Advocacy Edition: Talking workforce and industrial relations with Michael Rogers

Vegalogue is a regular podcast from vegetable, potato and onion industry peak body AUSVEG, where we examine the pressing issues and latest developments in our sector.

Join us as we discuss the many diverse facets of commercial vegetable production in Australia with growers, industry figures, researchers and many more of the incredible people who make up our vital industry.

This episode is the first of our new Advocacy Editions, where we'll be unpacking the big issues facing the industry with a range of industry experts.

Recent AUSVEG Industry Sentiment Surveys have highlighted persistent challenges for Australian growers, including ongoing workforce shortages and the mounting burden of compliance and regulation.

In this episode of Vegalogue, we speak to Michael Rogers, the recently-appointed Chief Operating Officer of Agri Labour Australia, as we delve into pressing workforce issues, and explore potential paths forward.

Vegalogue is the podcast from AUSVEG, the peak body for Australia’s vegetable, potato, and onion industries, where we examine the pressing issues and latest developments in our sector.

Thanks for listening! You can find out more about AUSVEG and the Australian vegetable industry at ausveg.com.au. Subscribe to our newsletter, or follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, or Tik Tok.

Transcript

Many people do want to come to Australia to work, and that a dedicated harvest work visa with the appropriate design and controls and management would meet an industry requirement if the government's intention is to constrict them, the backpacker or the Working Holiday Maker visa, back to those people who only want to holiday in Australia and work very little.

Welcome back to the Vegalogue podcast, a dialogue about the Australian vegetable industry from AUSVEG.

I'm Alex Lashchuk.

Australian vegetable growers are continuing to face a range of challenges in a difficult operating environment, as recent AUSVEG industry sentiment surveys have highlighted.

One of the biggest challenges is workforce shortages, which have been compounded by the growing burden of compliance linked to initiatives like the PALM Scheme and changes to Australia's IR landscape.

While AUSVEG continues to advocate for solutions to the industry's workforce shortages, the issues are complex, and there are many factors to consider.

In this episode, we take a closer look at the industry's current workforce challenges with Michael Rogers, the Chief Operating Officer of Agri Labour Australia.

With a strong background and advocacy, Michael has previously held positions at Hort Innovation, the Australian Fresh Produce Alliance, and recently Teys, where he focused on industrial relations and the PALM scheme, among other things.

Join us as we delve into these pressing issues and explore potential paths forward.

Well, good afternoon, Michael, and congratulations on your new position as Chief Operating Officer at Agri Labour Australia.

It is great to have you back in the industry.

Thank you, Alex.

Yes, it's great to be here.

The AUSVEG industry sentiment surveys highlight ongoing workforce shortages within the vegetable industry.

The most recent one highlights significant shortages, not only in lower skilled casual positions, but in permanent skilled and semi skilled employees as well.

How do you think we can address this critical workforce shortage issue?

So recruiting and retaining good people remains a key challenge across the economy.

It's not just for vegetables, but it's for every industry sector.

And reflecting on COVID, COVID disrupted all employment in Australia.

And while COVID seems a distant memory, we do still feel the aftereffects of the changes.

Truck drivers leaving the country, people changing employment pretty significantly.

Other factors are we've had low levels of unemployment across the economy, and that's contributed.

And then lastly, at that kind of macro level, we've had the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which has been responsible for 30% of new jobs in Australia.

So all of those factors affect vegetables and other sectors.

As an industry, how do we engage with those challenges and look forward and fix the problems for our business and grow fruit and vegetables, and in this case, vegetables?

Well, we have to look at workforce design.

We have to look at role design, what people are doing.

And we have to look at where we recruit from.

And we've talked about Australians already and the difficulty there.

We know that from a visa perspective, it's been harder to attract and retain people on visas.

So we need to look at workforce solutions in entirety and not rely on any one pathway.

And we need to very actively manage our people so that we're providing good work for people, keeping them when we get them.

But importantly, as I said, not relying on any one pathway because it's too much change and fluctuations, and it leaves our businesses vulnerable if we're just reliant on one group of people.

