6 August 2015 Joint Standing Committee on Migration PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Transcription

1 6 August 2015 Joint Standing Committee on Migration PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Suite G Jolimont Road East Melbourne, VIC 3002 P +61 (0) F +61 (0) E: admin@apal.org.au ABN Dear Committee Members, Thank-you for the opportunity to provide comment to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on its inquiry into the Seasonal Worker Program. Apple & Pear Australia Limited (APAL) is the peak industry body representing the interests of commercial apple and pear growers in Australia in matters of national importance including regulation and legislation, marketing, research and development. The availability of a seasonal casual workforce is critical to the industry. Without it the crop cannot be harvested, which spans from late January through to June, depending upon the growing region and the varieties planted. Some smaller family scale operations also require seasonal casual workers to hand prune which is generally done during May July and hand thinning which is done in November-December. Ongoing seasonal casual work is generally not attractive to people who live within the regional growing communities. This is understandable because they require a more permanent and steady income source to pay mortgages and family bills. Many also seek skilled work rather than the unskilled, and hence lower paid, positions on offer within the apple and pear industry. Consequently the industry relies heavily upon the schemes fostered by the Government, most especially the international backpacker (Visa 417 and 462) scheme, which allows young people between the ages of to work as long as employment is not their predominant activity whilst in Australia. The scheme is very effective because it allows backpackers to extend their Visa by a further twelve months if they have completed three months of work in regional Australia in specified industries, including horticulture. Grower employment methods are mixed. Some engage their seasonal workforce directly using locals where available and backpackers (417 and 462 Visa workers) through the National Harvest Trail system or through the backpacker hostels which connect labour with growers. Some growers use roadside signs to identify their need for labour whilst others have no shortage of cold call applicants (generally backpackers who just turn up on orchard). A significant proportion of apple and pear growers use contractors, labour hire firms that engage a workforce and manage employment paperwork and wages. These labour hire firms will create work

2 crews comprising Australian residents and/or backpackers depending upon the location of the orchard (and whether it is close to a major capital city or large regional centre or not). Uptake of the Seasonal Worker Program in the Apple and Pear Industry In responding to this inquiry APAL has established that less than five apple and pear growers currently use the Seasonal Worker program. To put this into context, our estimates suggest that there are approximately 450 apple growers and 150 pear growers across the country. The poor uptake of the seasonal worker program reflects three main considerations: The ready supply of casual unskilled labour from the pool of backpackers (417 and 462 visas). Noting though supply can become tighter: o when weather turns cold as backpackers choose to move north; o if the orchard is located away from major metropolitan and regional centres. Perceptions that the seasonal worker program is expensive and onerous; Old rules that required employment of seasonal workers for a minimum period of six months, and from specified start and end dates. Perceptions of the Seasonal Worker Program in the Apple and Pear Industry There is a general perception amongst apple and pear growers that the seasonal worker program is expensive to establish as a source of seasonal labour supply, is inflexible and involves considerable red tape. Grower concerns relate to the following key areas: a) There is considerable red tape involved in becoming an approved employer The current process of application and assessment to gain approved employer status involves considerable paperwork across three government bodies: the Department of Employment, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Department of Employment s application form, an Expression of Interest, is currently 19 pages in total and contains a number of areas of duplication. Specific questions of interest to the Department of Employment relate to: declarations about company structure and financials (ABN, no sole traders); commitment to and understanding of the Horticulture Award; activities undertaken as part of labour market testing; conflict resolution policies and practices; outline of proposed cost-sharing arrangements; outline of proposed pastoral care arrangements; and, company ABN. Applications are also assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). Their interest lies in the applicant s experience with recruitment of international labour and understanding of migration regulation. If successful a grower is required to enter into a Deed of Agreement with DIBP to sponsor workers under the Seasonal Worker program and pay a once off fee of $420. The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) also plays a role in assessing approved employer applications through an assessment of a grower s financial viability and ABN and checks the business has an unblemished record of compliance with workplace relations requirements. FWO also give briefings - an introduction to workplace rights and obligations - to new seasonal workers when they arrive in Australia to start work.

