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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, which was established by the Coalition, has been embraced by industry and Pacific Island communities alike as a program that has efficiently reduced labour shortages, increased financial opportunities for workers and strengthened ties between Pacific countries and Australia; and

(b) the Government's union-backed reforms to the PALM scheme are a huge threat to farmers, consumers, Pacific workers and our foreign relations;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) farmers are now threatening to boycott the program which will force those from nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to be paid a minimum of 30 hours a week, every week under Labor's plans; and

(b) the changes to the scheme were made without adequate consultation with stakeholders and the adverse reaction shows the Government needs to go back to the drawing board; and

(3) recognises that Labor's changes are being rammed through without warranted consideration and attention and have the potential to cause major disruptions to the scheme which would see an increase of labour shortages, a breakdown in Pacific relations and increased costs being passed onto the consumer at the grocery store.

I've moved this motion because it is an important one. It is absolutely imperative that the House notes that the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which was established by the Coalition, has been embraced by industry, particularly horticulture and Pacific Islander communities alike, because it is a program which has effectively reduced labour shortages, which are critical right throughout country Australia. It has increased financial opportunities for workers and it has strengthened ties, so very important, between Pacific countries and our nation.

The government's union backed reforms to the PALM scheme are a massive threat to farmers, to consumers, to Pacific workers and, indeed, to foreign relations. It is that serious. I would also like to acknowledge that farmers, particularly horticulturalists—those wonderful growers—are now threatening to boycott the program, which under Labor's plans would force those from nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to be paid for a minimum of 30 hours a week every week. On the surface, that might seem great. That might seem necessary. But, as members know, farm work doesn't always happen when you want it to. There's the weather. There are such things as seasonal conditions. There are any number of impediments to farming and any number of impediments to enabling workers to be paid that minimum of 30 hours a week every week.

The changes to the scheme have been made without what you would think would be adequate consultation—more is the pity—and stakeholders are scratching their heads and wondering why. They're wondering why Labor has not reached out and asked them for their views. It is absolutely necessary for the government to go back to the drawing board on this, rather than just ramming this through the parliament. These changes have been made without the warranted consideration and attention, and they have the potential to cause major disruptions to the scheme. And that is going to see labour shortages. It is going to see higher grocery prices. It is going to see relations between Pacific countries and Australia affected.

Now, the PALM scheme is a staple of Australia's agricultural industry and its foreign affairs and diplomacy, but Labor's changes—that's 'Labor', as in the government—are causing a major exodus. The PALM scheme allows approved employers to hire workers from Pacific countries to fill roles in unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled positions in rural and regional Australia—jobs that would just not be done. There'd be fruit which would just not be getting picked. And it's so vitally important, nationally, for our agricultural sector.

As of May this year, there were about 40,000 PALM scheme workers in Australia. They are a vital part not just of the farming sector but of those country communities. And the remittances they send home are vital for their own countries' gross domestic product. According to World Bank figures, 44 per cent of Tonga's GDP is made up of remittances sent home by those working abroad; in Samoa, it's 30 per cent; in Vanuatu, 21 per cent; in Fiji, nine per cent. They're a vital component of the GDP of those countries, those island nations.

The program has been subjected to multiple changes. Many, when we were in government, were good. They were done with proper and due consultation. But the union puppetmasters are pulling the same old tricks that you always see, that you come to know and come to expect, when Labor is in power. And it's happening again. There's a cacophony of red tape, created by the Canberra bubble, aided and abetted by the union puppetmasters, as I say. It's making the program unworkable for the 424 approved employers, and it jeopardises our Pacific diplomacy—and Pacific diplomacy at the moment is so important. Never before have we seen the challenges in this space that we are seeing now, and we all need to be on the same page when it comes to making sure that our Pacific friends are being looked after. Now, the unions will say, 'The workers need consistency and more balance;' I get that. But many of the workers prefer to come to Australia; they want to return home with more cash, but they want their jobs going forward. And these changes that Labor are making are not going to make that happen and they're going to make the scheme more unworkable, and it's just not going to be what it was in the past.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

Those opposite will take any opportunity to take a swipe at this government, but this time their swipe is particularly baseless. It's a swing and a miss. Building stronger rights and better working conditions for workers is fundamentally against their core values. It absolutely kills them to see a government looking out for workers. And, Deputy Speaker, I love it.

