Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 8:13:01 to 8:18:51
Analysis of the economic modelling for working holiday maker ballots and the role of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme in supporting the agricultural workforce.
Topics: Pacific relations, Agricultural productivity
Speakers: Hon Jonathon Duniam, Clare Sharp, Michael Willard, Senator Jana Stewart, Unknown Speaker
Okay.
Um no to that part of your question. On the economic modelling, we did do that non-analysis and modelling which which I think I've taken on notice to provide.
Yes. So then just if we can talk to the impact of those changes in in terms of the number of working holiday makers here in a in a full program year. Like what's the number we expect to be of number of working holiday makers we expect to be in Australia once the two caps come into effect. So from December or whenever it kicks off in the following year, do we have a projection on how many working holiday makers we expect to be in Australia?
Because we're trying to manage NOM and it's about flows, not stock?
Yes. So yeah, of course, flows, but that flow reduction has an impact on stock generally. Noting though we don't, apart from the fact that these are temporary visa holders and they should leave at the end of their visa if they haven't got an extended one.
Yeah, and the complicating factor is not all of the working holiday makers will will nominate. Some of them just come for a relatively short period and two months. Um and then at the other end, the rate at which they're nomining out is also a factor. Um we're seeking to have a a if you like uh a system that allows us to manage the nom impact more than the system that focuses on particular stock levels. If the flows allow a stock level could could could be could be higher, if that makes sense. If if you've got enough coming in and balanced by the number coming out? Yeah, then then that's the impact we're seeking to have.
This might be a conversation for the pub or something, I think. But look, um okay. I'm going to move on though to uh just in terms of the I'm just wondering, so I um was distracted for a second.
Are you about to move on to a new topic or you just gonna wrap this up?
Uh look, I'll how about I wrap these up and then I'm done with I think the bulk of this outcome for me.
Yes, please.
Okay. Uh just under these arrangements, um it is the case though, isn't it, that if you meet those requisite levels of uh regional work, you know, you have 88 days and 179 days, that you could still lose the ballot because it is truly randomised. That's the intention, isn't it? That these having satisfied year one and year two if you intend to go into year three, that this programme could mean you.
So that's the design work we've been doing with those stakeholders that Ms. Goodchild referred to. We've been working through how can we design the ballot to reduce the or or to reduce the likelihood of that occurring? Um so an a range of ideas are kind of being worked through from ideas like if people can enter the ballot before they do their regional work.
Yeah.
Um and you know when you start your regional work, if I do my regional work and I complete it successfully, um I've got I've got my place through to so we're working our way through that.
And and just to some of the questions Senator Roberts was asking before about have we looked at how many additional palm workers would be required to offset the reduction in working holiday maker visas? And does this scheme have capacity to cater to that gap if it should exist? In terms of economic need.
In a lot of the discussion today, there has been an assumption that every single working holiday maker is working in agriculture, which isn't true. So it's not right to think we if we shot if we reduce working holiday maker by 20,000, you'd need 20,000 more palm workers. In the region. It's not one for one like that. Um holiday makers work in a whole range of industries. Um we have been talking with our colleagues in DFAP and DUA about um what a sensible growth pathway for Palm would be.
Um that implies that a growth pathway is required for Palm to offset and I agree with you, it's not all of the working holiday makers were going to be out in the regions, but a portion will, so therefore there will be a reduction. Um that assumption you refer to, which is a growth pathway required for Palm. Have we done any analysis on what that looks like?
Just the other point in terms of palm, of course, is the working holiday makers uh in a region for a short period of time in a year, whereas a palm worker is is dedicated to that particular work. We we are certainly um keen to work with the partners that Sharp mentioned to grow Palm. Uh we don't have a particular formula that we're working to in terms of how much it needs to grow in all of that.
You're considering you're looking at that because it's a deemed not necessity, but it is something you have in contact with the other.
And there's a there's a range of reasons why the government's really supportive of Palm in addition to the agricultural workforce. It's it's really important as part of the government's overall approach to working with the Pacific. Um, you know, they're part of our neighbourhood, and and so that there's a very deliberate approach to um working and not not necessarily in uh Australia says we need X thousand palm workers, but actually talking to the countries about what they need and what kind of arrangement would work with Pacific countries?
Yeah, okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Duniam. Senator Hanson.