Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the establishment and ongoing implementation of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, a significant bipartisan initiative designed to address chronic workforce shortages in regional and rural Australia;

(2) recognises the role of the former Government in consolidating the Seasonal Worker Programme and Pacific Labour Scheme into the unified PALM scheme in 2021, streamlining Pacific labour mobility and enhancing regional cooperation;

(3) notes that the PALM scheme provides a vital workforce for Australian farmers, growers, food processors, and regional businesses, particularly in horticulture, meat processing and essential services—sectors that face ongoing labour constraints;

(4) further recognises the mutual benefits of the PALM scheme, delivering reliable employment and remittance opportunities to workers from nine Pacific Island nations and Timor-Leste, while strengthening Australia's diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with our Pacific family; and

(5) affirms Australia's responsibility as a regional partner, upholding its moral and regional leadership responsibility as a trusted partner in Pacific development.

I rise to speak today in support of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, known to many as the PALM scheme, which has been a significant and positive force in supporting Australia's regional and rural employers and building stronger relationships with our Pacific island neighbours and Timor-Leste. The PALM scheme is a significant bipartisan initiative. It allows Australian employers, particularly those in rural and regional areas, to access a reliable pool of workers from nine Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste.

Introduced in April 2022 by the Morrison coalition government—and I acknowledge the former minister, the member for Riverina, for the great work he did in this space—the PALM scheme replaced earlier programs, the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme, and in doing so it brought together the best of both worlds: economic opportunity for our Pacific neighbours and a reliable workforce for Australian employers. This scheme is truly a win-win for both Australia and our Pacific family.

Australian businesses benefit from the productivity and dependability of the PALM workers. Meanwhile, the Pacific and Timor-Leste nations gain valuable skills and, importantly, income, which they send back to their families through remittance. This money is critically important to these communities. It supports families, strengthens communities and lifts entire economies. According to data published last year, $212 million in remittances and superannuation flowed back to Pacific nations and Timor-Leste from long-term PALM workers, which is absolutely fantastic for their communities. Short-term workers remit on average $1,061 a month to their families, which has proven critical in supporting the livelihoods of those workers and, in particular, their families.

The economic benefits to Australia are substantial too. According to the Australia Institute brief published in September 2024, approximately 31,000 PALM workers in Australia contributed nearly $1 billion to our economy through living expenses and taxes. However, while we celebrate the success of the PALM scheme, we must also confront the challenges that have emerged under the Labor government which threaten its effectiveness.

In 2023 Labor imposed a minimum requirement that PALM workers must be guaranteed 30 paid hours every week. This decision totally disregards the seasonal and weather-dependent nature of farm work. Forcing a flat minimum of 30 hours per week every week was simply not workable. Industry bodies warned the government that this was inflexible and would cause employers to walk away. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened. The number of PALM workers in agriculture fell by a whopping 20 per cent in just a little over a year, threatening the sustainability of the scheme. Thankfully, after pressure from the coalition and industry groups, the Labor government introduced a partial backflip. The July 2024 guidelines amended the minimum hours of work for short-term workers from 30 hours per week averaged over four weeks to 120 hours over that same time period. This was a necessary and welcome step forward, but it should never have happened in the first place.

But this is only a temporary fix. The current August 2025 guidelines extend this averaging provision only to 31 March 2026. After that, as things stand, the scheme will revert to the rigid 30 hours minimum every week. The government has offered no clear position or permanent solution beyond that date, leaving farmers and workers in a state of uncertainty. This is totally unacceptable for farmers and they need clarity. Workers need flexibility and our Pacific neighbours need continuity. We need a policy that understands the realities of seasonal, weather-dependent work, preferably extending the averaging period to eight or even twelve weeks, as industry bodies have suggested.

The PALM scheme is too important to Australia, and too important to the Pacific, to be compromised. I urge the government to listen to industry, to engage constructively with all those stakeholders and to commit to a permanent, flexible framework that ensures the scheme's ongoing success. Let us protect the PALM scheme for our farmers, our neighbours and, in particular, our future. When it comes to the PALM scheme, why is it so important to Australian farmers? Because, quite often, we find the average Australian doesn't want to do this work. This is where our Pacific Islander friends come to do the heavy lifting, to save farmers and make sure their farms are profitable and to make sure that food and veggies get on the table of Australians. This is something that's so important—and, as I said before, it is very much also of benefit for our Pacific neighbours, who obviously take the funds they make in Australia back home to support their families.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, or the PALM scheme, provides a key workforce in our Northern Territory, with almost 1,000 workers in over 30 locations, so far, in this year alone—with more expected, of course, as our mango season quickly approaches. Most of the PALM scheme workers have been from Timor-Leste, but they're also from Vanuatu. That's 30 NT employers, largely in agriculture but also in hospitality and the care sector.

