Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) | Hansard source

I have great pleasure in joining the debate on the motion moved by the member for Riverina. It's an important motion. Members on this side of the House, particularly the regional members, fully understand the workforce issues facing many in our community, particularly in the agriculture sector and the horticulture sector, in regions like Gippsland.

I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Hunter, the previous speaker, in relation to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme being first announced by the coalition as a merger of the previous Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme. That took effect I think in 2022. It enables eligible employers to hire workers from participating countries to fill roles in unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled positions in rural and regional Australia and nationally in the agriculture sector.

The countries that participate in the PALM scheme are very appreciative and supportive of the program, particularly in the context of where it is delivering remittances to communities where average household incomes are much lower than we experience here in Australia. I had the chance on a visit to Timor-Leste to get a better understanding of the benefit of remittances back home from workers who are working in my electorate of Gippsland and sending money back to their community. So it's an important scheme. It's one that has great support across the Pacific and Timor-Leste itself. The Pacific workers and the Timor-Leste workers help to fill gaps in the regional and rural workforce, and it offers our employers access to reliable and productive workers who contribute not only to the economic life but to the social and cultural life of the communities in which they are hosted.

It's important to acknowledge that, as of May this year—so as of only a couple of months ago—there were about 40,000 PALM scheme workers in Australia, and the changes this government has introduced as part of the budget process, which the member for Hunter just spoke about, have been criticised not just by those on the side of the House but also by the industry itself. I encourage those opposite not to automatically assume that, if someone is being critical of one of your policy positions, it's got a political agenda; it may simply be that you've made a bad decision on poor advice from the bureaucrats.

I say that because a month ago I was reading through an opinion piece by the chair of the horticultural peak body, AUSVEG, Bill Bulmer. Bill Bulmer is someone I know very well. He lives in my electorate. He's a major investor in the Mitchell River flats and horticultural sector. Now, Bill is not someone who is prone to exaggeration. Bill Bulmer is not someone who is going to try to scare the horses for the sake of scoring a political point. Bill Bulmer is a bloke who's invested enormous amounts of money, has employed people on the Mitchell River flats now for decades and is very invested in providing a world-class food resource to Australian shoppers at an affordable price. When Bill writes his opinion piece, I would urge those opposite to pay attention.

What Bill Bulmer had to say was: 'The future of PALM is under threat following a rushed and inadequate consultation on proposed changes that will make the scheme less attractive for growers. It will be a lose-lose-lose situation for workers, growers and consumers.' Bill goes on to say, 'The horticultural industry has led the charge with PALM as its major employer and advocate, but this will be undermined if it is no longer fit for purpose.' Again, this is not a politician criticising a Labor policy or criticising Canberra bureaucrats inside their bubble; this is someone who works with the scheme, who does everything he possibly can to provide a world-class product grown on the Lindenow flats, off the Mitchell River irrigation district. This is a guy who would prefer to employ Australian workers because it's easier, and he's saying the PALM scheme, under the changes being made by this government, is in jeopardy.

He goes on to say: 'Industry has warned government that implementing a fixed-hours requirement will decrease demand for Pacific workers, which negates the intent of the program to assist our Pacific partners. Averaging 30 hours a week over eight weeks is a sensible solution. The change takes into account any adverse weather events and unforeseen challenges with growing fresh produce and will give the industry confidence to hire more PALM workers while ensuring staff are well paid.' Again, it's a practical solution from a practical man, someone who's just trying to grow a crop, return a profit and deliver world-class, quality food to the Australian market. Mr Bulmer goes on to say that, under the changes that the Labor Party is making, he will employ fewer local international workers, we will not provide as much support to our Pacific neighbours and Australians who are already suffering through a cost-of-living crisis will be forced to pay more for fresh produce.

I appeal to those opposite: listen to the advice from people who are working with the scheme on the ground. Don't be so stubborn. Understand that the font of all wisdom does not exist here in Canberra. Listen to the industry and make the changes that will make it work on the ground in regional Australia.

See this speech in context