Australia should think twice before asking desperate people to pick fruit for their freedom
The coronavirus pandemic and the associated economic crisis has brought many things to light. It has shown the value of care work, as our essential healthcare system and its workforce have been working round the clock to care for affected Australians. It has shown how shortsighted and problematic the political decision to move manufacturing offshore has been, as our global supply chains have been severed and we have had to scramble to remobilise to accommodate the increased demand for protective personal equipment (PPE), hand sanitiser and other health-related products.
It has also highlighted how reliant Australia’s agricultural sector is on overseas workers, as the pandemic and borders closures saw farmworkers laid off or return to their home countries. The too often unacknowledged fact is that our food is largely produced off the back of migrant labour, with some workers exposed to exploitation and degradation. An ABC investigation this week revealed fresh allegations of sexual harassment of female backpacker workers.
Recently, these workers have started to voice their concerns and frustration through their union, the newly amalgamated United Workers’ Union (UWU), who have pushed back against the systemic exploitation that became endemic long before the virus showed up.
Yet there have been a number of proposals to bring increasingly vulnerable communities into the industry amid a shortage of workers. Growcom called on the government to allow workers who have been displaced and made unemployed to pick fruit while receiving jobseeker, effectively turning the whole sector into a “work-forthe-dole” industry. The Northern Territory Farmers Association has suggested that Hecs discounts should be given to university students who agreed to engage in farmwork. Similarly, the interim report of the of the inquiry into the working holiday maker programhas echoed these proposals, recommending that year 12 students “spend a gap year at home” picking fruit before university, allowing fruit-picking jobseekers to be exempt from activity tests, and a number of subsidies and reforms to visa provisions to encourage more temporary residents to engage in farmwork.
Most interesting has been a recently floated solution proposed by the Refugee Council of Australia and supported by politicians from the government opposition and the crossbench, which would enlist the 17,000 refugees who are without a path to residency with an opportunity to work on farms in exchange for a shot a permanency.
There is little doubt that many of the people desperate to build a safe and secure life here in Australia will leap at the chance. However, the fact that the Refugee Council is proposing this solution speaks to the desperation that many who seek the shelter and safety that so many of us enjoy freely must feel. For many of these potential Australians, the choice on offer is often between complying with unacceptable requests in their new country or returning to persecution or oppression in their country of birth. Just as someone who is drowning will clutch at any object that might keep them afloat, it is unsurprising that vulnerable refugees and those who work to protect and advance their interests will look to get permanent residency by any means.
However, we should think twice before conscripting desperate people to pick fruit for their freedom.
From the Afghan cameleers who helped map our nation’s red centre and Chinese miners who drove the gold rush, Australia’s uncomfortable history with an interlinked immigration and employment system has long been discussed by scholars and pundits alike. While we’ve long since abandoned the official discrimination and racial hierarchies of the infamous White Australia policy, the echoes are still quietly reverberating around the edges of our political landscape. While the current proposal is seeking to solve two problems, by giving people who want to live and work in Australia a real chance at permanency and by filling the gaps in our supply chain, the implications of using a migrant labour force to solve a problem experienced by the white majority could be used as a dog whistle by less scrupulous politicians and campaigners.
However, there is another way to solve the problem that none of the previously mentioned solutions proposes: turn farmwork into secure, safe and sustainable employment.
If the government and farmers worked with farmworkers and their unions to create a sectoral agreement that guarantees fair treatment, wages and conditions across the supply chain, then many workers, regardless of skin colour or residency status, would be more inclined to work in the industry. By creating a fair employment environment, a path to residency for those who need it, and ensuring that both unions and governmental regulators had the capacity and resources to enforce compliance, we could help create a system where farmworkers are treated with respect, dignity and fairness.
Most importantly, we should ensure that it endures beyond the crisis. We should neither take the refugees who work these jobs in a crisis, or the backpackers who will one day return, for granted. We should use this as an opportunity to further deconstruct the systemic oppression that migrant workers face across our supply chains and to build a fair food system.