The Horticulture Industry Labour Agreement, or HILA, was established four years ago to source skilled and semi-skilled workers from overseas, but we have not seen a big uptake by industry.

Why do you think that is, and what can be done to make HILA more workable for vegetable growing in businesses?

The Labour Agreement has been available, but the key challenge is that skilled recruitment and semi-skilled recruitment can be very difficult and very challenging.

I mean, the AUSVEG Sentiment Survey, as you mentioned, does reflect that there is significant demand for semi-skilled and skilled positions.

In fact, there might be more emphasis on those roles at the moment than unskilled.

But as we know, a grower is focused on growing their vegetables and running their business.

So a grower and the team that worked with a grower on the ground, they might not have the skills and the capacity and the know-how to bring in semi-skilled and skilled workers.

And so what we find, it's the administrative process that makes the labour agreement quite difficult to access, and it's often bigger businesses who are trying to do that.

So there's certainly scope and opportunity, but if we talk to anyone across the economy again, skilled and semi-skilled recruitment, particularly from overseas, is challenging, not least because other countries are also facing skilled shortages.

So it is one pathway, but again, we probably need to keep the options open and not just rely on the labour agreement and maximise the opportunity there.

But look at Australians, look at young Australians looking to get into the industry, look at other visa pathways and make sure we're accessing everything that's available to us.

The recent Regional Migration Review discussion paper has cited unethical treatment of workers as a key reason for review of visas such as the working holiday maker visas, for example.

There are concerns, though, that taking away incentives for backpackers to work on farms punishes the overwhelming majority of businesses doing the right thing without specifically targeting the small number doing the wrong thing.

To that end, AUSVEG has long advocated for a national labour hire licensing scheme, and better resourcing for both the Australian Border Force and the Fair Work Ombudsman.

What do you think can be done to stamp out rogue employers without punishing most businesses who are doing the right thing?

Yeah, it remains an ongoing challenge.

A lot of people would argue that there has been significant improvement over time by efforts of industry, by efforts of regulators such as the Fair Work Ombudsman.

I think the unfortunate thing is that we know in the community and in society that there are often a small number of people who will do the wrong thing.

And regulators have been better at finding those people.

Industry has been reporting dodgy labour hire operators and people intent on underpaying or treating people poorly.

And there is no place in industry for it, particularly in an industry that's looking to attract good people and retain them in our industry and in our businesses.

So if you look at the Modern Slavery Act, the regulators, the legislation, the state-based labour hire licensing, and to your point, AUSVEG and others have been advocating for a national labour hire licensing scheme.

There probably is no one solution again to these challenges.

One of the things that probably remains, and has been an ongoing conversation, particularly in the last five years, is an increase in the retailers' ethical sourcing obligations.

And I think what we will find over time that is the Modern Slavery Act and its requirements become further and further imbedded in supply chains, that we will find that there will probably be more commercial levers applied to the sector to say if someone knowingly and intentionally breaches the Modern Slavery Act and indeed commercial ethical sourcing obligations, that those people will be excluded from supply chains.

And there's strengthening requirements in legislation around criminal penalties and developments around underpayments and those sorts of things.

So there are no simple solutions, but I think what we do know is that the ability of people to not act in accordance with the law, treat people poorly, not pay them properly, is getting more and more difficult.

And that can only be a good thing for those people and those growers and those businesses who have been doing the right thing for a long time and being very frustrated at those people who are cutting corners.

AUSVEG industry sentiment surveys show a significant number of growers have either exited the palm scheme or have greatly reduced employees under the scheme.

We have also seen the government's recent decision to reverse the 30-hour-a-week requirement to 30 hours on a four-week average.

While some growers indicate they will stay with palm, others are still planning to exit.

What further modifications do you think should be made to make it more workable for the horticulture industry?

Yeah, it's worth reflecting on the fact that during COVID, we didn't have fruit and vegetables on shelves, and we didn't have meat on shelf.

And palm workers, those workers from the Pacific, were critical on getting our supply chains up and running, and doing those jobs which needed to be done and couldn't be done during that time.

So the Pacific scheme has been a really important and valuable contribution to Australia, and similarly very important to Pacific Island countries.

