Question Time AU

General Debate

Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme

House of Representatives · Monday 25 August 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on a motion acknowledging the PALM scheme's role in addressing workforce shortages and strengthening Pacific ties. Coalition and National Party members supported the scheme but criticised the government's initial imposition of a 30-hour weekly minimum, arguing it caused a 20 per cent drop in agricultural workers and demanded permanent flexibility. Labor members defended the scheme's growth to over 31,000 workers, citing investments in worker protections and skills development, while rejecting claims of exploitation. The discussion highlighted tensions between industry demands for seasonal flexibility and government efforts to ensure fair treatment and prevent exploitation.

Outcome

The motion was agreed to without division.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Wood moved the motion to acknowledge the PALM scheme as a bipartisan initiative benefiting Australian employers and Pacific nations. Wood highlighted that $212 million in remittances flowed back to Pacific countries and that workers contributed nearly $1 billion to the Australian economy. Wood criticised the government's 2023 policy requiring a guaranteed 30 paid hours per week, stating it ignored seasonal realities and caused a 20 per cent decline in agricultural workers. Wood noted that while the government amended this to 120 hours averaged over four weeks, the measure expires in March 2026, leaving farmers without long-term clarity. Wood urged the government to adopt a permanent flexible framework, such as extending the averaging period to eight or twelve weeks.

Opposition response

Webster argued that the Labor government held a historical bias against Pacific Islander workers and was undermining the PALM scheme. Webster claimed Labor's policies forced farmers to mechanise or abandon labour-intensive crops, leading to regional population decline. Webster cited delays in the Vietnam Labour Mobility Arrangement as evidence of government failure to deliver workers on time. Webster asserted that Labor prioritised union interests and political agendas over productivity and regional economic needs.