Background Note
New Zealand's seasonal guest-worker scheme
Online only 13 May 2008
Michael Klapdor
Social Policy Section Contents
Introduction
Recent reports and commentary in Australia
National Farmers’ Federation
Unions
The Labor Government
Coalition Parties
Senate Committee report on harvest labour
Joint Standing Committee report on Australia’s
aid program in the Pacific
Pacific Labour and Australian Horticulture
Project
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal
Employer (RSE) scheme
Background
Provisions of the Recognised Seasonal Employer
scheme
Employer Requirements
Countries included in the scheme
Length of permits
Worker Requirements
Transitioning to Recognised
Seasonal Employer policy
Reports on the progress of the RSE scheme and
issues that have arisen
Business and employers
New Zealand National Party
Over-stayers
Issues with living and working conditions
Links to information sources
Introduction
There have been calls for the introduction of a guest-worker scheme in
Australia for decades, however, previous Governments have ruled out such
a program. Recently, the Federal Government and Opposition have stated
that they would be prepared to consider such a scheme based on reports
of the progress of the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme currently
in place in New Zealand. The Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme is the
latest in a long history of programs to bring temporary workers from Pacific
nations into New Zealand. The RSE scheme and its progress will need to
be considered within the context of major differences between the Australian
and New Zealand immigration programs, agricultural sector and labour regulations.
This Background Note presents a brief overview of recent reports and
commentary on the subject in Australia, details the background and provisions
of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme in New Zealand, identifies
issues that have arisen in the short history of the current scheme and
provides links to further information.[1]
The following outlines recent reports on the issue of a seasonal guest-worker
scheme in Australia as well as comments by Government and Opposition members.
The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) has been one of the loudest proponents
for a seasonal guest-worker scheme in Australia for many years. Most recently,
the NFF released a report outlining projected labour shortages in the
agricultural sector as well as a possible model that a seasonal guest-worker
scheme could follow in order to meet these shortages. The NFF’s Labour
Shortage Action Plan, released in April 2008, estimated that
there would be a need for an additional 100 000 agricultural workers
over the coming years.[2]
The Workforce from Abroad Employment Scheme recommends a pilot
program and provides details of a possible model for how the scheme would
work.[3] The proposed pilot is similar to
New Zealand’s RSE scheme in terms of its focus on Pacific nations and
the requirements it places on employers.
Unions have traditionally been strongly opposed to a guest-worker scheme
in Australia due to concerns with Australian workers losing employment
opportunities, the possible exploitation of foreign workers and lower
wages being paid in sectors in which the scheme operates. However, the
Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) recently expressed its support for a seasonal
worker scheme with appropriate measures in place to protect Australian
jobs and prevent exploitation of employees and ACTU president, Sharon
Burrow, also gave qualified support for more Pacific Island and East Timorese
workers coming into Australia.[4]
The AWU’s National Secretary, Paul Howes, stated that a guest-worker scheme
would benefit the Australian economy and would support Pacific Island
nations.[5] A number of
unions have recently expressed their opposition to such a scheme with
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union national secretary, John
Sutton, writing:
There is a tried and true nation building formula
that has stood us in good stead and we need to return to it. It’s called
training our own people, particularly our youth, and committing to a
strong permanent migration program.
Those employers who use the constant refrain of “We
can’t get Australians to do hard and dirty work” ought to stop leaving
the last three words off their complaint. Those three words, “at low
pay”, tell the real story.[6]
Members of the Federal Government have recently stated that they are
considering the introduction of a seasonal worker program but are awaiting
an assessment of New Zealand’s RSE scheme. The Hon Duncan Kerr SC MP,
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, announced in a recent
speech that:
Australia will examine the possibility of a
seasonal Pacific labour mobility scheme and will review the findings
of a New Zealand trial. We want to test the Australian demand for seasonal
labour and the receptiveness to a pilot program ahead of the Pacific
Island Forum in Niue in August.[7]
Foreign Minister, the Hon Stephen Smith MP, asked Papua New Guinea to
prepare a formal paper on possible seasonal labour arrangements during
the 18th Australia-PNG Ministerial Forum on 24 April 2008
and indicated the probability of an announcement at the Pacific Island
Forum in August.[8]
The previous Coalition Government was not in favour of a seasonal worker
scheme stating that, in their view, the aim of the immigration program
should be to encourage permanent settlement in Australia. At the 2005
Pacific Island Forum, then Prime Minister John Howard responded to a question
on his opinion of a seasonal worker scheme, saying:
Well we have had some long standing reservations about
the concept. We apply an open, non-discriminatory immigration policy
and people from the Pacific Island area come in increasing numbers.