Having said that, the program has become more difficult to operate.

It results from the fact that it has scaled up, and there are a lot of growing pains and growing challenges as there are with any program which grows very quickly.

I think fundamentally what AUSVEG and AFPA and the Approved Employers Association have been arguing for for some time is effectively a maturing in the program.

And if we just take one simple example, at the moment, there's no recognition of the fact that a worker who has been in Australia working for three years or four years has very different welfare obligations or expectations than someone who arrives for the first time in Australia.

And if we just start at the start and we say a worker, a visa holder from overseas comes to Australia on a PALM visa, it might be the first time on a plane, the first time in another country, and certainly their first time in Australia.

And there's a significant adjustment period for that person to understand how to live in Australia, how Australia works, how the workplace works and how to interact.

And it's fair and reasonable that an employer provides a high level of support, welfare support, accommodation and transport and those kinds of things.

After about three or four years, it's also reasonable to say that for most people who have been provided that support, that we should be supporting them to be able to make their own decisions about where they live, what car they drive, how they get to work and what support they would like from the Australian community.

And so if you make that really practical, there's a simple argument to say that at the start, there should be a high level of welfare obligations in the first 12 months, the first two years.

But after three or four years, we should be looking at a lower welfare obligation and a higher level of agency, a higher level of decision making from that worker to make decisions about their own lives.

And I think that fundamental principle or foundation issue, if you like, around PALM, would help to address some of these frustrations around the administrative burden of the program, the ongoing ability for the program to scale.

And then lastly, which, you know, Albany's government has been focused on is the opportunity and ability for visa holders to move to permanent residency and become citizens of Australia pathways to do that.

So if government can continue to engage in that conversation and industry can work with countries and work with the government to move that forward, that would be a fundamental shift and a fundamental change, which would improve the operation of the program both for workers and for employers and support the ongoing growth in the program.

They're really practically accommodation is a challenge for the entire country.

And it is also a problem and a challenge for accommodating workers from the Pacific under the PALM Visa.

So that will remain a key challenge on identifying accommodation, ensuring it is suitable, ensuring that it's managed effectively, and ensuring that every Pacific worker has somewhere safe and have a suitable quality to live in, which has been met.

But the challenges at the moment is that the administrative burden in ensuring that with the government is becoming very, very difficult.

So again, a principle suggestion on how we could improve the program and then a wicked problem in accommodation that we all need to work on to ensure the program improves and that vegetable growers around the country can continue to access the program and it not become just impossible to engage with.

With PALM becoming unworkable for many growers, there has been a greater reliance on working holidaymakers.

What do you think the impact will be if the government removes the 88-day regional work requirement for working holiday makers?

It's reasonable to say that there are probably two broad groups of people who come to Australia under working holiday maker or backpacker visas.

The first group is people intent on having a long holiday and doing a little bit of work to experience Australia and perhaps earn a little bit of money to support their holiday.

The second group of people are much more focused on wanting to work.

And so they use the backpacker visa to, of course, experience Australia and move around and work in different industries.

But they are often able to earn more money than they do at home and take some savings back or some earnings back, but also get skills and experience across Australia.

So the tension that we see in those two groups of people who reflected in this conversation around the 88-day regional work requirement, and the government has been focused on the fact that they want working holiday makers or backpackers to be primarily in Australia for cultural exchange and that sort of thing and not use it as a proxy for a working visa.

The solution which has been advocated by industry is probably a dedicated harvest work visa, which reflects the fact that many people do want to come to Australia to work and that a dedicated harvest work visa with the appropriate design and controls and management would meet an industry requirement if the government's intention is to constrict the backpacker or the working holiday maker visa back to those people who only want a holiday in Australia and work very little.

And if we explore that further, we could say, well, a dedicated harvest work visa for fruit and vegetable and nuts could be well designed to reflect the needs of that industry and ensure that people are protected and supported in the appropriate arrangements in place.

So that 88-day regional work requirement, the reason why it's a frustration for growers is because there's a perception and a reality that it will remove an obligation and that people will be less willing to work in regional areas, but I think it's also important that we note that there are a range of people, many people who come to Australia under a backpacker visa with an intention to work.