First, those opposite have tried to take credit for a scheme which was actually introduced by Labor. The Rudd government initiated the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme in 2008, aiming to involve Pacific seasonal workers in Australia's agricultural sector and strengthen Australia's ties with the region. This pilot program lasted for four seasons. In 2012, the Gillard government expanded this initiative and transformed it into a significant permanent program, known as the Seasonal Worker Program or SWP. The SWP maintained its original focus on short-term seasonal work. In 2018, the coalition government introduced a longer-term program called the Pacific Labour Scheme, which allowed Pacific workers to come to Australia for up to four years and to work in various industries located in regional and rural areas. In 2021 the coalition government decided to consolidate the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme under a unified program called the PALM scheme, so claiming that the coalition can solely take credit for establishing the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme is completely untrue.

They try to slam our changes to the scheme and make out that we're leaving it in a shambles when what we're doing is making it stronger. We are committed to increasing protections and getting rid of exploitation of migrants. The reality right now is that workers under this scheme are vulnerable. They are stuck with an employer, are unable to leave at their choice and are without work, sometimes for weeks, entirely at the say of their employer. These workers leave their home, their families and their communities to the benefit of employers in Australia. They deserve better support, and this government is giving that to them.

These changes are driven by our Pacific and Timor-Leste partners, who have highlighted that low work hours is a major factor in discouraging workers. If these workers are going to give up everything to come to Australia, they need to earn enough money each week to support themselves and support their families and communities back at home. But right now the conditions of the PALM scheme visa prevent workers from being able to get other work if their employer is unable to give them enough work hours. This isn't fair on the workers and it's not achieving what the PALM scheme set out to achieve.

These changes are good for employers too. They mean that the workers are less likely to be disengaged and help create a workforce that is reliable. They also mean that workers are likely to come back again, which helps create higher productivity. These changes are a win all round.

Those opposite claim that these changes could cause disruption to the scheme and result in labour shortages. We know that these changes are big for employers, but the changes will be implemented gradually and carefully to ensure that the program continues to deliver wins for both workers and employers. This will make sure that there is time for employers and participating countries to adjust.

The PALM scheme is vital, but it is not the only thing that is important in meeting the workforce needs in the agriculture sector. We are taking action in multiple ways, like supporting growers to hire Australian workers through a range of programs, including the Workforce Australia services and Harvest Trail services. There are also other categories of temporary visa holders that can help fill some of the labour shortages to ensure harvest work continues, such as working holiday makers. This scheme has proven highly successful and, as at 31 May, there have been more than 137,000 working holidaymakers in Australia. Some 12,400 of them were granted further visas due to their work in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors.

Our agricultural sector is important. It's so important to make sure that it has good access to the labour that it needs to operate at the high level that it does. The PALM scheme is pivotal in making this happen, but we in the Labor Party want to make sure workers are treated right, whether they're foreigners or Australians. That is what these changes are all about. They are good for workers and good for employers.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) | Link to this | 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.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion by the member for Riverina is well meaning but contains inaccuracies, and the member has really stuck his neck out by incorporating the words 'a breakdown in Pacific relations'. Pacific relations are at their highest point in 10 years due to the work done by this government to repair them. In the first 12 months of this government, ministers have visited every Pacific Islands Forum member. Across any portfolio, be it defence, aid, migration or climate action, Pacific relations have been improving for just over a year now. Contrary to the words of the previous member and the member for Riverina, over two-thirds of active PALM approved employers have already signed new deeds, with more new deeds arriving daily, and forecast demand for workers in July 2023 is above the 12-month average. The PALM scheme is not at risk.

It is not perfect, however, and so the Albanese government is moving to address worker exploitation and ensure that any employers or labour-hire companies who are consistently doing the wrong thing are taken out of the picture. We have all heard stories about overseas workers on temporary visas being made to live in awful conditions, being underpaid or otherwise being treated badly by a minority of undeserving employers or middlemen. It would be odd if the member for Riverina had not heard these stories.