We have always had a preference for permanent settlement or permanent
migration… There are some fundamental issues involved in seasonal workers
and it’s not something that in the past Australia has felt inclined
to embrace and it’s not something that we change our policy on regularly.
… I think you either invite somebody to your country
to stay as a permanent resident or a citizen or you don’t. [9]
At the same time, Mr Howard announced that Australia would introduce
a training scheme for Pacific Islanders allowing them to gain qualifications
necessary to enter Australia under skilled migration visas.
The Hon Peter Costello MP, the then Treasurer, reiterated the Coalition’s
opposition to a guest-worker scheme at a meeting of Pacific finance ministers
in 2006:
Australia has never been a guest worker country. We’ve
never been a country where we bring you in and ship you out… I don’t
think Australia will be a guest worker country and I don’t think Australians
want to see that.[10]
A number of Nationals MPs stated their support for the use of seasonal
workers from the Pacific whilst in Government including Kay Hull, member
for Riverina, who believed that it would be ‘a more hands-on and effective
form of aid’.[11]
Since the 2007 federal election and following the introduction of New
Zealand’s RSE scheme in the same year, members of the Coalition have stated
that they are willing to examine the possibility of a similar program
for Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Brendan Nelson MP,
recently stated:
In relation to the guest worker program per se, we’re
having a very close look at the experience that the New Zealanders are
having as they go through the process of trialling it. I think there’s
a lot of support in Australia for the idea of a limited guest worker
program… Obviously we are mindful of the fact that we want to make sure
that every Australian that is able to work is able to actually get a
job before bringing in more people from overseas. But, we’re also mindful
of the fact that it’s a very effective way of getting aid into Pacific
nations … We have an open mind on this…[12]
Former Foreign Minister, the Hon Alexander Downer MP, has also stated
recently that he was not against a seasonal worker scheme and that:
It’s something that needs to be examined I think,
and I’ve always thought that. I argued that in years gone by.[13]
In 2006, the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations
and Education issued a report on harvest labour which held that there
were not enough reasons to introduce such a seasonal guest-worker scheme.
The preface to the report stated that, at the time:
Any exploration of policy which includes in other
categories of entry a proposal for admitting foreign workers is likely
to be vulnerable to populist sentiment at this time.
This is clearly understood by both governments and
oppositions. It is one reason for the clearly expressed view of the
government that a harvest labour scheme which involves foreign workers
is out of the question. The reasons for this are, in part, historical,
and in part, to do with employment priorities and the ‘just’ wage. Such
views find strong support across the political spectrum.[14]
The report did, however, recommend that contingency planning be put in
place for a possible scheme if labour shortages were to make it a clear
necessity.[15] The main
issues the Committee identified regarding the introduction of such a scheme
were:
- the form of the agreement that would have to be negotiated with Pacific
nations
- the level, extent and form of regulation over the scheme
- how recruitment, contracting and distribution of labour would occur
- how pay and working conditions would be determined
- how transport and accommodation would be arranged and paid for and
- who would have responsibility for the welfare for workers and their
social needs.[16]
In September 2007, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence
and Trade released their report into Australia’s aid program in the Pacific.
The report’s third recommendation stated:
The Committee notes the evidence of the importance
to Pacific Island economies of access to developed economies for seasonal
workers, and recommends an active and serious evaluation by the Australian
Government of the possibility of such a scheme.[17]
In his submission to the committee, the Executive Director of the Australia
Papua New Guinea Business Council, Australia Fiji Business Council and
the Australia Pacific Islands Business Council, Frank Yourn, stated that
the issue of labour mobility in the region was one:
by which Australia’s relations with the Pacific will
be judged over the next few years. It may indeed become the single most
important issue in Australia’s relations with the Pacific, so strongly
are the Pacific island governments supporting this… I think it will
happen, and it should happen soon.[18]
Peter Mares and Nic Maclellan’s research project for Swinburne University
of Technology’s Institute for Social Research, focused on the benefits
of increased labour mobility between Australia and the Pacific. They produced
a number of reports and papers on the issue and undertook research into
the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, described by Mares
as ‘arguably one of the best schemes of its kind in the world’.[19] Mares and Maclellan argue that
there are precedents for country-specific immigration schemes in Australia
and that a number of key concerns with the program can be dismissed.[20]
They state that the long-running Canadian program provides evidence that
the fear of over-stayers in such guest-worker schemes is exaggerated and
that there are far-reaching positive effects on the countries involved.[21] The conclusion reached from their research
is that:
Seasonal employment programs for Pacific Islanders
to work in Australian horticulture are not a panacea for the challenges
of unemployment and underemployment in Pacific Island Forum Members.