The 38-hour-a-week overtime rule in the horticulture award has had a significant consequences for the horticulture industry.

Employers and employees are requesting changes to the 38-hour-a-week overtime provisions, and employees in particular often request additional hours to earn extra money or just to prevent boredom.

This has been further exacerbated by recent IR changes.

What changes to the award do you think will have the most benefit to both employers and employees?

So, I think with these issues as well they're based in a challenge of different perspectives on the same issue.

If you take the union movement, they will often talk about the fact that everyone should only work 38 hours a week so that there's sufficient time for rest and time with family and to enjoy lives in a way that someone might live in a suburb and go back and forward to work.

The challenge with horticulture as we know, that horticulture overall is much more seasonal and itinerant than any other sector in the economy.

And acknowledging though that of course some vegetable operators do run year round and do have fairly consistent employment.

So you have a union perspective that people should only work 38 hours a week, and then anything over that should be paid at significant overtime.

Growers are of course focused on the fact that they only have a short period of time to get that produce out of the paddock and onto the supermarket shelves, in that every hour of every day that can be done is very important to both the quality and the availability of the product.

And then the tension of course is that if the grower can't pay the overtime, because of that increased cost, that the worker sees fewer hours to the point you are making.

So, I mean, from a grower's perspective, obviously people would like to see, you know, ordinary hours or greater working hours without the obligation to pay overtime.

And a union representative or a worker advocate might see that as detrimental to the worker.

But I think to the point of your question, that, you know, workers often see and want access to those hours while the work is available.

And, you know, seasonal work can often be characterised by periods of time where there's significant, you know, 60 or 80 hour weeks in the past.

And then after three or four weeks, you might have quite a period back to 20 hours a week.

So working when the work's available.

So fundamentally, moving forward, the question is how do we work with all those stakeholders, government, unions, retailers, the workers and the growers to look at opportunities and solutions which don't disadvantage the worker, but also allow the grower to be able to operate in the most effective way.

You know, in conversations, it's growers looking for flexibility, and workers looking for earnings and the ability to earn.

So if there was a simple answer, we would have made the changes.

But those are the conversations that we need to have.

And how do we design that?

I mean, you know, we talked about the changes to 38-hour weeks, the averaging, and under palm, the 30-hours averaging over four weeks, rather than every single week.

Those are positive steps in those directions.

And probably if government can get comfortable, and unions and others can get comfortable with the 30-hours averaging over four weeks, it probably starts to open up a conversation around what, if any, changes could be made to the horticulture award to provide a bit more flexibility to growers, more earnings to workers, and ensure that cost pressures don't continue to hit every Australian consumer at the checkout.

What do you think have been the most significant industrial relations legislation changes for the horticulture industry over the last two years?

From my perspective, I think the changes to the peace rate in the horticulture award were some of the most significant.

The effect of the changes was to put a floor in worker earnings and settle some of that conversation around workers being underpaid, in inverted commas, workers not achieving minimum earnings.

It has addressed a problematic issue in the sector, and it has had an effect on how people operate within the sector.

And it has also supported an increase in cost for producers and therefore increasing cost at the checkout.

So the piece rate changes, I think, were probably the most significant industrial relations changes that we felt.

And then moving forward, some of the changes coming through around unions, access to workplaces and those sorts of things will play through.

But we've yet to see the effect of those changes, but it's likely to have, again, a really significant impact on the industry and then how industry operates and relationships with unions and relationship with people in the workforce.

Well, thank you very much, Michael.

It has been good to chat with you about industrial relations in the horticulture industry.

No, thank you very much for the opportunity.

It's great to be here in the conversation with you, Alex.

And yeah, look forward to working with you.

You've been listening to the Vegalogue podcast.

Don't forget to subscribe and give the podcast a rating and review to help others find us.

Vegalogue is produced by AUSVEG, the peak industry buddy for Australian vegetable, potato and onion growers.

You can find more news and information from AUSVEG at ausveg.com.au on our social media channels or in the Australian Grower magazine.

Thank you for listening.