3 The application process is a once-off and is not required on an annual basis. Nevertheless it is seen as a major hurdle, especially compared with employing backpackers (417 Visa holders) where no such application process is required. APAL is aware that the Department of Employment is currently revising the processes used to evaluate and grant applications for approved employer status. APAL looks forward to any moves to simplify and streamline the application process so that it will be considerably more appealing to apple and pear growers. b) Labour Market Testing is an onerous task Under the current process growers seeking to become an approved employer under the Seasonal Worker Program must first try to recruit local jobseekers and undertake labour market testing. Employers must advertise vacancies and then give first preference to any suitable local jobseekers before filling the vacancies with seasonal workers. As part of the application process employers must provide evidence of a positions vacant advertisement (which can be lodged with local newspapers or through online sites such as Gumtree). Declarations with regard to the number of (Australian) applicants and reasons for their unsuitability are also required. Unsuitability the work is unskilled generally relates to preparedness to travel to the site and availability for the time required. APAL understands that university students often seek the work but are unavailable during the whole harvest (late January through to June) which cuts through the university timetable. In most cases though there is simply a lack of a seasonal local workforce, with the local unemployed more interested in permanent work to sustain mortgages and family living expenses. There are also some comments from growers that advertisements often attract New Start allowance candidates who are obliged to demonstrate that they have applied for work whilst receiving benefits, but have little interest in or ability to undertake the physically demanding seasonal orchard work. Unfortunately labour market testing is valid only for a three month period. Given the application process for approved employer status currently takes up to three months only a first tranche of seasonal workers can be engaged. Some growers using the SWP prefer to engage seasonal workers in blocks, with some arriving in for winter pruning, still more for late Spring thinning and the bulk in late January or February for harvesting. In such cases the initial Labour testing is invalid for the entire cycle and must be repeated twice or three times. Whilst it might be beneficial for labour market testing to be extended for an annual period to overcome these hurdles, APAL believes that the requirement should be removed entirely. This is because: Such requirements do not exist for the employment of international backpackers (417 Visa holders). It is therefore cheaper to employ 417 Visa holders than seasonal workers. The SWP was established by the Australian Government in 2012 in recognition that a lowskilled labour mobility programme could provide strong benefits to the Australian horticulture industry through greater labour certainty and increased efficiency. Nothing has changed to alter this fact and access to seasonal labour from the pool of Australian residents remains tight. Obliging growers to continually demonstrate that there is no ready pool of local Australian labour actually works against the SWP program.

4 c) Growers are obliged to incur costs additional to the Horticulture Award There is a general perception that under the Seasonal Worker Program growers are required to incur a number of costs in addition to the wages established under the Horticulture Award, including the costs of international airfares, domestic travel, accommodation, and pastoral care. Many growers are unaware that they are, in fact, now able to recoup most of these additional costs from an employee s wage. Under the current program growers must pay, upfront, for the entire return international airfare. However recent changes to the program mean that the approved employer can now recover from an employee s wage, any amount over $500 from transportation costs. For example, the return airfare from Port Vila to Melbourne is about $1000 so the employer can recover the remaining $500 from the seasonal worker s pay. In addition to international flights the approved employer is also required to pay for domestic transfer costs to and from their work location. This includes the costs of transport to and from the airport to the growing region, which in some cases in apples and pears can be over $100 per person each way (say Perth to Manjimup or Brisbane to Stanthorpe, Sydney to Batlow). However these transport costs can be used against the $500 maximum grower outlay calculated above. Once approved as an approved employer the grower is required to provide to the Department of Employment a draft contract of employment, the Letter of Offer that will be made to the seasonal worker. Each seasonal worker is guaranteed a minimum of 30 hours per week of paid work averaged across the employment period. This demonstrates to the Department of Employment how the seasonal workers wage under the Horticulture Award will be calculated (including piece rates if used by the grower) and the manner in which deductions will be made to cover costs incurred by the grower including outlays for: Transport to and from accommodation to the orchard; Accommodation; Food (if purchased on their behalf) Transport to and from pastoral activities (Church, community activities, medical appointments, personal shopping); Visas Health insurance Tax - a flat rate of 15% from the first dollar earned is charged as PAYG and remitted to the Australian tax Office. Seasonal workers are issued with a Tax File Number and a Group Certificate but are unable to claim any refunds or deductions upon departure. Note that as is the case for all employees, approved employers are required to make the contributions to superannuation at the standard rate applying to Australian residents of 9.5%. Theoretically the grower should only be out of pocket for the $500 referred to above. However the fact that approved employers are responsible for organising accommodation, transport and pastoral activities appears to be a major stumbling block to employing seasonal workers. The tasks associated with organising these aspects and the paperwork of calculating deductions are considered an extra burden compared with international backpackers (Visa 417 and 462) who manage their own affairs. One additional (albeit minor) area which does concern some growers is that the return flight must be paid up-front. There is a very small risk that the seasonal worker could abscond or be sent home