Earlier in the year I attended an event at our university, Charles Darwin University, to welcome workers from Papua New Guinea. They're here in Alice Springs and Katherine to train and work in the early childhood sector, under what is a pilot with the PALM scheme. This is part of our commitment to expand and improve the PALM scheme to address more of Australia's workforce shortages, whilst also developing long-term expertise that will strengthen domestic labour markets in nations of our Pacific family. Fourteen Australian accredited educators from PNG have been employed by two approved employers—one, as I said, in Katherine and one in Alice Springs, where local educators have been a bit hard to find. This means there are more early childhood education spaces to support more Australian parents participating in the workforce.

Our government has made a substantial commitment to the PALM scheme, investing $440 million to expand and fundamentally improve its operation. This is a direct investment in the success of Australian businesses and regional economies. Since we came to office in 2022, the PALM scheme has seen remarkable growth. It has expanded from approximately 8,000 workers in March 2020 to over 31,000 workers as of June this year. That significant increase includes over 28,000 workers specifically placed in the agriculture and meat-processing sectors, demonstrating our commitment to addressing critical labour shortages in those industries.

The scheme is highly valued by Australian employers, by industry, by participating countries in the Pacific and Timor-Leste and by those who come to Australia to work. It supports the economic development of the Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste, which in October this year will become part of ASEAN. Allowing workers to take up jobs in Australia means they not only build skills but send income home to support their families and communities.

An ANU/World Bank survey of more than 2,000 Pacific workers found that 98 per cent would recommend the scheme to others—to friends, to family—and 92 per cent wanted to work under the scheme again. So, that's just eight per cent who had a go and thought it was awesome, but half of those said they would recommend it to others. But the overwhelming majority are very keen on it, indeed. On average, a PALM scheme worker can save or send home about $1,500 a month, which is often about nine to 10 times more than they would be able to earn in their home countries. That funding is vital for the families, covering the costs of food and other essentials as well as education and health. It's even used to start small businesses and build homes, directly contributing to economic growth and job creation.

We're also actively embedding skills development as a key feature of the scheme, empowering workers with new capabilities that they can take back to their own communities, fostering long-term development—and not just capacity development but capacity strengthening. The PALM scheme fundamentally strengthens Australia's diplomatic, economic and cultural ties with our Pacific family and Timor-Leste, reinforcing our shared future and responsibility in the region.

In the time remaining I want to reflect quickly on a visit I made last week to Timor-Leste, representing the Deputy Prime Minister, where I spoke with a number of members of the Timor-Leste government as well as the President of Timor-Leste. Everyone in that country has only good things to say about the PALM scheme, and they want to see it increased. They see all the benefits it brings to their country, and we're very proud to partner not only with Timor-Leste but with many of our Pacific island countries. We'll keep working on the PALM scheme to get it even better.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a bouquet and a brickbat. I want to thank the government for putting in place the Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill, because I think it will ensure that Australian financial institutions support our friends in the blue Pacific, make sure they have a presence in those Pacific island nations and, hopefully, make sure they do the right thing when it comes to the remittances for those Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme workers when they go back home, or indeed when they're working here in Australia and sending their money back home—the fact that most of that money, if not all of it, should be going back to their families and villages, which benefit so greatly from it. The fruits of the labour of those PALM workers should be being realised in those Pacific island nations, and I specifically refer to Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and of course Timor-Leste.

The PALM scheme is a good scheme. And here is the brickbat: you can't get it all your own way, Labor. I am aghast at the fact that, in its first term of government, Labor wanted to unionise the PALM scheme. I say that because Labor wanted to force a paid minimum of 30 hours a week, every week. Members from regional areas know that seasonally, and for a variety of other reasons, the work just isn't there to provide for a paid minimum of 30 hours each and every week. And we saw that the number of PALM workers in agriculture fell by more than 20 per cent, from 21,915 workers in July 2023 to 16,705 in September 2024, on the back of this unionisation by Labor—because they've got to make friends with the union movement; they've got to do what the union people tell them to do.

