PALM scheme “irrevocably changed”, farmers urged to do their own recruiting

Farmers are being advised to travel to the Pacific to find suitable workers to avoid ending up with workers who engage in anti-social behaviour or have pre-existing medical conditions.

A once popular scheme bringing workers to Australia from the Pacific is losing sway with farmers who say they are having to manage pre-existing medical conditions, allegedly criminal and anti-social behaviour and disengaged workers, on top of mounting compliance obligations.

Stephen Burdette, who heads an association of approved employers to host Pacific Australia Labour Mobility workers, described the risks of reliance on the scheme as significant.

“The cost of compliance and administering the program is becoming a massive, unsustainable burden for growers. It was a great scheme, but I think they’re over-regulating it. Policy makers need to fine tune it and bring it back to reality,” Mr Burdette told a recent forum of apple and pear growers.

He urged farmers to travel to the Pacific to do their own recruiting to avoid being sent workers with pre-existing medical conditions or having to deal with criminal activity.

National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar says the Pacific labour scheme has been irrevocably changed.

National Farmers’ Federation chief executive Tony Mahar said the PALM scheme has been “irrevocably changed” due to the pandemic, when it was hastily ramped up to fill a critical shortage of workers when Australia’s borders closed.

“Prior to the pandemic, Pacific workers were known to be very reliable, motivated, productive and appreciative of the windfall gain of having work rights in Australia … (but) the suitability of candidates for the work at hand has inarguably slipped,” Mr Mahar said.

“We have also witnessed far higher rates of disengagement. Regrettably, what was once exceptionally rare anti-social behaviour has become more common, reportedly by those disengaged workers, which is eroding the scheme’s credibility in smaller country towns.”AUSVEG chief executive Michael Coote said some vegetable growers have abandonned the scheme due to its “unworkability”, turning to backpackers instead.

Mr Mahar said the NFF, unions, farmer commodity groups, approved employers and Pacific Island representatives have repeatedly raised these issues with the federal government.

A Department of Employment and Workplace Relations spokesman said the settings under the PALM scheme ensured strong protections against worker exploitation and poor worker conditions.

“Demand from Australian employers for PALM scheme workers remains strong - 84 new employers have joined the scheme since July 2023, bringing the total number of employers to 479,” he said.

John Said, who is one of Victoria’s largest vegetable growers, said he was heavily reliant on the scheme despite its difficulties.

“We are having to manage things we ordinarily wouldn’t have to; people with pre-existing medical conditions, we’ve experienced people damaging our houses, people running off, people who have driven under the influence of alcohol. However we are committed to making it work in the absence of any other viable option,” he said, referring to the Coalition’s promised, but not delivered, agriculture visa.

Before the pandemic, men and women who came to Australia from Pacific Island countries to work on farms through the PALM scheme were valued for their work ethic and reliability. Picture: Paul Beutel

ANU academic and PALM scheme advisory panel member Stephen Howes said the latest figures did not show the scheme was losing favour among farmers, but its growth did appear to be levelling out.

“There was massive growth over the Covid period and now there’s stabilisation this year and perhaps slight growth in the long-term stream. We don’t see employers walking away from the scheme. And that’s in the context of only 7000 workers (in Australia on a PALM visa) before Covid, and now we’re up to 35,000.

Dr Howes said such rapid growth was bound to bring with it some problems, but they were not commensurate with its expansion.

“Farmers do think there’s too much red tape and onerous reporting requirements, but they’re not voting with their feet,” Dr Howes said.