5 early. In such cases the grower may not be able to fully recoup the airfare (in excess of $500) and other living costs from a weekly wage. d) Growers are obliged to employ workers for a minimum of six months Before the Seasonal Worker Program was expanded, growers were required to engage seasonal workers (416 Visas) for a minimum period of six months. For many apple and pear growers this was difficult because the harvest season may last as little as three months, depending upon the varieties planted (which ripen at earlier or later time periods), the acreage of mature plantings and the size of the crop which can be subject to a number of last minute natural disasters such as hail, storm or bird damage (significantly reducing the crop required to be picked). Those with small crops could not guarantee work for the entire six months and were effectively locked out of the seasonal worker program. The requirement that start and end dates for visas and the period of employment be specified well in advance under the old system also deterred growers. Weather conditions leading up from bloom through fruit set through to fruit ripening can play havoc with harvest dates. This means that growers bear the risk of engaging 416 seasonal workers too early, before the fruit has matured or too late after the fruit has matured. Growers require a fair degree of flexibility and are not in a position to hire and pay for labour before they are needed in the orchard. For this reason the ability to turn-on or turn-off backpackers (417 and 462 Visas) is considered a more flexible approach to sourcing casual unskilled orchard labour. APAL understands that under the program expansion, minimum employment periods no longer apply. Under the old arrangements, a minimum of 14 weeks employment were enforced and a maximum of 6 months. However, under the new arrangements, whilst ever there is net financial benefit for seasonal workers (416 Visas) to earn money after paying their deductions (i.e. flights, accommodation and so on), if they return with a reasonable amount of earning, then no minimum employment period apply. The Department of Employment advises that seasonal workers (416 Visas) should work a minimum average of 30 hours a week during their employment and placement in Australia (and have the ability to work more if the work is available). Nevertheless, there is no common understanding of what a reasonable amount of earning might be. Seasonal Workers are More Productive than 417 and 462 Visa Holders There is now evidence to suggest that seasonal workers (416) engaged in the horticulture industry may be considerably more efficient than working holiday makers (417 and 462). For example, in a recent study published in the Australian Farm Institute s Farm Policy Journal (Vol 12, No. 2, Winter Quarter 2015), the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) found that seasonal workers (416) harvested fruit at a much faster rate than their 417 visa counterparts and that returning seasonal workers (416) were even more efficient than new seasonal workers. Whilst the study was based on workers in only one orchard and whilst this was within the citrus industry, there are few reasons to suggest why the results would not be applicable across the tree fruit industries like apples and pears (if not all of horticulture). APAL strongly encourages ABARES to replicate its study using the apple and pear industry and across different growing regions to test this premise.