Nor will such schemes by themselves transform the economic development
prospects of small island states. Nevertheless, a seasonal labour program
does have the potential to make a material difference to the well-being
of significant numbers of Pacific Island workers and their families
and communities – especially those living in rural areas and outer islands.[22]
In March 2008, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute released the
report, Engaging our neighbours: Towards a new relationship between
Australia and the Pacific Islands, which recommended that Pacific
Islanders be given access to seasonal jobs in Australia. The taskforce
which authored the report found that:
Australia would benefit economically from meeting
the requests of Pacific Island countries for access to those labour
markets which have critical labour shortages, and Pacific communities
would benefit from the inflow of remittances.[23]
The report highlights the importance of remittances to Pacific Isla nd
economies. It also warns against linking any labour market access program
to the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations and argues that
Australia should seek concessions such as improved access for Australians
seeking work in the Pacific. The report states that:
Australia should take early steps to follow New Zealand’s
lead in establishing a program that allows Pacific Islanders to be given
priority in gaining seasonal work opportunities in horticulture and
viticulture.[24]
New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer
(RSE) scheme
The New Zealand Government introduced
a Seasonal Work Permit (SWP) scheme in 2005–07 which allowed the horticulture
and viticulture sectors to hire workers on a temporary basis during peak
times, particularly workers from surrounding Pacific Island nations. Previous
schemes in which New Zealand made bilateral arrangements with individual
Pacific nations had been disbanded but the need for workers during harvest
times and other peak periods provoked the more recent push for a guest-worker
scheme.
The SWP was deemed a success and a
necessary means of coping with labour shortages in those sectors by both
the New Zealand Government and Opposition. In October 2006, at the Pacific
Island Forum, Prime Minister Helen Clark announced the introduction of
the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme to replace the SWP. The
new scheme won the backing from a number of Pacific Island nations who
were to make their own investments in the scheme but was criticised by
the New Zealand National Party for what it saw as a rushed introduction
and onerous conditions being placed on employers.[25]
At the time of its implementation, seen as a trial, preference was given
to workers from Samoa, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Having being
judged a success, the RSE scheme has since expanded to include other Pacific
countries.
The RSE scheme was to take over from
the SWP program in April 2007 but after calls from employers and other
groups for more time to meet the conditions of the scheme, the SWP policy
was extended until September 2007 and a Transitioning to Recognised Seasonal
Employer (TRSE) policy was introduced which is to run through to November
2009. Both the RSE and TRSE are now running concurrently in New Zealand
allowing guest workers to come into the country to work for approved employers
in the horticulture and viticulture industries. There are also a number
of other visa schemes that have been in place for an extended period which
are aimed at bringing in skilled migrants from Pacific Island nations.
The RSE scheme was established as a means for employers to meet labour
needs in peak times with unskilled workers from overseas when they are
unable to fill positions with workers from New Zealand. It is available
for businesses in the horticulture and viticulture sectors to recruit
workers to come and plant, maintain, harvest and pack crops. The RSE scheme
places a number of requirements and conditions on employers in order to
participate in the scheme. They are also responsible for employees meeting
the requirements of their permits. There are currently 5000 places available
each year under the scheme and preference is given to workers from a select
list of Pacific Island nations.
In order to hire workers under the scheme employers must first apply
to the New Zealand Department of Labour for recognition as a Recognised
Seasonal Employer. In order to gain recognition, businesses must be a
New Zealand employer and demonstrate:
- a sound financial position
- policies for human resources management and high standards of practice
- that they promote the welfare of workers
- a commitment to recruiting and training New Zealand citizens and
residents and
- that they have previously abided by all immigration and employment
laws.[26]
Once recognised, employers must apply for an Agreement to
Recruit (ATR). Under an ATR an employer must:
- make reasonable attempts to recruit and train New Zealanders for
the job
- pay market rates
- pay half the return airfare between New Zealand and the worker’s
country of residence
- ensure workers have access to accommodation, food and health services
at a reasonable cost
- take responsibility for the supervision of workers
- inform the Department of Labour of any breaches of conditions on
the part of the employee or of any disputes they have with the employer
- pay for any costs (to a maximum of NZ$3000) for the repatriation
of a worker if they breach any of the terms and conditions of their
permit and
- avoid using recruitment agencies which charge workers a commission
for securing an employment agreement.[27]
There are a number of preferred countries whose workers
must be given precedence under the RSE scheme. They are: Micronesia, Kiribati,
Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands,
Tonga, Tuvalu or Vanuatu. Fiji was removed from the list of preferred
countries following the December 2006 military coup.[28]
Workers can be hired from other countries if the employer
can demonstrate an existing relationship with another country, reasonable
attempts to hire from one of the above Pacific countries or can show why
workers cannot be recruited from one of those countries listed.