The government backflipped in May 2024 when I belled the cat on this, and they enabled 120 hours to be guaranteed but averaged over four weeks until 1 July 2025. That date is important, because that date has come and that date has gone, and we are now seeing farmers not having, as the shadow minister quite correctly pointed out, clarity on this very important issue. Where does the government stand when it comes to hourly work, weekly work or whatever the case might be? Farmers need clarity, and so do the workers. There is no certainty for farmers or industry going forward as to what the rules will be. That is incumbent upon this government. It's good enough to spend $600 million on a Pasifika Rugby League team in the National Rugby League competition, and I'm not against that policy idea, because I think what we have that our friends further to the north will never have are those Fs that are so important when it comes to our Pacific friends: faith, family and football. They are going to be so important going forward. They don't play rugby league in China, but we play it here and we play it very well, and PNG is the only country in the world which has rugby league as its national sport.

We should be doing everything we can to make sure that we maintain those bonds of friendship, those strong diplomatic ties. Call it soft diplomacy. Call it whatever you like. But nobody loves their rugby league more than those people in the Pacific islands. Unfortunately they all go for Queensland in the State of Origin, but, even that aside, we need to foster those relationships and we need to make sure that those Pacific island nations—those nine I mentioned and Timor-Leste—understand that Australia is their greatest friend. Let's not muddy the waters by having measures in place in the PALM scheme which are onerous or going to deter workers or Australian farmers from making sure that those strong bonds and economic ties continue long into the future.

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

I have to say I'm a little bit confused by what is before us, which we're debating, and what is being argued by the opposition. The motion that's before us is quite reasonable. It acknowledges and notes the importance of the PALM scheme and how it provides a vital workforce for Australian farmers, growers, food processors and regional businesses. It acknowledges the role and the importance of the PALM scheme for our Pacific neighbours and for guest workers who come to this country and the opportunity that they have to earn remittances here and send them home. It acknowledges the moral and regional leadership role that we can play. I would say our parliament is in agreement with all this. It is in that spirit that our government has sought to improve the PALM scheme from what we inherited from those opposite. It's disappointing that they stand up here and seek to water down all the strengths that we've put in place to protect the integrity of the scheme.

Let's remember what we inherited. We inherited a system which previously was made up of two programs, the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme, which were rife with exploitation. Labour hire companies were exploiting workers. They were also exploiting farmers, growers and regional businesses. We knew that from the evidence from those farms, businesses and industries and we knew that from the workers. So what we did in government was acknowledge how important this scheme could be, not just for the workers and the countries they travelled to Australia from but also for our growers. We sought to bring together employers, industry, unions and government to tackle the exploitation problems that we had in these industries, to seek to enhance the system and to make sure that we were creating a sustainable worker program.

Since we've come to government, we have seen the scheme grow to over 31,000 workers as of June 2025. This is growth under our watch. We've also seen a growth in the number of new direct employers coming in. Under the scheme, which our government has improved, we have seen more direct employment, with more growers, more farmers and more meat-processing businesses, including big meat processors in my electorate, participating in the scheme. But this has come about not because of those opposite ranting and raving in this place but because of the direct advocacy of groups, businesses and organisations that want to see the scheme survive. I want to give a shout-out to AUSVEG and their chair, Bill Bulmer, for their advocacy and the practical way in which they suggested changes to our government to enhance the program. We're trying to improve it to make sure that workers don't get exploited; that, when people come here on this program, they get the hours they need to earn the money that's required to make their experience worthwhile; and that, when they're here, it is an experience in which they have good accommodation, they have support in terms of health care and they're able to send something home.

It is because of that relationship—of working with unions, employers, the sector and organisations like AUSVEG—that we've been able to change the system to adapt to what the industry needs and what the workers need. That is why it is growing. A direct employment relationship is always better. It is better for the worker, and it is better for the business. They have the integrity of knowing who their employees are and knowing that they are not being exploited by the unscrupulous labour hire companies that riddled the sector for decades—and still are a problem in some areas, and we are working with the industry to improve it.