6 The study used average hourly earnings as a measure of efficiency during the harvest period. Importantly wages were based on piece rates, meaning that earnings reflected the number of bins picked and rates ($/bin) reflected differences in the types of fruit picked. In the apple industry, for example, piece rates for picking Pink Lady are higher than for Red Delicious because more care needs to be taken to prevent bruising with the former and will therefore take longer to fill a bin. The ABARES analysis indicated seasonal workers were on average 22% more efficient than their working holiday maker (417 Visa) counterparts. New seasonal workers were 13% more efficient and returning seasonal workers 27% more efficient than working holiday makers (417 and 462 Visa workers). ABARES rightly points out that many contributing factors may impact upon relative efficiency of workers under the two different schemes, including age, motivation, work experience, education level and the specific experience within the orchard under this specific study. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence from the apple and pear growers currently using the seasonal worker program indicate that there is a significant difference in productivity between the different types of workers, with very positive experiences in favour of the Pacific Islanders. Two case studies are provided in the attachment (see Box 1 and 2). All users of the seasonal worker program in the apple and pear industry reported that the repeat workers were particularly efficient not only more than their first year compatriots but more than the 417 and 462 Visa holders. Expanding the Seasonal Worker Program to other countries An expansion of the seasonal worker program to Asian countries could be of benefit to the Australian horticulture sector. There are many Asian markets for which Australian fresh fruit and vegetables, including apples and pears, are currently prohibited. This is because the Australian Government has not yet achieved access to these markets. To gain market access, the Australian Government needs to negotiate that we would not export pests and diseases of concern to a particular country along with our fruit. Once access is officially sought it is common practice for an import risk assessment to take place and a trade protocol (specifying treatment to diminish the risks of pests and diseases) to be developed, before trade can happen. Unfortunately the time period between an access request and an import risk assessment can be more than a decade. At the same time, a number of markets in Asia that once permitted access for Australian fruit have now closed or imposed protocols or quotas. It could be possible to encourage these markets to act upon market access and protocol improvement requests more speedily if relationships were developed through goodwill. Access to the Seasonal Worker Program might be one such measure, particularly for countries such as China, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. Expanding the Seasonal Worker Program to other sectors APAL is not, at this stage, in favour of expanding the seasonal worker program to other sectors beyond currently approved industries, other than agriculture. The program was expanded by the Government in June 2015 to include the accommodation industry in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Tropical North Queensland and Kangaroo Island as well as to other sectors of the tourism industry in Northern Australia. The Government is also consulting with industry on identifying a list of low-skilled, seasonal occupations in the wider agricultural industry. APAL supports this initiative.

7 Low skilled work in the horticulture sector is perceived as physically hard, particularly when harvest can take place in the height of summer as it does in the apple industry. APAL is concerned that there will be leakage from the horticulture sector if workers are able to readily access jobs in less physically demanding jobs in say, tourism and hospitality. We do not support any further expansion of the program beyond agriculture until there is evidence to show that there remains a sufficient supply of workers for the horticulture sector. Other Matters: Tax Thresholds on Working Holiday Makers Although not directly related to the Seasonal Worker Holiday program, APAL is concerned about the possible adverse impact of recent proposed changes to tax thresholds for the workforce upon which the industry relies. In the Budget the Government proposed changes the tax status of temporary working holiday makers from that of resident, to that of non-resident, from 1 July Currently most people who are temporarily in Australia for a working holiday (like the 417 and 462 Visa holders) are treated as residents for tax purposes. This means they are able to access resident tax treatment, including the tax-free threshold, the low income tax offset (LITO) and the lower tax rate of 19 per cent for income above the tax free threshold up to $37,000. The Government will change the tax residency rules from 1 July 2016 to treat working holiday makers (417 and 462 Visa holders) as non-residents. This means they will be taxed at 32.5 per cent from their first dollar of income. We do not have the ability to model the impact that this will have on the supply of labour from the Visa holiday maker program to the apple and pear or horticulture sector more generally. Simple mathematics would suggest, however, that the impact could be significant as Australia becomes a less desirable place to work whilst holidaying. For example, the unskilled casual wage rate under the Horticulture Award is currently $21.61 per hour. Assuming an eight hour day for six months a Visa holder could earn $22,474. Under current arrangements the Visa holder could retain all of this income for spending on living or holidaying within Australia or save to spend elsewhere upon departing the country. Under the proposed change that employee will have 32.5 cents per dollar taxed so that his or her income is reduced to $15,170. APAL is also concerned that this new tax rule will create incentives that will drive behavioural change amongst working holiday makers and the contract labour firms that might manage them. Specifically we are concerned that the substantial tax imposition will reduce the incentive to work legally. There will be an incentive for backpackers to seek employment off the books and to be paid in cash. Employers themselves may oblige because it reduces their paperwork. The change in the tax threshold could therefore encourage more employers into the black market for labour, a practice we do not condone. Given the heavy reliance of the apple and pear industry on Visa holder labour, APAL urges the Government to reconsider the proposed change in the residential status of visa holders for tax purposes.