Meeting the above requirements, an employer can make a job
offer to a worker and then sign an employment agreement with them which
must be for no more than seven months (or nine months for workers from
Kiribati and Tuvalu). There are provisions for workers to extend their
period with the same employer where this is deemed necessary but this
must have approval from Immigration New Zealand.[29]
Once an offer of employment has been received, workers apply
to Immigration New Zealand for a limited purpose visa. These visas prevent
them from applying for other visas or permits during their stay and they
cannot lodge an appeal if they overstay the limit of their visa. Employees
under the scheme have a responsibility to abide by the conditions of their
visa and employment agreement.
Workers must pass health and character checks before being
given a permit and those who are HIV-positive are not eligible for a visa
or permit under the RSE.[30]
The TRSE policy allows employers who are not able to meet the requirements
of the RSE scheme but are working towards it to hire overseas workers
who are already in the country for seasonal work. The scheme was introduced
following criticisms from businesses and the New Zealand National Party
over the introduction of the RSE and the fact that many businesses may
not have been eligible before its implementation in 2007. The TRSE is
to run until November 2009.
Employers seeking TRSE approval must:
- sign a statement of intent to become a Recognised Seasonal Employer
under the scheme
- have made reasonable attempts to hire New Zealand workers and
- ensure workers have access to accommodation.[31]
From November 2008, employers will also have to provide
evidence that they have made efforts to become eligible as Recognised
Seasonal Employers under the RSE scheme.
Employers are given a quota for the number of workers who
have TRSE work permits that they can employ. Workers must apply for these
TRSE permits separately. The TRSE permits are only given for four months.
There are a set number available dependent on the number of TRSE approved
businesses. Workers are not eligible for them if they have held other
permits for a total of seven months out of the previous twelve.
The RSE has only been running for a short period of time
and there has as yet been no systematic analysis or official report of
its progress. The scheme was launched in April 2007 and has been fully
operational since October 2007. The following outlines recent statements
from stakeholders in the scheme, the views of the New Zealand National
Party and media articles on issues raised since its introduction.
Businesses in the New Zealand horticulture and viticulture sector have
been widely supportive of bringing in guest workers from the Pacific Islands
as labour shortages have been a critical issue for the industry over recent
years. However, a number have expressed concern that there are not enough
workers coming in and that the obligations they are forced to meet are
difficult to comply with.
An article from the New Zealand Herald in January 2007 suggested
that despite the 5000 workers arriving as part of the RSE scheme, there
would still be a labour shortage of thousands of workers for the harvest
season. A spokesperson on seasonal labour for the industry group, Horticulture
New Zealand, stated that the RSE scheme was “hellishly complicated” and
only the largest growers had signed up or were able to meet the requirements
it placed on employers.[32] A previous article from the New Zealand Herald, reported
that prior to the introduction of the RSE up to 80 per cent of contractors
who supplied seasonal labour were acting illegally.[33]
A recent story from the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent program on
the RSE spoke to a representative of the kiwifruit packing business Aongatete
Coolstores who described the RSE scheme as born of necessity with simply
not enough workers available:
The alternatives aren't worth bearing or thinking
about. If you can't pack the fruit, what are you going to do? You can't
get the work done - the growers are losing, we as a company are going
to lose, and New Zealand as a country would lose a tremendous amount
of money.[34]
Other industries are also looking at using a similar scheme of bringing
in Pacific Island workers. The New Zealand Meat Industry Association recently
held meetings with Government and unions about bringing in up to a thousand
workers to meet labour shortfalls.[35]
A recent article on a visit by the New Zealand Minister of Pacific Island
Affairs, Winnie Laban, and the Minister for Building, Shane Jones, to
one employer participating in the scheme quoted Jones praising its success:
It is the first year and employers have to bear with
the bureaucracy . . . But it (RSE) has a bright future I have no doubt
about that.[36]
The ministers noted concerns with the efficiency of the recruitment and
employment process with growers calling for a more streamlined process
to vary work-permit conditions.[37]
New Zealand National Party
The New Zealand National Party supports a seasonal work program which
brings in workers from Pacific nations but was initially highly critical
of the RSE scheme believing that it had a hasty introduction and that
there were onerous conditions being placed on employers. In Parliament
on 16 August, 2007, the National’s immigration spokesperson, Dr Lockwood
Smith, stated that his party did not support the RSE and was critical
on the grounds that it was a means of introducing change to the business
practices of the horticulture and viticulture industries:
… (The RSE) is causing massive problems around New
Zealand, which can be seen if one goes to any region where there is
horticulture or viticulture. The Minister knows that I have right here
a paper prepared for him by his officials. What is scary about it is
that his officials are telling him that for a significant proportion
of the horticulture industry the transition to the Recognised Seasonal
Employer scheme requires no less than a new business model involving
major change in culture and practice. The unions have told the Minister
they are right behind this. The unions are using the Recognised Seasonal
Employer programme to impose what they want on the horticulture and
viticulture industries.
