Australia & New Zealandsseasonal worker programs:a study in contrasts

Richard Curtain,Research Associate,Development Policy Centre, ANU

Big difference in outcomes betweentwo similar program Australias Seasonal Workers Program (SWP) modelled on New

Zealands Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) Scheme

But different outcomes: FY 2013-2014, 7,855 seasonal workerswent to work in New Zealand under the RSE. Under SWP, only2,014.

The difference is most dramatic for Solomon Islands where closeto 500 workers in 2013-2014 worked in New Zealand under RSE

But only nine workers from Solomon Islands came to Australiaunder SWP, down from 42 in the first year of SWP.

Differences between SWP & RSE inSolomon Islands Sole reliance on under-resourced recruitment agents based in

Honiara for a range of functions that other Pacific governmentsfund and carry out. Recruitment agents are responsible for marketing, recruitment,

pre-departure briefing and support while working overseas andon their return. This range of duties requires resources to deliverbut agents are restricted to only one revenue source: to chargeAustralian employers. The larger problem is that the recruitment agents in Solomon

Islands have no substantial links with Australian employers, haveno resources to market their services and have little to offeremployers if they wanted to engage them.

Why the differences between SWP &RSE?

the place of horticulture in the wider economy, the reasons for starting the programs, the role of employers in initiating the programs and in

how they operate, how lead country recruitment was managed, official and employer attitude to illegal workers, and flexibility in the programs requirements.

Broader lessons

Top down program design that did notunderstand the context

SWP does not have the key drivers andsupporting conditions that RSE has

Different ObjectivesSWP - Seasonal Work Program RSE - Recognised Seasonal Employer

Employer needs secondary todevelopment objective: The objective ofthe Seasonal Worker Program is tocontribute to the economic developmentof Pacific Island countries and EastTimor. The SWP will also offer a reliable,returning workforce to Australianemployers who have a demonstratedunmet demand for labour and acommitment to Australian job seekers.The names of the two programs reflecttheir primary objectives

Employer needs primary consideration:The first two objectives of the RSEPolicy are to: - allow horticulture andviticulture businesses to supplement theirNew Zealand workforce with non-NewZealand citizen or resident workers whenlabour demand exceeds the availableNew Zealand workforce and employershave made reasonable attempts to trainand recruit New Zealand citizens andresidents; and- promote best practice in thehorticulture and viticulture industries tosupport economic growth andproductivity of the industry as a whole,while ensuring that the employmentconditions of both New Zealand and non-New Zealand citizen or resident workersare protected and supported...

Background differences

Stand-alone initiative in responseto external pressure from Pacificcountries for access to seasonalwork opportunities

RSE part of a wider industrystrategy to address seasonallabour issues in these industries

Started as a pilot scheme forthree years, prompting employeruncertainty about the future ofthe program

RSE started as an ongoingprogram in 2007, replacingseasonal work pilot policy 1999-2007

Initiated by government withlittle involvement of employergroups

Initiated by governmenttaskforce with stronginvolvement of Horticulture NewZealand in the design of theprogram

Differences in operating environmentWeak compliance on illegal workers inhorticulture

Strong compliance on illegal workers inhorticulture, reducing their numberssubstantially since the introduction of RSE

No strong evidence of demand for moreexpensive but more reliable labour due toready availability of cheaper sources oflabour

Labour shortage was a serious threat tobusiness viability in the viticulture andhorticultural sectors.

Range of employer associations inhorticulture nominally involved

One employer association in horticultureinvolved which took lead role

Prior experience of recruiting labour fromthe Pacific to work in agriculture in 19thcentury based on indentured labour system

Recent prior experience from 1999 inrecruiting labour from the Pacific to workin agriculture

Penalty of A$10,000 If any RSE workers breach the terms andconditions of their visa such as leavingtheir employer to work elsewhere or notreturning home, employer must pay anycosts (to a maximum of NZ$3000) requiredto return them to their country of residence

Differences in practiceLittle or no direct involvement ofemployer associations

Direct involvement of HorticultureNew Zealand through dedicated RSEofficer

Initial recruitment based on openemployer demand

Initial recruitment based on selection ofa specific country

Reliance on market forces hasresulted in dominance by smallnumber of countries

Broader spread of countriesparticipating, due to giving atypicalcountry first mover advantage

Mix of direct employers and labourhire operators

Greater role for direct employersindividually or as grower cooperatives

Fixed requirement for employer topay full pay upfront, with repaymentabove $500 deducted from pay

Different methods of payment ofworker's upfront costs used in practicedespite requirement to pay halfworker's airfare

Differences in practiceLittle flexibility in time period theworker has to be engaged

More flexibility in time period theworker can be engaged, ie can beengaged for less than six weeks and visacan be extended beyond time originallyspecified if employer offers more work

Employment in horticulture spreadacross the length & breadth of thecontinent

Employment in horticultureconcentrated in specific areas

Pilot scheme started with labour hireoperators only as approved employers

Grower cooperatives took lead asapproved employers, gained support oflarge employers

Development focus weak, due to limitedfocus of Stage I of Labour MobilityInitiative

Development focus better, broader rangeof training provided in New Zealand

SWP workers must stay with approvedemployer who has sponsored them

Since 2008, seasonal workers about tomove between employers based on ajoint agreement to recruit (ATR)

Unintended consequences: first andsecond mover advantages

Tonga SWP migrants in Australiabenefitted from first mover advantageRSE Migrants from Vanuatu in New

Zealand benefitted from first moveradvantageLeaves out late comers such as Solomon

Islands

How to break cycle

APTC graduates in hospitality for theaccommodation trial

Key lessons

How to design a program importanceof objectives and contextHow to implement a program

importance of feedback and flexibility