8 Other Matters: Imposition of Additional Obligations to employ Working Holiday Makers Growers have also nominated a number of areas of red tape employing Working Holiday makers (417 and 462 Visas) which adds to the cost of their labour, particularly through labour hire firms. This includes the requirement of growers to: Check worker eligibility to work. APAL supports the use of a Green Card system advocated by the Voice of Horticulture A Green Card would incorporate the worker s photo, name and visa status as well as Tax File Number and Superannuation Number. This would simplify the paperwork for growers and farmers to ensure they are employing workers with valid visas. The back of the card Green Card would state minimum labour pay rates and provide Fair Work Ombudsman help lines in the appropriate language of the bearer so the worker could seek help if needed. Check Labour Hire firms are paying their workers the appropriate Horticulture Award wage. One grower has pointed out that if he hires an electrical company for works on his property he is not responsible for ensuring that the electrician pays his workers, apprentices and subcontractors the correct Award wage. That grower correctly asks why he should have to spend effort and time checking the books of the Labour Hire company and the payslips of the workers when he has engaged the labour hire company to manage the employment and associated administrative processes. APAL recognises that there are some unscrupulous Labour Hire firms operating within the industry and across the economy more broadly. However imposing obligations upon growers is not the answer. Better policy settings, such as the licencing of labour hire firms would remove the red tape that growers bear and remove the risk that growers unknowingly get caught up in illegal activity which tarnishes their reputation as well as that of the industry. Other Matters: Superannuation There have been strong and ongoing calls from growers within the apple and pear industry about the need to review the current superannuation system for working holiday makers. Some growers argue that these workers do not meet the sole purpose test of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Sect 62), because their working visa prohibits work in Australia for more than 12 months (or 2 years if they qualify for the twelve month extension). Some also argue that is unfair to Australian residents who are unable to access superannuation until their retirement ; with backpackers picking up superannuation upon exit to fund the Bali trip after departure. Other growers are keen to see that the minimum threshold under the superannuation guarantee charge (SCG) is lifted to help remove the administrative burden faced by growers. Generally, growers have to pay super for an employee if they are 18 years old or over and if they are paid $450 or more (before tax) in salary or wages in a month. It doesn t matter whether the employee is full time, part time or casual. The current threshold of $450 has not changed for many years even though wages have risen over time.

9 Given the current Horticulture Award wage rate of $21.16 per hour, this threshold captures everyone working more than five hours per week. It would be hard to imagine anyone that is employed within horticulture for so few hours. Nonetheless, it means that growers have to undertake the superannuation paperwork every pay period and this can be incredibly timeconsuming (and costly) given that: In peak harvest periods some growers can have an additional 100 plus employees on the books at any one time which can potentially mean an additional 100 plus different superannuation schemes; There is backpacker churn which adds to the burden term of complying with superannuation requirements. This is especially true if the backpacker remains on orchard for less than three days (assuming an eight hour work day it would take 2.7 days on the minimum wage to meet the superannuation guarantee threshold). Other Matters: Harvest Trail APAL supports continued funding by the Commonwealth of the harvest labour service operated through the Harvest Trail program. APAL frequently refers phone and inquiries to the service which enables growers to advertise positions and job seekers to readily locate fruit picking opportunities across the country. Whilst backpackers often have their own social online networks and accommodation providers also provide employment connections, the Harvest Trail program provides a one-stop shop of resources required by backpackers and employers alike. Conclusion APAL is fully supportive of the (416) seasonal worker program and is pleased that some recent changes has made the program less onerous and more flexible. APAL is also very pleased to learn from the Department of Employment that the application process for approved employer status is being redesigned to remove areas of duplication and unnecessary information. I have raised a number of issues above where the system could be improved further, including the removal of the labour market test. It is pleasing that anecdotal evidence from apple and pear growers that use the seasonal worker program supports the ABARES study that suggests that seasonal workers are considerably more productive than backpackers. APAL would encourage ABARES to extend its study to the apple and pear industry and to invite government to more actively promote the efficiency benefits of the seasonal worker scheme to the industry and horticulture more broadly. Whilst not specifically related to the seasonal worker program, APAL also believes that Government should address issues related to superannuation and the removal of the tax free threshold for backpackers and give consideration to a Green Card system for workers, making it easier for growers

10 to source and employ casual labour. Yours sincerely John Dollisson Chief Executive Officer Attachments: Case Study 1 and 2