We've already heard from speakers on this side about how important labour mobility schemes like PALM are to creating economic opportunity and strengthening connections with people in our region. We've also established the pathway for workers who want to stay in Australia and the pathway to permanent residency—something that has been raised by farmers and the industry. PALM, under us, is working. Through continued engagement with unions, employers and the sector, it will continue to grow and ensure that people who come here—whether short-term or long-term—are treated with respect.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Sovereign Capability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for bringing forward this important motion on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme, or PALM. I fully support this motion and echo my colleagues' sentiments. The PALM scheme is not only a vital workforce solution for our agriculture and regional industries; it is also an important diplomatic initiative for relations with our international neighbours. The scheme holds particular significance for my electorate of Dawson, which boasts a large farming industry and whose largest winter crop includes tomatoes, beans, corn, capsicums—and let's not forget the famous Bowen mangoes. I'm pleased the PALM scheme enjoys bipartisan support. I commend the government for continuing to back this initiative, which was established under the previous coalition government. However, it is essential that we don't just maintain this program but invest further in its growth and refinement. The need is real, and the benefits are profound.

The PALM scheme was launched by the previous coalition government in 2021 to address the growing and persistent challenge to recruit seasonal labour in key industries. The scheme was introduced to streamline and consolidate previous schemes while creating better access to international workers for sectors like agriculture, meat processing, hospitality and aged care—industries that often struggle to attract enough local workers, particularly in rural and regional areas. As a third-generation tomato farmer myself I've experienced firsthand the difficulty of finding reliable seasonal labour. It was a constant challenge—one that many of my neighbours and fellow farmers across the country still face today. Crops don't wait; they must be planted and harvested within a narrow window. If there's no one to do the picking, the produce is left to rot in the fields and drop on the ground. That's a loss not only for the farmer but to our supply chains and ultimately to the household budget of every Australian.

The PALM scheme provides certainty. With a reliable and willing workforce, farmers can plan with confidence. They know they can plant a full crop and have the hands they need to harvest it. Without that certainty, many are forced to scale back, and when supply drops, prices go up. It's the simple law of supply and demand. Labour shortages for rural and regional Australian farms mean high grocery prices at the checkouts. Weather and market volatility already make farming unpredictable enough. Removing the stress of finding workers through the PALM scheme makes a real difference in the day-to-day operations of farms right across Australia. The scheme is also helping to address critical skills shortages in other sectors. From aged care to food services to hospitality, regional and remote businesses often struggle to find people, and they need to keep operating. The PALM scheme fills these gaps with workers who are ready, capable and eager to contribute. Many employers invest in on-the-job training—building skills that last a lifetime—whether the workers return home or stay on for longer placements.

But the benefit of this program extends far beyond our farms and the checkout. It is an important program for partnerships with our regional neighbours. The PALM scheme provides workers from participating countries with the opportunities to earn significantly higher incomes than they could at home. These workers then use their earnings to further support their families and invest in their own communities, and often return home with new skills and financial security. The scheme is also a massive boost in international diplomacy and affirms Australia as a key leader in the region. The PALM scheme is a true partnership program in a time when geopolitical influence in the region is increasingly contested. Programs like the PALM are not just economic policy; they're good foreign policy.

There are many success stories: workers who have gone home to start businesses, support relatives through school or build houses. Others have stayed on through extended placements and become integral parts of the Australian communities they serve. It's a model that uplifts individuals, communities and industries, both here and abroad. That is why I strongly support the continued advancement and expansion of the PALM scheme. So let's look after the PALM scheme. If it ain't broke, let's not try to fix it.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to speak about one of the great success stories—the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme or PALM. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the incredible contribution of Pacific Islander people to our nation. They are amongst the friendliest and most resilient individuals I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. Many leave their families behind for extended periods, making significant personal sacrifice in the hope of creating better opportunities for their children and loved ones back at home. These workers come to Australia, the best country in the world, not just to seek opportunity but to contribute meaningfully to our agricultural sector and other sectors like the care economy through seasonal work. They take on physically demanding jobs that are critical to our supply chains. They pay taxes and help strengthen Australia's revenue base, yet they often do this without the same entitlements and benefits many Australians take for granted. If it rains and there is no work, they don't get paid. There is no guaranteed income or safety net. Despite this uncertainty, they continue to show up with determination and good spirits. Their contribution deserves recognition and respect. This scheme is delivering for regional Australia, for our Pacific neighbours and for the communities I'm proud to represent in the Hunter region.