…The Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is so dumb;
he does not know how to try to meet the industry’s needs.[38]
The New Zealand National Party also raised concerns in Parliament prior
to the introduction of the RSE scheme over the possible exploitation of
workers and with employees overstaying their permit.[39]
There are no current figures on the number of people who have over-stayed
their work permits under the RSE scheme. The scheme requires that employers
take responsibility for employees meeting the requirements of their permits
and for leaving the country when it has expired. Employers can be charged
up to NZ$3000 to cover the cost of repatriation of over-stayers. The previous
Seasonal Work Permit did not place the same requirements on employers
and there were reported to be a large number of over-stayers.[40]
Under the RSE, employers are made to ensure that workers are able to
access adequate accommodation, transport, social activities, and, that
they receive the award wage. The Department of Labour conducts inspections
to ensure that these requirements are met.
The New Zealand Herald recently reported the case of Saia ‘Aholelei
from Tonga who complained of cramped sleeping conditions and not enough
money being left after accommodation and other costs were paid.[41] Another group of Tongan workers
was reported as having left due to dissatisfaction with the amount they
were being paid. The Tongan Minister for Labour, Commerce and Industries,
Lisate Akolo, responded to these reports stating that they were inaccurate,
that Saia ‘Aholelei had a history of workplace problems and that the other
workers from Tonga in his group were more than happy with both their wages
and living conditions.[42]
Links to information, background and arguments regarding the RSE scheme
and the possible introduction of a scheme in Australia are presented below.
Immigration New Zealand provides links to details of the RSE and TRSE
schemes on its webpage: Employing
Seasonal Workers
Adrienne Millbank, A seasonal guest-worker
program for Australia?, Parliamentary Library Research Brief no.
16, 2005–06, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 5 May 2006. This paper provides
an analysis of the history of the push for a seasonal guest-worker program
in Australia as well as the reasons for and against the introduction of
such a program.
Peter Mares, ‘Objection
to Pacific seasonal work programs in rural Australia’, Public Policy,
v.2(1), 2007, pp. 68–87. Peter Mares has been a long-time advocate for
a seasonal guest-worker scheme in Australia and in this article he examines
different objections that have been put forward against the idea.
Peter Mares and Nic Maclellan, ‘Pacific
Seasonal Workers for Australian Horticulture: A Neat Fit?, Asia
and Pacific Migration Journal, v.16(2), 2007. This article, produced
as part of the Pacific Labour and Australian Horticulture Project
at Swinburne University of Technology, argues for a seasonal guest-worker
scheme and provides analysis of Canada’s seasonal worker program.
National Farmers’ Federation, Workforce from Abroad Employment
Scheme, National Farmers’ Federation Ltd., 2008. This report outlines
areas of labour shortage in the agricultural sector and outlines a possible
model for a guest-worker program.
Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education,
Perspectives
on the future of the harvest labour force, Senate Standing Committee
on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education, Canberra, 2006. The
Senate Committee received a large number of submissions regarding the
introduction of a seasonal guest-worker scheme. The idea was rejected
in its final report.
Independent Task Force, Engaging
our neighbours: Towards a new relationship between Australia and the Pacific
Islands, report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute,
ASPI, Canberra, 2008. This report recommends a number of different strategies
for Australia to engage with Pacific Island nations including increased
labour mobility.
Richard Bedford, Elsie Ho & Vasantha Krishnan, ‘The
neighbourhood effect: the Pacific in Aotaearoa and Australia’, Asian
and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2007. This article
includes a history of New Zealand’s guest-worker schemes with Pacific
Island countries.
For copyright reasons
some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
|
