Comments

Thanks Richard, but my experience with talking to undocumented workers is that one of the key things they believe that would assist them in escaping their situations of exploitation is being able to exit their illegal status without facing immediate removal. They will speak of their experiences of exploitation that has been built into the business models of farms. For example, one group of undocumented workers talked about being paid $2.25 per box of grapes picked, while people working legally on the same farm were paid $4.50 a box. The aim of any amnesty must be to clean up the exploitative employers, not reward people who knowingly entered into illegal work arrangements (although there are plenty who were deceived into working illegally without understanding that would be the situation they would be entering into). Our experience with workers leaving the SWP during the current period has very regularly been due to a lack of work being available and workers losing large amounts of their savings to accommodation and transport charges to employers. The lack of work has often not been the fault of approved employers, as the workers should have returned home but could not do so as their governments closed the borders. However, even now when so many farmers say they cannot find enough workers we are regularly encountering situations on the SWP where workers are not being given enough work. In some cases, workers are required to sit around for weeks with minimal work as the farmer does not want to risk not being able to find workers when they need them later. In other cases, farmers will bring in extra people and severely cut the hours of existing workers, with the existing workers telling us there has been no explanation for the change. The reasons why workers leave approved employers on the SWP vary and there is no simple fix, like denying overtime payments to workers on the SWP. It is the kind of problem that would benefit from all stakeholders getting together and working through workable solutions for the mutual benefit of employers and the workers

Marks Smith Thanks for your comment – please see my other blog on piecework. https://devpolicy.org/piecework-in-horticulture-should-there-be-a-floor-20210406-3/

Jemma, yes it is a good idea to focus on the unregistered labour contractors and growers who are employing workers without work rights. The absconding SWP workers affected need to know that they can return to SWP employment. This has been the case for 15 workers in Bundaberg. However, another 36 workers remain outside the SWP - we need to know more about their situation and to resolve their status so that they can return to work. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-30/vanuatu-nationals-back-working-legally-on-bundaberg-farms/100036232

Sophie, Thank you for your feedback. Enterprise agreements do offer more flexibility in terms of ordinary hours payment. However, it is not clear how long the differences between enterprise agreements and the provisions of the Horticulture Award on overtime will remain.

Mark, Thanks for your response, outlining the counter argument in favour of offering an amnesty to illegal workers. The problem is that many of the workers affected will still be highly vulnerable to exploitation, regardless of their formal right to work. Absconding SWP workers and other illegal workers who have been granted bridging visas with the right to work still find they are dependent on those who have promised them work, with no choice about the lower pay and poorer living conditions they are forced to accept.

Andrew, Thank you for your feedback on the problem of absconding SWP workers. The absence of Border Force action until their recent activity in Bundaberg has been evident for some time. This has been despite the information about illegal poaching given to government officials from at least August 2020.

Good research findings. The CDF is growing in the hands of politicians and making them become powerful. Should be well regulated and some leaders are attempting to challenge its uses.

As an Approved Employer who has lost significant numbers of workers through absconding, I am dismayed at the government's approach to this problem. Despite providing information about where these absconded workers are residing and working illegally ... there has been virtually nothing done (one raid in Bundaberg) to round up the absconding workers and the contractors/employers who are illegally hiring them. This makes a mockery of all the regulation, compliance and scrutiny we as AEs have to endure ... but unlicensed and illegal contractors can openly poach our workers .... without any fear of being prosecuted. The Seasonal Workers are walking away from their commitment to us and other Approved Employers as they know the Australian Govt is not doing anything to discourage the behaviour. A crucial element to the absconding is the totally impractical introduction of the 38 hour a week (304 hours over 8 weeks) legislation. This is the most damaging, negative and unwanted piece of legislation to hit the horticulture industry. No Seasonal Worker wants to be restricted to only 38 hours a week and no growers want to have additional financial burdens of overtime. This is a LOSE/LOSE outcome ... and is the main driver of discontent amongst Seasonal Workers.

The piece is very disappointing. The call for an amnesty process well and truly pre-dates the COVID-19 pandemic, see for example https://www.farminstitute.org.au/vff-union-call-for-an-amnesty-on-workers-without-visas-as-labour-shortages-hit-home/ Undocumented workers are almost never willing to come forward and report employers engaged in illegal exploitation, as they face removal when they do so. Thus, many farm employers have an incentive to use undocumented workers over workers from the SWP limiting the penetration of the SWP into the farming sector. The ease of being able to exploit undocumented workers makes it hard for farmers complying with the law to compete on price with farmers benefiting from wage theft from undocumented workers. We have direct experience of the demand for highly exploitable, undocumented workers displacing demand for SWP workers. Any well-designed amnesty process only lasts for a limited timeframe and will simply allow workers access to an appropriate visa (which would likely be a temporary visa with work rights). That would allow workers to report employers engaged in illegal exploitation without facing the threat of immediate removal and hopefully see action to have the employers comply with Australian law into the future. Any SWP worker leaving their employer to work outside their visa is only likely to be returned to the employer and the program, in any well-designed amnesty. So there would be no incentive for a SWP worker to leave their current employer if a different visa outcome for them is not on offer.

Hi SH, Thank you for your kind comments, and cogent disagreement. All of your points make sense, but I disagree - respectfully - in a few areas. On donor national interest, there is considerable variation between donor countries in the ethos motivating their aid giving, as well as variation in individual donors over time. For this reason, alongside the consequences for developing countries, I think its always worth critiquing aid given in the national interest, and always worth pushing for a more humanitarian approach. When it comes to winning over taxpayers, our public opinion work from Australia and NZ has found most people seem to want aid given on ethical grounds or, at the very worst, for the sake of enlightened national interest (we should help other countries because it makes the world a safer place, type arguments). Being a political scientist, I'm an institutionalist. I also think institutions function the way they do because of incentives and norms, and major problems do not usually stem from low staff capacity. Having said that, I also think that aid actors may not easily be able to change incentives and norms in institutions in other countries. Given this, I appreciate that individual capacity building can, in certain instances, be useful and better than other available approaches, although we shouldn't simply assume that problems stem from low individual capacity. Aid actors should look, listen and get to know a place, or an institution, before designing projects. My guess is that this is a view you and I probably share. As I said, these are respectfully held differences, and I also see the sense in much of what you say. Thanks again for a good, interesting comment. Terence

We employ seasonal workers on our farm and we also have an Enterprise Agreement. Our team enjoy the flexibility to work more than 38 hours and are often asking for more hours - usually happy to be around 40+ hours a week. The additional pressures the SWP team face, including sending some income home to support their extended family means their demand for hours is high.

Reuben Tabel, great stuff bro. Reuben is my school mate (one era) at Malala Catholic Secondary, Bogia, Madang Province.