Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 8:05:32 to 8:09:04
Discussion on the lack of industry consultation regarding working holiday maker changes and the subsequent partnership with the National Farmers Federation for priority harvest processing.
Topics: Agricultural productivity, National Farmers Federation
Speakers: Hon Jonathon Duniam, Michael Willard, Clare Sharp
Thanks, Chair. Um just back to the working holiday maker matter. Just in terms of the slowdown as it's been referred to. Uh, who was consulted in uh proceeding with that from industry?
Senator, that was a decision of the government. Um so it was just in call it was consulted within the government.
Okay, so there was no consultation with farmers hospitality or tourism stakeholders?
Prior to it being implemented. There has been extensives, as Ms. Goodchart was outlining extensive consultation.
After it was implemented.
After and as we run up to how we implement the ballot arrangement?
Yes, so it I appreciate the consultation on the forthcoming changes that have been announced, which is good practice, um, but none on the first ones. Um just on the 24th of September. Um it was reported that the government and National Farmers Federation put in place an arrangement allowing urgent farm-related working holiday maker cases to be put forward for priority processing. Whose suggestion or uh idea was this proposal?
Uh Senator, the the National Farmers Federation approach the government.
Okay. And uh has an arrangement like this ever been put in place before, to your knowledge?
Senator, we routinely consider requests for expedited processing for a wide range of reasons. It could be compassionate circumstances, it could be instances such as this where particular individuals need to needed to be in particular locations to help with harvest. So the broad practice of considering expedited processing requests is something that we do across a lot of our caseloads.
But partnering with a third-party non-government organization to facilitate these approaches, is this something that's been done before?
Uh Senator, I would have to uh take that on notice. I I have sort of vague recollections that in the past we have done so, but I wouldn't be confident answering the question definitively.
Sure, okay. Uh is that arrangement still in place, the one we're talking about here?
I think we still engage with the NFF uh and a number of other organizations who who choose to bring um urgent cases to attention. We then make a determination about whether or not we're in a position to expedite it.
So just so there are other organizations. You mention other organisations that bring urgent cases, but that's not in the same way we're talking about this NFF formalised arrangements that was advertised as such by the NFF.
I think the the NFF arrangement is I guess a more organised approach, but we certainly get represents from a whole lot of um organisations.
Sure. So is this more organised approach and partnership with the NFF still in place today?
Yes, in that we're still engaging with the NF.
And will it to extinguish it, there will have to be some communication with them saying, okay, team, we're not going to take any more in the same way we have been.
I think it might be just reverting to the normal approach we take in respect of your tests for expedited processing.
You'll tell them when that time comes?
Yes, we will.