into a supermarket, they'll be paying more for their fresh fruit and vegetables.

There is a 140,000-worker gap that this government doesn't have a solution to. If anything, they are making it even harder. They are making it impossible for farmers under the PALM scheme. On 1 July 2024, they want to make it compulsory to offer 30 hours per week, every week, to PALM scheme workers. The reality is that anyone who's spent a day in farming knows that it's so variable and flexible depending on the weather conditions that one week there might be 70 hours and the next week there might be 20 hours depending on how much it's raining, how hot it is and so many other variables. If you set a baseline of an employee working for 15 hours and you've got to pay them for 30, and then, the next week, they work 40 hours and you have to pay them for 40, it is going to drive the cost up for the consumer or it's going to send farmers to the wall.

This is just one of many examples of this government not understanding how it works in business, how it works in agriculture or how it works in industry. Ultimately, it is the consumer that is paying more in the supermarket because of this government's incompetence.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.