STUDENT ESSAY

Regulating temporary migrant workers in Australia

ZULKEE RINZIN

The Australian migration system is undergoing critical transformation, driven by the Australian Labour Party (ALP) responding to concerns of
a “broken” system marked by exploitation and abuse (Lapham, 2022). While navigating this transformation, the ALP must be effective in implementing migration policies that take into consideration national and economic interests while also prioritising the rights and welfare of the migrants. This essay explores the pivotal role of ideologies in shaping political debates governing international students and temporary migrant workers. It will also highlight how the voices of key stakeholders, particularly the temporary migrant workers, are excluded from critical debates and decision-making processes. Subsequently, it will argue that the coalition government’s drive for a liberal market economy significantly shaped the exploitative migration policies implemented thus far. It will also examine the critical role played by key stakeholders, such as business lobby groups, in shaping these policy outcomes. Lastly, it will examine how these policies differ from those implemented by the Labour government which, in contrast, prioritises the needs and interests of temporary migrant workers. In doing so, this essay aims to demonstrate how ideologies serve as the driving force behind migration policy debates, while concurrently emphasising the significant impact of non-state actors in shaping policy outcomes.

Migration and education

The Australian migration system is undergoing a significant policy overhaul under the ALP leadership. Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil labelled the migration system as “broken” citing issues like rorting, trafficking, exploitation of temporary migrant workers, non-compliance with visa regulations and unclear pathways for skilled migrants among many others (Lapham, 2022 and Haydar, 2023). Former Home Minister Peter Dutton faced media scrutiny for presiding over a migration system that had been “broken” during his party’s leadership (Rizvi, 2023). Moreover, during the pandemic, the coalition government’s policy changes regarding the migration policies of temporary migrant workers, including international students, graduates and working holiday makers (WHM) exacerbated these issues (Barraclough, 2021).

Policy changes introduced during the pandemic included the temporary relaxation of working hour restrictions for international students and the introduction of a fee-free Temporary Activity Visa, known as the COVID visa, allowing migrants to stay in Australia with unlimited working rights for up to 12 months (Kehoe and Schlesinger, 2022). These changes were prompted by pressure from business lobby groups facing severe labour shortages in key sectors such as retail trade (supermarkets), horticulture/agriculture, healthcare and aged care sectors (Stayner, 2022 and Kehoe and Schlesinger, 2022). The shutdown of the hospitality and food service industry due to COVID-19 was detrimental to the many international students who typically worked in these sectors (Farbenblum and Berg, 2020). Hence, they were compelled to seek employment in high-risk sectors leaving them susceptible to getting infected and exploited (Farbenblum and Berg, 2020). A study of over 6100 migrant workers found that 14% of students, 12% of graduates, and 29% of backpackers had performed work in return for food and housing rather than wages during the pandemic (Berg and Farbenblum, 2020). Additionally, 21% reported reduced wages, 11% performed unpaid work and 13% were forced to undertake uncomfortable tasks (Berg and Farbenblum, 2020).

These findings align with previous studies demonstrating that the increasing numbers of international students and WHM have resulted in a system of under-paid, underemployment, and low wage growth primarily due to their limited working rights and protections compared to permanent residents or citizens (Daley, 2019, cited in Clibborn and Wright, 2022). The unequal power balance at the workplace exacerbates the challenges faced by temporary migrant workers, as many are unaware of their rights or how to enforce them (Clibborn and Wright, 2022).

Following the change in leadership in 2022, the ALP has been working to make significant changes to Australia’s migration system. Findings from their review of the system, released in April 2023, called for a major reform, the outcomes of which have been in motion since May 2023 (Department of Home Affairs, 2023). These reforms include reinstating the working hour restriction for international students; eliminating the COVID visa; increasing the age limit for WHM to 35; raising the Temporary Skilled Migration (employer-sponsored visa) income threshold to $70,000; and streamlining pathways to permanent residency making it competitive with countries like the UK, Canada and USA (Brancatisano, 2023). The Labour government has also allocated a $50 million budget to enhance protection for migrant workers and increase enforcement and compliance efforts (Crowe, 2023). These policy changes aim to reduce the complexity of the migration system while being selective in attracting specific categories of migrants (Crowe, 2023).

The Labour government’s policy changes come at a critical time when Australia’s population grew by 1.9% in 2022, with over 619,600 migration arrivals, and this growth trend is expected to continue until 2024 (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2023 and Davies, 2023). The influx of international students, skilled temporary visa holders and WHMs can be attributed for the growth in net migration (ABS, 2023). While the policy revision may provide clarity for newly arrived migrants, it also overlooks the interests of over 619,000 newly arrived migrants who may have been influenced to move to Australia based on previous policies (McDonald, 2023). The motivations and influences behind these policy decisions will be explored further in the following section.