In February last year, in a hearing into Pacific worker exploitation by the Select Committee on Job Security, coalition senator Canavan suggested that, in his view, the workers were being treated like indentured labourers. He suggested that affording Pacific workers more rights and portability would help push wages up, and that would be a good thing as it would protect wage levels for Australian workers too. I commend Senator Canavan for those comments.

The National Party had Scott Morrison on the ropes a couple of years ago and beat the short-lived agriculture visa out of him—a visa with even fewer protections for overseas workers. For some reason, a lot of our neighbouring countries were suspicious of it and refused to sign up. They thought it might lead to exploitation. We've dumped it, of course. It would be nice if the National Party's policies involved something for the average worker, rather than appearing to be designed to make exploitation easier for the few bad apples amongst the landed gentry.

The government's investments in the PALM scheme announced in the May budget include more skills, development and community liaison offices for Pacific workers and strengthened worker protections and compliance operations. It's a partnership designed to benefit partner countries and to treat individual workers with respect. The protections and safeguards announced by ministers Burke and Conroy on 5 June include minimum-hour requirements, pay parity with domestic workers and transparency around accommodation costs. They are designed to address the deficiencies in the sector. The purpose of the change is not to make life more difficult for employers. It is about making sure that the arrangements are fair and supportive for the workers, who have come a long way and dislocated their lives in order to provide for their families and communities at home. It is also to ensure that those farms and those businesses are viable and there's food on the table for all of us.

The government is making the work more attractive, assisting families to come to Australia and making access to superannuation and Medicare easier. Above all, we are ensuring that an Australian migrant worker scheme embodies Australian values. The government recognises that there will be extreme circumstances outside of an employer's control that may, from time to time, make it difficult for them to continue to offer 30 hours per week. But the PALM scheme approved employer guidelines allow the department to consider exceptional circumstances that could prevent employers in impacted regions from meeting the minimum-hours requirement. Importantly, the new guidelines allow for employers to work with other employers to develop short-term portability arrangements to provide those workers with the minimum hours and thus meet workforce needs.

Labor is growing the PALM program, with worker numbers up by more than 70 per cent since we came to office. But, as I say, the PALM program has to work for all parties. As Minister Burke quite rightly stated in June, exploitation is always unacceptable. We've also created a pathway to permanent settlement for Pacific island workers through the aptly named Pacific engagement visa. If the member is so concerned about Pacific island relations, where are he and the coalition on that? Pacific island relations are about more than just knowing how to carefully sip your sakau. They require hard work, respect and the understanding that is it a partnership. Employers I've spoken to want to work together with PALM workers and the government to ensure that workers are treated fairly, accommodated well and have a good experience.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) | Link to this | Hansard source

What is it about Labor and immigration? Every time they touch it, it's a complete and utter disaster. Just look at the debate going on at the moment. We have a housing crisis, a rental crisis, congestion issues and environmental issues, and they're bringing 1.5 million people in. Where are they going to be housed? What is it doing to rents? Every time Labor touches immigration, it is a complete and utter mess.

Look at this now with their changes to the PALM scheme. They won't consult. They don't go and ask, 'If you're employing people from the Pacific islands, what can we do to make sure that a few bad apples can't exploit workers?' Properly consult. Properly engage. Do the right thing. Instead, what do they do? They say, 'We'll put bureaucratic regulations in place, and we'll give the bureaucrats the option that, if they think there are exceptional circumstances, we might allow an employer to change some of the rules, like if there's been a flood, or if, say, insects damage or destroy a crop. Then the bureaucrats here in Canberra might be able to make a change.'

Why won't Labor consult properly? Why won't they look at schemes like this, which are working well, and then say, 'Okay, if we need to make some small changes because we're worried about this or that, then we will consult properly to come up with a way to deal with those bad apples.' Instead, they just want to make it harder for everyone, and, at the same time, what they do is they make it harder for Australian businesses, who are paying taxes, which, of course, allow Australians to get educated, go to hospitals and get the services that they need.

