Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill. But the government's farcical bungling of its own backpacker tax will go down in parliamentary history as one of the worst own goals ever. There was a video doing the rounds on the internet recently of a goalie who bounced the ball into play, but he bounced it so badly that it dribbled into the back of his own net. Well, that video sums up the backpacker tax debate—a bad bounce, a bit of dribble, and an own goal.

This government introduced a damaging tax at 32.5 per cent that had fruit growers in my electorate howling and backpackers scrambling for the departure lounge. Then the government cut the rate to 19 per cent, without doing any research about whether the lower rate would be any more competitive, before reluctantly settling on 15 per cent, but only after getting its arm twisted by Labor and the Senate crossbench. And the performance of the Deputy Prime Minister, the agriculture minister, throughout that period? Well, that was something to behold. The vision of the supposed farmers' friend vigorously supporting a taxation regime that hurts farmers will not be forgotten in a hurry. The Deputy Prime Minister and his Nationals colleagues failed to stand up for farmers before the election, when the government passed the 32.5 per cent backpackers tax, and they stayed quiet in all the months afterwards. It was only after farmers and Labor pressured the government that action was taken.

But, out of that ridiculous period I am pleased to see some semblance of common sense emerging. Members may recall that early in the backpackers debate, on 22 September last year to be precise, I was interviewed by the ABC's The World Today and I suggested that one solution to the issue of farm labour shortages could be to offer a Centrelink amnesty to jobseekers. Essentially, I argued that Newstart recipients and pensioners should be able to pick fruit and not have the earnings assessed by Centrelink. My idea was that such an approach would act as an incentive for Newstart recipients to seek work that might otherwise seem unattractive because of the pay or the travel or the inconvenience, and it would also be administratively simple, with Centrelink simply ignoring earnings from such an endeavour. The thinking behind the proposal was simple. I wanted to get people onto farms as quickly as possible to pick the fruit.

I opposed the government's backpacker tax. I opposed it at 32.5 per cent. I opposed it at 19 per cent. I opposed it at 15 per cent. I reluctantly supported 12 per cent but my preference has always been to abolish it. I opposed the backpackers tax not because I have a great love for backpackers, though I am sure most of them are lovely young people, but because it is bad for Tasmanian farmers. It makes it harder for them to get labour on their farms to get their fruit picked. My sole motivation throughout this entire sorry debate has been to ensure we have people on farms picking fruit when it is at optimum ripeness so that farmers can get top dollar for it on the market.

To date, Australians have generally demonstrated a reluctance to take up fruit picking. It is long, hard work, the pay is not fantastic, it is often isolated and it is seasonal. For people living in towns it can be expensive, cumbersome and disruptive to travel to a farm and back and then have to deal with Centrelink, and then see most of your earnings disappear. For many it has simply been easier not to do it and to instead seek more stable and secure ongoing employment. For that reason, fruit picking has been ideal for backpackers, who are usually fit and young and regard the job as a rite of passage and part of their holiday experience. It also gives them a pathway to extended working holiday visa benefits.

I am happy to see backpackers continue to work on Tasmanian farms but I would dearly love to see jobs taken up by Tasmanians whenever possible. I saw my proposal as a way to achieve that. Unfortunately, the idea was not taken up at the time by the government, which means we lost the benefit of getting Australians onto farms this season. In recent months, however, I am pleased to see the government has opened itself to the idea of encouraging more Australian labour onto Australian farms, albeit reluctantly and only after pressure was exerted.

The amendment before us is not as simple a solution as I had proposed. In fact, it is a red tape picnic. With so many rules, conditions and limitations it will keep bureaucrats busy for hours to work out eligibility. But, it is a start.

As part of a trial to get young Australians working on farms, eligible job seekers will now be able to earn $5,000 a year in 2017-18 and again in 2018-19, with farm earnings not affecting their Newstart or youth allowance. There is a bunch of eligibility criteria, but the guts of it is that someone can, essentially, work on an approved farm for a limited amount of time and keep the cash. It is a sensible proposal that I am happy to support, and that I am happy my party is supporting. Assuming full-time hours, someone earning the minimum adult wage of $17.70 an hour will reach their $5,000 limit in 7½ weeks. Fruit picking seasons generally last longer than seven weeks, so this trial program, which is capped at 7,600 participants, could well fall short. Personally, I would like to see it go further. I know there are many people on the age pension, for example, who would not mind earning a little extra pocket money. How fantastic would it be to see our seniors picking fruit, without the government picking their pockets? Fruit gets picked, older Australians are socially connected and get some fresh air and exercise, and we expand the available labour pool on our farms. It is a win-win all round.

This amendment, as it stands, is welcomed by the industry. I have spoken with Phil Pyke of Fruit Growers Tasmania, and he is genuinely excited about the opportunity this presents. As members know, the fruit and produce of my electorate is some of the best in the world, and this measure will help ensure it gets to market, rather than rot on the vine or the tree. Just today The Advocate newspaper in my state reported on the situation facing Sassafras apple farmer John Brown. Mr Brown told the paper he has thousands of bins worth of apples to pick but nobody to do the work, and he stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr Brown says a combination of the backpacker tax fiasco and other sectors employing his usual labour pool was the cause of his shortage. Mr Pyke from Fruit Growers Tasmania told The Advocate there is a shortage of farm labour across Tasmania, especially on apple farms. He says:

We haven't seen it get to this level before.

Mr Brown described the backpacker tax as 'a disgrace', and I agree with him. He is pleased with this amendment but he says he needs fruit pickers now, not after 1 July:

We are desperate. We're about 60 pickers short and need more pickers in the next few days

It is a shame that this government took so long to act, and that it did not listen to me back in September when I first raised the idea of a Centrelink amnesty for jobseekers. If this government had acted sooner, we would have people on farms right now, picking fruit.

It is my sincere hope that this two-year trial will encourage unemployed people, and especially young unemployed people, in places like Derwent Valley, Brighton and the Central Highlands onto local farms. Workforce planning undertaken by councils in my electorate shows that over the next three years there will be a 36 per cent increase in agriculture jobs in those areas alone. The more local people we can get onto local farms now, the better placed they will be to take up the full-time jobs that may eventuate over the next three years.

We know times are tough and that it is incredibly difficult to live on Newstart or youth allowance. Australians are choosing not to work on farms not because they are lazy, but because it is often more expensive to take the job than not. It can be difficult, in fact nigh on impossible, for people on these income support payments to afford the petrol that it would take every day to get to and from work on what can be isolated farms. There are many in this country who acknowledge the rate of Newstart and youth allowance is too low. Indeed, even the bleeding hearts at that well known hotbed of communism, the Business Council of Australia, have said Newstart is so low it is an impediment to jobseeking.

Unlike the government, Labor is committed to reviewing the level of Newstart. These amendments give people on Newstart a glimpse of what life can be like on a working wage. The $5,000 annual limit equates to just under an extra $100 in weekly income when averaged over the year. I doubt anyone will be booking air travel to Paris or buying shares, but it is nothing to sneeze at. If seven weeks of working on a farm gives someone the positive encouragement they need to get out of bed and groom themselves for a day at work, and then a little more incentive to find ongoing work, then I reckon it is money well spent. And I reckon it is a safe bet that most of that extra money will be spent where it can do the most good—in local shops.

See this speech in context