11

12 Case Study 2: Tongans in Apple Orchards Paul s business has used seasonal worker program in 2012, 2013 and 2014 but not for the 2015 harvest. However they plan to engage seasonal workers for the 2016 harvest: In the first year we had six guys from Tonga and they were the best workers we ever had. In the second year we brought the same six back plus another six. The 2013 harvest ran very smoothly with the seasonal workers so we decided to increase the workers in 2014 to twenty. Unfortunately, some of the new workers lacked the enthusiasm and willingness to work that we had previously experienced. They also created problems among the existing group of workers plus issues within the community. In the end we were forced to send ten workers home. The balance remaining (the original crew) quickly returned to the happy hard working group we had grown accustomed too. In 2015 we make the decision to not to get any seasonal workers back - this was for a number of reasons; In hindsight, once we packed the fruit the seasonal workers had picked, it had disappointing results there was a lot of bruising, unlike the previous years. Our employment contractor had closed down their WA office. Which we perceived as a major issue for them to roll out the services required as part of their employer responsibilities. Worker Performance of the Tongans If I look at the performance of the workers for the first two years, it was very pleasing for the following reasons: Many of the workers already had good practical skills, which meant they were relatively quick to learn new skills and tasks. Most of the original crew have a good work ethic and some exceptional they really care about doing a good job The crew worked together to help and motivate each other. If one picker had a slow day the others were quick to help him out. Repeat workers pasted their knowledge and experience onto other seasonal workers, so new workers quickly became upskilled. o In general repeat workers are great, regardless of whether they re seasonal workers or backpackers. They come readily equipped with the knowledge of the jobs and tasks at hand, so our productivity from those workers is very high. The Tongans were happy to do any job, and seem to really like the more physical jobs such as reflective matt rolling and netting (often challenging for backpackers). It s great to walk into your orchard and see people working hard, hearing them laughing and singing. For the first two years the crew had a very high rate of productivity when picking apples for harvest. They would pick the apples almost bruise free, the single largest issue that affects our packout rates and hence profitability. Key Issues with the Program As an employer looking to source workers from the Pacific Islander Program you either become an Approved employer or use an employment contractor...continued next page..

13 Case Study 2: Tongans in Apple Orchards continued Becoming an Approved Employer is a nightmare, despite the Department of Immigration doing all it can to cut the red tape. Issues with the Approved Employer program are Providing pastoral care this can be extremely time consuming, during an already stressful time of the year such as harvest. At the end of the day most farmers are exhausted and, as much as we want our crews to enjoy their time with us, arranging trips to town for workers, church, weekend activities etc adds to the already full load. The employer remains responsible for the employee if they choose not to return home. This has the potential to be very expensive and it s not a risk we were willing to undertake. I have to provide accommodation for the workers. Our business is not set up to accommodate staff (many other farming businesses are) therefore we found there was a lot of time and cost associated with finding appropriate accommodation Transporting workers to and from the airport. Again another cost and takes a lot of time if you do it yourself. Transporting workers to and from work on a daily basis, another cost. Using labour hire contractors simply puts the responsibility of being an Approved Employer onto someone else, but it comes at a cost of about $3-4hr per hour about 15%. Additional issues with the program include: We are forced to pay airfares for the program up front. We are able to claim some of this cost back by deducting it from the workers, but still it remains another cost. Most people like to see who they re taking on before they employ them. I think this is an under estimated issue with the adoption of the scheme. It is significantly more expensive to hire a worker from the Pacific Islander Program (PIPW), rather than just grab a backpacker. However it is almost certain that once the PIPW starts work they will do a better job than a backpacker. Our business is very supportive of the Pacific Islander Program, and we intend to get workers back for the 2016 harvest season (probably just the original crew of 6-12). This would equate to approximately 10% of the workforce we need at harvest. It should be noted this is primarily because these individuals are tried and trusted workers it s unlikely we would look at taking pot luck again. However, getting the Pacific Islanders workers back is only part of our workforce requirements. We need the backpacker working visa scheme to remain in place. Reworking the backpacker visa scheme will have catastrophic issues for horticulture in Australia. Politicians MUST understand if they want to keep feeding Australia s population they need a workforce that is going to pick and pack the crop - regardless of whether its apples, grapes, oranges, lettuce, onions, watermelons, bananas attempting to employ locals to do this has shown time and time again the vast majority of Australian jobseekers simply aren t going to do it.