What we need to see from the Labor Party is proper and serious engagement on this with business so that business isn't impacted by it. In doing that, we can also make sure that those businesses are doing everything they can to continue to engage Pacific workers because the remittances from the PALM are absolutely vital for those Pacific nations. Making sure that this program works is in everyone's interest. It's in our national interest, and it's obviously in the interest of those Pacific nations, which is why—and the previous speaker mentioned it—we're opposed to the Pacific engagement visa. Who else but the Labor Party would come up with the idea that, to get permanent residency in this country, we're going to have a lottery. Not only that, we're going to get you to pay money to put yourself in that lottery. Permanent residency has been debased to a lottery in this nation.

Where do the Labor Party get these ideas? Why is it that, when it comes to immigration, everything they touch is a complete and utter train wreck? It beggars belief. Rightly, Pacific island nations are deeply concerned by this. They're worried that their best and their brightest will be taken and the remittance flow will end. All you're doing is taking the very people who can build the bright future that we all want to see those Pacific nations enjoy.

I sincerely ask the Labor Party to just step back and think, 'Why are we overreaching on these changes to the PALM, a system that we know has worked well?' Alright, there have been some instances where there has been exploitation. We need to address it and we need to fix it, but we need to do it in a way that works with those businesses who use the PALM and who need the PALM because they've advertised and tried in every way they can to get Australian workers to do the job that they want them to do, but they haven't been able to. Instead we've got this very good scheme which enables us to boost the Pacific through remittances and also to make sure that we can get the job done that we need to get done.

Labor always makes a mess of immigration when it's in power. We all know it. Try doing nothing. It might help, rather than changes like these.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government understands the importance of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme to our Pacific family and to the Australian producers that benefit. That's why we are growing the scheme. When our government came to office, the total number of PALM workers in Australia was just over 24,400. In the October 2022 budget, we committed to reaching 35,000 workers by June this year. We reached that goal last December, six months ahead of schedule. The 2023-24 budget again expanded the scheme responsibly, which now provides jobs to 37,700 Pacific and Timor-Leste workers. It also signalled a significant reform to PALM.

The government will strengthen its oversight of the scheme by bringing its domestic delivery into the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. This will better protect workers and improve their experience. It will increase the scheme's regional footprint and ensure sufficient support for small growers. For the first time, we will fund the scheme sustainably. The government will provide an additional $168.1 million over four years to insource domestic operations. We are ensuring that agencies are resourced to effectively manage the scheme's integrity as it grows. I welcome this change because it fulfils our commitment to stamping out migrant worker exploitation. We have zero tolerance for worker mistreatment. We are the Labor Party.

Participating countries will receive additional resources to boost the number of workers taking up jobs in Australia, ensuring that each country can manage a growing scheme on terms that it judges meet its developmental goals while helping Australian businesses access a pool of productive and reliable workers. This will produce a brain gain for the Pacific and Timor-Leste. I know that this is a big issue for some countries in the Pacific, including Samoa, which I visited in June and where there are concerns about PALM causing a brain drain to Australia. Additionally, the government will help over 1,000 PALM scheme workers gain formal qualifications. This measure will deliver a skills dividend across the Pacific, and that is that skills gain that I just spoke about. We will also make it easier for PALM scheme workers to access their superannuation savings when they return home. Finally, the government will provide access to Medicare for an initial 200 families who participate in a pilot. PALM is not only important for the development needs of our Pacific family; it is of clear importance to Australia's national interests as well.

I note in passing that this motion's claim that PALM was 'established by the coalition' is, of course, by no means the full story, as is often the case with those opposite. The pilot was a Rudd Labor government innovation in 2008. It continued under Prime Minister Gillard in 2012, and the coalition rebadged and reformed it in 2018 and 2021. I give them some credit for continuing it but not for creating PALM.

The scheme really matters to businesses across our country, because it fills workplace shortages in regional Australia. In the Northern Territory, which is proud to host over 1,000 PALM workers, we have seen 215 arrive from Samoa and 151 from Vanuatu to pick mangoes in recent times, and I know that at the end of last year there were a couple of hundred people from Timor-Leste in the Northern Territory as well. Thirty-five Samoans have also served as aged-care and disability support workers in remote areas of the Territory, which will be a brain gain when they return home to Samoa.

