Farmers threaten to boycott Pacific scheme

Farmers will be forced to hire workers for 30 hours per week under the PALM scheme, leading employer groups to warn that the changes will trigger a ‘mass exodus’.

Tony Burke during question time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Farmers will be forced to hire workers for 30 hours a week under the Pacific Island Australia Labour Mobility scheme, leading employers to warn that Australia’s diplomatic relationships are being “outsourced to unions” and that the changes will trigger a “mass ­exodus of participants”.

The nation’s agriculture industry is threatening to boycott the program after employer groups were advised late last Friday that Labor would mandate a fixed 30-hour-week requirement for all PALM workers after just 10 days of formal consultation with the ­Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

The National Farmers Federation and the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance (AFPA) have warned the changes – to be implemented in stages from July 1 – are too onerous and will be impossible to ­adhere to given the seasonal ­nature of farmwork.

Employers say the changes will force them to find workers outside the scheme, including from backpackers.

Labor has invested significantly in its PALM scheme as part of a suite of policies used to bolster ­relations in the Pacific, with workers ramping up from 13,000 to 37,000 since it formed government last year.

The horticulture industry, which employs more than 70 per cent of the PALM workforce, is threatening to pull out from the scheme and is warning a reduced number of participants will damage relationships with Australia’s Pacific partners.

Employer groups want a worker’s time to be calculated based on the average hours worked over a four-to-eight week period.

NFF Horticulture spokeswoman Rachel Chambers attacked Labor’s consultation process, saying it had become clear that relevant ministers “weren’t working together to ensure the scheme meets the long-term interests of the Pacific and industries it’s meant to serve”.

Industry sources said they felt Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke was intent on ramming through these union-backed reforms while Agriculture Minister Murray Watt and Pacific Minister Pat Conroy were more sympathetic to farmers’ concerns.

She said the changes appeared to be “a proxy for wider ideological industrial relations reforms and fulfilling a shopping list of ­demands from the union movement”.

“From the outside, it appears that the ACTU is running the show, making decisions which will send the PALM into meltdown and damage our ties in the Pacific,” Ms Chambers said.

“Australia’s Pacific diplomacy is being outsourced to the ACTU and they’re botching it big time.”

But Mr Burke said the changes would improve workers’ conditions with workers entitled to safeguards which supported regular income and pay parity with domestic workers.

The government said the reforms came after extensive consultation with employer groups, unions, community groups and the Pacific and East Timor governments.

“Exploitation is always unacceptable,” Mr Burke said.

“These changes will make a huge difference for workers, who may have otherwise been mistreated.”

AFPA chief executive Claire McClelland said employers would no longer be willing to employ PALM workers if it risked being in breach of the program due to a few days of bad weather. She ­labelled the changes “rushed and ill-considered”.

Ms McClelland said employers would be forced to look to alternative sources of labour including backpackers.

“Politicians in Canberra need to understand that there is variability in growing fresh produce, a few hours of heavy rain can make it impossible to access paddocks for several days. Creating unrealistic rules without proper industry consultation will simply drive up the cost of food and reduce the ­demand for the Pacific program,” she said.

“We want to support PALM workers in Australia, pay them well, and grow the program, but the industry needs government to take a commonsense approach to regulation to ensure we can continue participating in the program.”

Ms McClelland said the peak body had made a range of “last ditch” efforts to engage with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations including Mr Watt, who has previously been a strong advocate for the scheme.

“You wouldn’t make it more difficult for good, approved employers in the program’s largest sector to engage workers, if growing the PALM scheme was still a priority – it’s clearly not, and ­neither is ensuring that there is a reliable, productive and well supported harvest workforce,” Ms McClelland said.

Senator Watt, Mr Burke and the ACTU was contacted for comment.