When we came into government we inherited a system that was under strain. Critical labour shortages were holding back our productivity in agriculture, meat processing and other essential services. Businesses in the Hunter were crying out for workers, and they were being let down. But under Labor we've acted. We've expanded the PALM scheme from around 8,000 workers in March 2020 to over 31,000 as of June this year, 2025. Of those, more than 28,000 are working in agriculture and meat processing, industries that are the lifeblood of our region. It's great to have the member for Hunter here tonight with us in the Federation Chamber, because just across our electoral boundaries he's got the terrific Kurri Kurri abattoir and I know that there are PALM workers in that abattoir—and let me tell you it has some of the best meat you will ever eat; I recommend it. This is no accident. It is the result of having a coordinated policy, listening to our communities and backing it up with $440 million in investment to grow and improve the scheme. This is the reason we've seen that big uptick from 8,000 workers in 2020 to 31,000 just five years later. Since July last year, more than 130 new employers have come on board as well, bringing the total to around 514 employers involved in the scheme. That means more local businesses can stay open, they can meet food supply demand and they can keep local Australians in jobs, because they've got the support that they need.

This scheme does more than just fill jobs. It builds communities. PALM workers are becoming part of the social fabric of our towns, particularly in regional and rural areas. They're scoring tries on the footy field, they're joining our churches, they're volunteering with the firies and, in the process, they're becoming our friends and our neighbours. We're creating bonds that will last a lifetime. Right across the Hunter I see the contribution of these workers not just in economic terms but in heart and spirit. Let's be clear. When PALM workers are safe, supported and valued, we all benefit. That's why we've brought the scheme's delivery into the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, to ensure there are proper safeguards and protections in place and to prevent exploitation. This government doesn't just talk about fairness; we deliver it.

The benefits of this scheme extend well beyond our borders. On average, PALM workers send home $1,500 a month. That money helps pay for food, education and medicine and often helps start small businesses back in workers' home countries. It's not aid; it's development that works. We're extending skills development in the scheme so that workers return home with not just income but new capability and new absolute determination. It's soft diplomacy in action, and it's making our world a better place.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on this motion and commend the member for La Trobe for bringing the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, or PALM scheme, into the spotlight. PALM has been an incredibly valuable scheme for horticulturalists in Mallee and, indeed, across regional Australia. I have to say two things from the start. Firstly, Labor has an historic bias against Pacific Islanders working in this country. Why do I say that? It goes right back to Federation and keeps manifesting in the undermining of farmers. Secondly, the Nationals remain committed to the agricultural visa. PALM is a step in that direction but not the fully fledged ag visa regional Australia is crying out for. On both points what those opposite are never able to comprehend is that fruit picking and other types of farm labour simply will not be done by Australians. We have low unemployment, so those who might otherwise do farm labour are able to find other work, if they want to work at all. Labor have pressed on with anti-migrant-farmworker ideology regardless of the employment market or outcomes of labour market testing. Labor puts up arguments that PALM sometimes operates against the workers' best interests, but the reality is Labor have inherited a scheme they don't believe in and are doing everything they can to undermine PALM so that it can be scrapped.

The evidence is clear when it comes to the Vietnam Labour Mobility Arrangement, or VLMA. I met recently with Nathan Falvo of Orchard Tech from my electorate. Nathan's business, Orchard Tech, was selected and approved to take around 50 of the 1,000 Vietnamese workers that were expected in Australia by the middle of this year. The problem is the workers aren't here yet, and the best estimate now is that maybe some will arrive, if we're lucky, by autumn 2026. You can imagine Nathan's frustration when Orchard Tech were told their workers would be here by now. Now they have to find workers to cover them for the period until, theoretically, Vietnamese workers arrive. Both the interim and eventual Vietnamese workers will need to be trained, doubling the effort required of farmers.

Yet again, we see the Labor government undermining regional Australia to appease their union masters. The unions don't believe in farm labour, and they are forcing farmers to mechanise or simply rip out labour intensive crops and grow something that can be machine harvested—or turn their farms into industrial energy sites. Regional populations decline as a result, and you all start to wonder if, to use a phrase the immigration minister is fond of, it's all by design.

Regrettably, speaking of the immigration minister, who made some pointed comments about the Israeli government recently, it appears the Albanese Labor government are more focused on Palestine than productivity. Last week's roundtable was spruiked as a productivity roundtable, and then it became an economic roundtable—then it became a nothingburger for the economy because it was a stitch-up from the get-go for the union movement. There was never going to be any effort made to improve labour costs in Australia to lift productivity, and that's why Labor shifted the narrative. The two biggest drains on Australian productivity are, firstly, energy prices in pursuit of a net zero delusion and, secondly, labour costs and red tape. Labor's solution will be more taxes while killing productivity and growing the size, scope and reach of government into every facet of not just business but our personal lives as well.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) 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.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:15