These reforms will ensure that PALM workers' stay in Australia not only benefits them personally and their families, by helping them send remittance back to their communities—which in places like Tonga is worth up to 38 per cent of their GDP, which is huge for that country and many others—but also benefits, most importantly, Australian businesses and Australian foreign relations with our Pacific family, because—let's face it—it's a more contested environment in the Pacific these days. So it's important for Pacific countries and it's important for Australia as well.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rise today to speak on behalf of the primary producers in my electorate and to call out these poorly considered changes to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. These changes have been forced through by this government without consultation with the very Australians the scheme was originally designed to help. I have spoken to those Australians in my electorate, and they are telling me exactly that.

The PALM scheme was devised with a specific purpose by the coalition in 2021. It was introduced as a direct response to farmers' bumper crops literally being left to rot on the vine or in the fields due to a lack of labour to harvest them. Not only was it affecting those farmers and their livelihoods, but also every Australian was being forced to pay more at the checkout due to supply chain bottlenecks.

At the time of its introduction, employers were able to hire Pacific and Timor-Leste workers in unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled positions for seasonal work of up to nine months, or longer—in certain roles, for up to four years. The scheme recognised that work that involves crops is seasonal, and its parameters were designed and devised to accommodate that. There were checks and balances included, to ensure that the employers were officially approved in order to recruit under the PALM scheme and to provide protection for workers from potential exploitation.

I do accept that there was a handful of incidents where workers were exploited. And nobody wants to see that. Nobody wants to see people living in cramped conditions. But the protections were there. It doesn't matter what industry you are in; there are always going to be unscrupulous people. That is why we need the appropriate checks and balances, to ensure that those protections are there.

But these changes are, in fact, pushing people away from the PALM scheme, and that's going to have a negative effect on those who rely so heavily on those workers coming to Australia to work in these industries—on farmers like the blueberry, avocado and banana producers in my own electorate of Cowper. Its popularity was illustrated by the nearly 40,000 workers working in the country under the scheme, as recently as May this year, and the farmers that I've spoken to were extremely grateful for the old scheme, the way it was. But it just seems that the Labor government wishes to change this for change's sake and without the appropriate consultation.

The most recent budget introduced a minimum 30-hour week, each week, every week, for each worker. This simply isn't sustainable for the vast majority of seasonal producers. It also disregards the preference of many workers themselves, who were able to work longer hours over shorter periods of time, making as much money as possible in short bursts, before returning home to their families—much like our own fly in, fly out workers in other industries around the country. I know I have accused this government of being metro-centric and ignoring the regions before, in a wide range of policy. But I feel justified in repeating that sentiment in relation to these changes.

The blanket process has been made in favour of service industries like aged care. Yes, we need workers in aged care—but over and above primary production? It's not to say that aged care doesn't need that assistance, but why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? Surely the policy could be designed to better fit the agricultural industry, which, quite often, seems to be left to last.

I urge this government to reconsider its most recent changes to what was, previously, successful coalition policy. Don't make these changes. Don't make life harder for our families. And don't prevent immigrants coming over here to pick fruit.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite simply put, these are workers who have left their families behind for several months at a time. I feel and I hope that it is only human for us to see the importance of safeguarding the workers who come here from nations who are our Pacific friends, to work in jobs, to fill labour shortages in Australia. These are workers who have travelled to an unfamiliar land with an unfamiliar industrial relations system, who can easily fall victim to unscrupulous behaviour. Looking at this another way entirely, treating workers from any one of our Pacific friends with respect and dignity can go a long way to ensuring that more continue to do so. And it would certainly go a long way to restoring and strengthening Australia's bonds with and reputation in those nations in question.

Whilst I may be taking an old and regrettable quote from the member of Riverina out of context, workers from the Pacific do come here to pick our fruit. They also staff aged-care homes, where there are a multitude of jobs in dire need of filling immediate-term vacancies. I urge those opposite to respect our Pacific neighbours and the workers who put in the hard yards for the promise of their toil on our lands leading to a better tomorrow for their families.

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30