Historical ideological influences

The differing ideologies of the political parties ultimately impacted the policy debates and outcomes which is evident in the Labour party’s reversal of policies implemented by the coalition government during the COVID pandemic (Rizvi, 2023). At the onset of the pandemic, Scott Morrison made a statement suggesting that temporary migrants and international students should ‘go home’ if they were unable to support themselves (Gibson and Moran, 2020). With Australia hosting more than one million temporary visa holders, this stance signalled a shift, indicating that temporary migrants who chose to remain in the country were no longer welcome. This disregarded the substantial economic contributions made by international students and temporary migrants (Berg and Farbenblum, 2020). Although challenged by some authors, it
can be argued that the international education sector contributed $40.4 million in 2019, making it the fourth-largest export in Australia (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021). Additionally, studies show that while studying, 65% of international students engage in part-time employment, constituting approximately 4% of the labour market in 2019 (Farbenblum and Berg, 2020). Moreover, the business models of the agriculture and hospitality industries heavily depend on temporary migrant workers and WHM, leaving these sectors severely handicapped at the start of the pandemic (Berg and Farbenblum, 2020).

The coalition government implemented policy changes such as the removal of working hour restrictions and provision of COVID visas, driven by the economic interests and pressure from business lobby groups, particularly in agriculture, hospitality and retail trades facing labour shortage (Cassidy and Rachwani, 2023 and Kehoe and Schlesinger, 2022). Such changes increased the vulnerability of international students and temporary migrant workers as some within these industries are known for their low wages, non-compliance with labour standards and the absence of unions (Clibborn and Wright, 2018). Reports such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners expose on the 7-eleven franchise, revealed severe non-compliance with minimum wage laws and threats to report workers for breaching their visa working hour restrictions (Branley, 2015). According to Howe et al.’s (2017, cited in Clibborn and Wright, 2018) research, 74% of horticulture employers underpaid weekend rates to WHMs. Additionally, Berg and Farbenblum’s (2017, cited in Clibborn and Wright, 2018) survey of 4065 temporary migrant workers revealed that 30% were paid $12 or less per hour.

The extent of underpayment and exploitation of temporary migrant workers is alarming. Therefore, when the coalition government called on international students and WHM to address the labour shortage, it undermined the integrity of their visas and subjected them to further exploitation (Barraclough, 2021). These policy decisions underscore the essential contribution of international students and migrant workers to the Australian economy, but it also signifies how they are mistreated within the system. Despite the coalition government’s initial stance on temporary migrant workers, it is evident the role business lobby groups played in ultimately shaping and determining the policy outcome.

Historically, the coalition government’s migration policies were influenced by the liberal market’s demand for low-skilled labour, which reinforces employer’s non-compliance and exploitative workplace practices (Wright, 2015). Although these policies met industry labour demands, they failed to address the mistreatment of migrant workers. Moreover, the policies implemented during the pandemic were inherently self-interested as they relied on temporary migrants to fill workforce shortages in times of crisis. However, this favour was not reciprocated, as the government repeatedly excluded international students from welfare packages and relief payments, aligning with the ‘Australian first’ rhetoric associated with the Liberal Party (Berg and Farbenblum, 2020).

The government also made no efforts to consult with the international education sector while revising its policies, according to the chief executive of the International Education Association (Cassidy and Rachwani, 2023). This oversight was echoed by the President of the Council of International Students Australia, who emphasised that relying on international students to address labour shortage while they continue their studies poses a challenge and diverts their focus from education, which is their primary reason for being here (Barraclough, 2021). Additionally, it put them at a heightened risk of contracting COVID- (Boscaini et al., 2022). Nonetheless, these policy decisions are consistent with Liberal party ideologies which lean towards conservatism, market liberalisation, promotion of economic growth and prioritisation of the needs of the economy over individual rights (Fenna, 2014).

Freeman (1995, cited in Wright, 2015) argues that liberal migration policies have always disproportionately favoured employers, creating an incentive for business associations to lobby for more liberal policies in exchange for electoral support. The close ties between employer associations and the shared ideologies with governing parties make them privy to the policy-making process which often results in policies that are more aligned with employers’ interests rather than those of migrants (Wright, 2015). This influence of business associations is evident when examining the 2005 policy change under the Howard government, where the extension of the WHM visa was initiated to address labour shortages in agriculture/regional industry (Clibborn and Wright, 2018). Liberal immigration policies introduced during the Howard era, such as the expansion of skilled visas, reflected the lobbying by peak business groups such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Business Council of Australia, oriented towards a liberal production regime (Wright, 2015).

