Notes on a visit to PLMAM
1. New Zealand RSE
Jerf van Beek is the National Seasonal Labour Coordinator for the RSE program in New Zealand.
This Association is funded from industry levies but the RSE conference is totally funded by sponsors such as airlines, health insurance companies, government departments, etc. The Coordinator role is full time paid position.
There are two main sources of labour, Seasonal Solutions in the South and Pick Hawkes Bay. We need to engage with these companies to forge closer ties and determine the differences between the two schemes.
The RSE program differs from the SWP in that it is AE driven and not considered an aid program. The RSE program has a cap where ours has no cap and demand driven.
The Government agencies appear to play a much more active role in the RSE program (Including immigration).
George Rarere, previously with Ministry of Business, Immigration and Employment, is joining NZ Apple and Pear to assist with the RSE workers for the industry. He will be an important key to the cap and the scheme going forward in NZ.
2. Field Excursion
Two sites were visited, a glasshouse capsicum facility in the South and a glasshouse tomato facility in the North. The following observations are worth noting:
The RSE programme has contributed to business growth in New Zealand due to the confidence in the availability and consistency of labour.
Pastoral care is very good. However, the RSE flows into the New Zealand system where workers can access permanent residency as part of the Pacific Access Category.
The brochure obtained covered Kiribati and Tuvalu. PAC workers are used to deliver pastoral care which includes the hosting of workers and providing accommodation, meals and transport. These costs are recovered from workers via a payroll system.
Turners & Growers (T&G) source workers from three countries and are looking to expand to other countries to mitigate the risks of a natural disaster, broaden the skills base and embrace different cultures.
The main focus is to identify the right skills required and sourcing labour from the countries that can offer these skills.
As in Australia there is a significant shortage of accommodation with only a few landlords willing to let to the RSE. Accommodation costs depend on property ownership and ranges from $100 to $150 per person per week. Examples of accommodation are presented below. This is pod style accommodation is for sleeping only. Kitchens, laundry and recreation facilities are separate and communal.
It is interesting that T & G do not pay a cash advance to workers on arrival into New Zealand as they send the money home which restricts them to buy good nutritional food. Instead they purchase nutritional food for them up to the time they receive their first pay cheque.
Housing males and females remains a challenge for them.
For both Australia and New Zealand, the communication between LSUs and AEs needs to improve. AE’s need to identify jobs, skills and duration that is specific to their site as well as generic training such as forklift. AEs and LSUs need to develop training packages including equipment to adequately train workers prior arrival. This makes them not only work ready on arrival but should also increase productivity and facilitate the transfer of skills back to their home country.
T &G can provide food for five days a week for $50 to $80 per week.
Both sites pay workers the minimum hourly rate and a bonus system (piece rates) to improve productivity.
NZ has a very big Pasifika community. It is embedded throughout the country, and these communities assist greatly with pastoral care. The Mahu Vision Community Trust was an excellent example of pastoral care – RSE is almost part of the community. I am not sure whether this could be replicated in Australia.
3. DFAT:
Met with Cameron Reid from DFAT who was in attendance. We pressed the point we the AEs are the ones ‘charged’ with practical implementation and need to be consulted on any changes to the Implementation Agreement for PLS (only Government officials allowed in this session) to be discussed with the AE’s. He promised to ensure AE are engaged in the process and a suitable process will be put in place.
4. PLMAM
This the third PLMAM gathering since the start of the programme.
New Zealand has doubled the number of workers and AE’s since 2007 when the scheme started.
The key drivers include labour security/certainty to do the work; freedom from traditional leaders; social challenges.
It is considered to be our moral obligation to work together.
4.1. Intra- Pacific Mobility
This is complicated due to location and different allegiances to certain countries, e.g. USA, Australia, France, New Zealand and other alliances such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group.
The Pacific Immigration Community is a body that discusses migration, mobility policy (temporary labour), etc. This is a framework for labour and not for the people.
It is acknowledged that getting labour for the SWP is hard work.
To be sustainable we need to develop a skills development plan regionally (HR planning) as well as put learning skills and funds in place (scholarships, skills funds, etc.) to assist workers in the programme.
There is a big push to recognise qualifications and training outside Australia and New Zealand.
The countries need a population plan and skills plan to determine how best to place themselves in future.
Some comments made by one presenter were not helpful as he said all schemes are just about labour exploitation, not about the people.
Some other comments suggested a misunderstanding of the value of agriculture work
Many of the Pacific Countries were interested in what skills are being transferred. It is an interesting point we as AE’s (particularly) in agriculture need to work on. We transfer considerable skills from work readiness, responsibility, food safety, driving skills, machinery operation and maintenance, understanding the consumer and quality parameters, safe work environments, plant physiology, irrigation etc. All skills that can be used back home in agricultural or other pursuits. We need to push the benefits of the positions we offer.
4.2. Skills and qualification:
The discussion focussed on high level skills and qualification issues which will take time to resolve through government negotiations.
AE’s should be more proactive and specify what skills they require so that the LSU’s have a better understanding of what kind of worker is required for the role. Training equipment should also be sent to the countries concerned to workers can be properly trained and work ready prior to arrival in Australia.
General skills such as forklift licenses should be identified to determine whether we can accredit a company in the LSU to conduct the training.
4.3. Inclusive Labour Mobility:
Reducing barriers to participation was discussed. This was not only a gender and disability discussion but also focussed on how more remote areas can access the scheme. The time, transport availability and cost of getting to medical appointments excluded some people.
Females tended to send greater remittances to family. Discussion was had about female cultural role in country and how this can limit participation even though females might be the right person for the position.
Disabilities were discussed, with examples of how a deaf worker was working with the RSE due to heavy reliance on the team leader for communication. This may be a case by case matter for each employer, considering work health safety issues.
