Christopher Hogan
Image sourced from Phillip Capper via Flickr.
The cracks in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme have widened in recent times amid growing calls to address systemic worker exploitation. Policymakers will need to address a range of problems in partnership with stakeholders to ensure the rights of these workers are met. Failing to do so risks Australia’s relationships with participating countries in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as its wider global standing as a destination of choice for migrants.
Importance of the PALM scheme
The PALM scheme is a temporary labour migration programme that allows individuals from 10 countries across the Indo-Pacific to live and work in Australia. PALM workers are often discussed as seasonal workers in agriculture and horticulture. However, as participation has expanded over time, workers are also increasingly employed in the care, construction, and services sectors.
Despite slow uptake in the early 2010s, the PALM scheme has grown to become a cornerstone of Australia’s relationships with Timor-Leste and participating Pacific countries. These countries are actively being courted by various powers amid increasing geopolitical competition in the region and this programme is integral to Australia’s own efforts.
The scheme is framed as a pathway to development for participating countries through the remittances and skills that workers bring back to their communities. Reported benefits include community development through increased household spending, construction, infrastructure upgrades, educational outcomes, and employment.
What went wrong?
Media coverage of the PALM scheme has highlighted systemic failures and stories of worker exploitation. These include the passing of a Fijian worker, allegations of sexual harassment, and investigations into modern slavery. This has earned criticism from Nobel Peace Prize recipient and President of Timor-Leste, Jose Ramos-Horta. However, there are likely more stories going unreported.
Labour migrants within the scheme are at greater risk of exploitation because their visas, and therefore their ability to remain in Australia, are tied to a single employer. This can dissuade labour migrants from reporting issues such as bullying, harassment, racism, and contract issues. In response, meaningful reform to date has been limited. If these issues are not properly addressed, Australia risks declining participation and jeopardising relationships with participating countries.
Systemic issues arising within the PALM scheme
Labour migration policymaking for host countries is challenging given competing stakeholder demands. In this context, the Government must consider both those at home and abroad.
Domestic producers with greater political clout want to see conditions remain profitable. For participating countries’ governments, there are increasing concerns about the social issues experienced by labour migrant households. Meanwhile, these labour migrants in Australia, as in similar programmes elsewhere, lack the agency and leverage to influence their living and working arrangements, contributing to exploitation.
This has contributed to conditions where temporary workers exist in a state of ‘permanent precarity’. The lack of agency they experience in Australia renders them wholly reliant on employers and the state for safety and fair treatment. Yet this also opens the door for worker mistreatment.
Without clear and targeted policy to address workers’ agency, engagement may continue to fall. Additionally, workers may continue to view seeking asylum in Australia as a viable alternative. If one or both outcomes gain traction, Australia’s relationships with participating countries’ governments will be further strained, framed by a complex and multi-faceted migration issue with regional implications.
Failings of the triple wins approach
Australia’s approach to the PALM scheme embodies the ‘triple wins’ paradigm. ‘Triple wins’ is an academic justification for the migration-development relationship. It sets out how programmes such as the PALM scheme can be beneficial to the three main stakeholders – in this case, Australia as the host country, the ten participating countries, and PALM labour migrants themselves.
However, this approach fails to address the scheme’s limitations and failings. It assumes that all stakeholders have equal power, agency, and leverage. This simply isn’t the case for PALM workers, whose visas are tied to their employers in Australia and thus limit their mobility in the job market.
The framing of development through an economic lens fails to adequately consider both this dynamic and labour migrants’ lived experiences with exploitation. Until this changes, Australia will not be able to remedy the issues at hand and may see engagement continue to fall and asylum seeker applications increase. These outcomes are neither desirable for Australia nor participating countries.
The way forward
Meeting the needs of all stakeholders is a delicate balance for Australian policymakers to achieve. These problems can only be resolved by working with international partners to better understand the perspectives, experiences, and needs of all involved.
This will require improving policy on regulation and monitoring to prevent exploitation and slavery occurring in the community. For example, all levels of government should look to the example of New South Wales (NSW) in addressing modern slavery. Adopting a unified approach will help close the loopholes that allow exploitation to occur and restore trust. Furthermore, labour migrants should be permitted to work for more than one employer across the duration of their visa. These factors together will de-incentivise exploitative behaviours from unscrupulous operators.
While these issues are complex, leaving them unaddressed risks alienating essential workers in ageing communities facing labour force pressures, and undervaluing Australia’s closest regional partners in an era of increasing geopolitical competition and uncertainty.
Christopher Hogan is a PhD Candidate in Demography and Geography at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. He is currently researching labour migrant wellbeing to assess the human development impact of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. He also works as a Statistical Analyst in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Population Statistics Branch.
Comments