Ideologically driven, the coalition government sought to establish an efficient and flexible liberal market economy, leading to selective migration policies that favoured skilled migrants who made significant fiscal contributions (Wright, 2015). This interplay further highlights how stakeholders have the capacity to mould and define policy outcomes, showcasing the relationship between economic interests and government decision-making.

However, the policy decisions starkly demonstrate a consistent exclusion of the main stakeholders’ voices in the policy debates and discussions, which in this case is the voice of the international students and temporary migrant workers. The coalition government has frequently prioritised its ideologies and the voices of business associations in determining migration policies, neglecting the interests and voices of unions or migrant community organisations (Wright, 2015). Specifically, in the 2005 policy reformation for the extension of WHM visas, unions warned about the high potential for exploitation of temporary migrants, but their concerns were disregarded (Wright, 2015).

By marginalising those who collectively represent the interests of the migrant workers, it perpetuates the culture of exploitation and underemployment of migrants. This is further enhanced by the lack of access to trade unions, especially as unions are underrepresented in industries like franchises, hospitality, agriculture and small businesses, where international students and temporary migrant workers are commonly employed (Clibborn and Wright, 2022). While trade unions once played a significant role in compelling workplaces to uphold minimum standards and secure legal entitlements for workers, including migrants, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the 2005 WorkChoices amendment by the Liberal-National coalition have restricted their influence (Clibborn and Wright, 2018).

This has considerably impacted the membership of unions, leaving migrant workers with limited avenues for support, pushing them further away from being heard by the government and exacerbating their mistreatment. The trade union and migrant community’s close association with the ALP has undeniably had an impact on the coalition government’s negative response to their agendas, leading to further marginalisation. For instance, a 2016 Australian Election Study found that almost 50% of voters believed that trade unions had too much power (Clibborn and Wright, 2018) which would directly impact the governing party’s response to the agendas of unions if they wanted to influence electoral votes.

However, when the Rudd-Gillard Labour government took office in 2008, trade unions were once again involved in the migration policy process (Wright, 2015). This resulted in the government›s decision to restrict the frivolity with which employer- sponsored visas were granted in order to protect migrant workers, despite outcry from the business associations (Clibborn and Wright, 2018). Similarly, the Labour government›s decision to reinstate the restriction on working hours starting July 2023 and address exploitative practices within the immigration system reflects its commitment to the rights of workers, which had eroded during the pandemic (Lapham, 2022). Labourism, at its core, advocates for the improvement of the conditions and well- being of the working class and furthering the cause of equality (Manwaring et al., 2023). Anthony Albanese’s vision statements in 2019 reiterated these values emphasising “workforce protection, labour rights and job growth” (Manwaring et al., 2023, p.4) aligning closely with traditional labourist ideology.

The ALP’s government’s policy changes aimed at attracting high-skilled migrants and increasing the threshold for employer-sponsored visas might, however unwittingly, compromise some of the needs of 600,000+ students who recently arrived relying on previous policies (McDonald, 2023). In so doing it is important to maintain dialogue with student workers so their voices can inform policy directions. Despite being key stakeholders, the traditional exclusion of temporary migrant workers from political debates raises concerns about barriers and the limited power stakeholders like temporary migrant workers and international students have in shaping policy outcomes. Although party ideologies significantly impact policy outcomes, the role and power of temporary migrants must also be acknowledged in the decision-making process.

Conclusion

The analysis of migration policies, particularly under the coalition government, reveals a complex interplay between economic interests, party ideologies and stakeholder influence. The coalition government’s pursuit of a liberal market economy resulted in migration policies that perpetuated the mistreatment of temporary migrant workers, non-compliance of employers and exploitative workplace practices. The power of influential stakeholders such as business groups and employer associations, repeatedly shaped policy outcomes as it aligned with the Liberal party’s commitment to an efficient and flexible market economy. However, this has come at the expense of temporary migrant workers as the policies disproportionately favoured the employers, prioritising economic interests over the well-being and rights of workers. Although migrant workers are key stakeholders, their voices have consistently been diminished by the coalition government. The evolving policy landscape under the leadership of ALP sheds light on the exploitative nature of migration policies. While certain policy changes reflect the interests of international students and temporary migrant workers, decisions aimed at restricting the entry of low-skilled migrants and enhancing competition for highly skilled migrants must be careful not to overlook the interests of the significant influx of migrants who arrived in Australia following the reopening of borders, the majority of whom belong to the low-skilled category. As the Labour government navigates this landscape, it is imperative for them to have a more balanced approach in creating policies that consider both the economic interests and the welfare of temporary migrant workers, thereby reflecting the needs of all the stakeholders involved.