A question was posed why should the low paid workers pay for transport to a country whereas a skilled worker’s sponsor would pay these costs? An interesting proposition.
Kiribati is soon to purchase a plane so this may reduce costs of travel. Average age of Kiribati is 22.4 years.
Vanuatu – LSU is being restructured with an RSE liaison officer just appointed
5. Maximising the impact of Labour Mobility:
The discussion was more about New Zealand introducing a compulsory superannuation scheme for their workers.
Tonga raised concern that $11.4 million of Super is locked up in Australia and not paid out to workers due to visas that have not expired, workers that have returned home early, etc. It is also important to reduce Super remittance costs and fees. Tonga is urging workers to pay Super into the Development Bank of Tonga. (It is believed only Australian registered schemes can be part of Australian superannuation guarantee). The ATO did have a representative at the PLMAM.
Social integration remains an important aspect of the programme. It is important for the workers to set goals and put a plan in place to meet these goals. Select the community (country and region), select the worker, select their plan. After a few years working in the programme, the hierarchy of needs comes into play from a community and business perspective. Workers need to acknowledge this is not a scheme for migration but be reminded of where they live and where they belong and ensure this is front of their mind during their stay in Australia.
It was emphasised that workers need to be rewarded for experience if they return year after year and not be on the same classification and wage.
Concern was expressed that SWP costs are increasing but wages are not in line with these costs (New Zealand).
Discussion about the cost of sending remittances home and taking remittances in cash. Considerable work going on behind the scenes in NZ by their Reserve Bank to reduce these costs.
6. PLM -Research & Analytical Workshop:
Pre-departure costs & finance is on average $1,470 per worker (17%) of earnings)-need to determine cost reduction strategies for pre-departure costs and Superannuation Fees.
There is a lack of labour market skills and LSU’s need to provide strong administrative support and invest in resources.
Social impacts of the SWP/PLS/RSE requires a lot more focus and research as well as the impact on their communities.
The roles and responsibility of partnerships between stakeholders needs to be strengthened.
Status of activities provided in Pacific Countries
The Pacific Countries did not believe the table above was a true reflection of what services they are capable of providing and agreed to update and prioritise their needs. Some key drivers include:
Governance between countries differ, e.g. Nauru have other employment opportunities; Kiribati has an issue with distance and cost to travel; PNG have internal challenges, etc.
Successful countries such as Vanuatu & Tonga attract large employers and have a high reliance on returning workers.
Leading countries include Vanuatu, Tonga, Timor Leste and Samoa.
Recruitment of workers is dominated by large companies either direct or indirect.
The Governance framework in each country differs and needs to be streamlined.
Police and medical checks as well as age limits are in accordance with MOU.
Efficient admin by the LSU is critical.
TL is the most efficient in promoting its labour force; Tonga & Samoa have SWP Coordinators; Vanuatu has a presence in New Zealand but not Australia; Vanuatu has reduced agents from 90 to 60 which can be counterproductive.
It was recognised that regular meetings need to be held between LSU’s and AE’s to address common issues such as blacklisted workers.
It is important for host countries to identify their own skills gaps, barriers to close these gaps, capacity building and social integration; AE’s need to communicate the skills they require so that LSU’s can assist with matching the resources with the skills required.
Goal setting by workers is essential as AE’s can assist with training and equipment to achieve these goals in their host country when they return.
Regional Advisory Groups are being considered to help identify and implement research priorities.
Vanuatu is increasing resources from 4 to 10 in their LSU.
7. Health and Labour Mobility
This was the most interactive session where AE’s were given the opportunity to raise some of the key issues. Some focus areas:
- Address physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing
- Confirm if workers compensation is paid after they return home
- Process to follow in the event of a death of a worker
- Improved communication between AE’s and relatives in the event of a natural disaster and wellbeing issues the worker may be facing
- Better education on workers hygiene
- Medical screening/declaration of pre-existing medical conditions
- Preventative health issues such as flu injections prior to arrival
- Discussion about payment of sick leave – lack of understanding about the casual loading being paid in Australia. Very interesting the remuneration differences between Australia and NZ re loadings and superannuation.
8. Conclusion and recommendations
The formation of the AEA is strategically a very good initiative but we need to strengthen our position and political influence. The AEA needs to forge strong relationships with the RSE in New Zealand as we have a lot we can share with one another. Attendance of the PLMAM was important not only to develop relationships in the different countries but to understand why there is such a gap between the Australian Government, the LSU’s and the AE’s. The answer is simply they have not deemed it important to invite the AE’s to be part of the discussions. Following our presence at the PLMAM this is expected to change as all the Pacific Countries and Timor Leste fully supported AE involvement going forward. From an AEA perspective the following are recommended:
Representatives from the Association attend the RSE Conference in New Zealand in June/July next year and form close relationships with RSE members.
The AEA should organise a workshop with all LSU’s, the Department & DFAT during the first quarter of next year. The objectives and outcomes of the workshop need careful consideration as this is lacking in the PLMAM.
The AEA needs to work closely with the LSU’s to identify the skills gaps in their respective country to determine how we can assist with developing these skills.
The AEA also needs to clearly define what skills they require so we can try match with suitable candidates. Hopefully this will improve access to good workers.
The AEA needs to assist LSU’s developing good administrative support in their country to ensure we minimise our risk of bringing in workers not suited to the task and or that have pre-existing medical conditions.
The AEA needs to work a lot closer with DFAT to ensure any changes made between Government and LSU’s is communicated back to AE’s.
Future PLMAM meetings needs to include AE’s on the agenda. It is our workplaces that policy becomes action, and lives, any deficiencies soon come to the fore.
We need to change the dialogue from an aid program to a growth program – growing our businesses, growing the Pacific and its people.
