Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
SPECIAL ISSUE
Pacific seasonal workers: Learning from the
contrasting temporary migration outcomes in
Australian and New Zealand horticulture
Richard Curtain
1
| Matthew Dornan
1
|StephenHowes
1,2
| Henry Sherrell
1
1
Development Policy Centre, Crawford
School of Public Policy, The Australian
National University, Canberra, Australian
Capital Territory, Australia
2
International and Development
Economics, The Australian National
University, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory, Australia
Correspondence
Matthew Dornan, Development Policy
Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy,
The Australian National University,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
0200, Australia.
Email: matthew.dornan@anu.edu.au
Abstract
“Crowding out”is a widely accepted claim in migration
analysis, which posits that the preference of profit‐
maximising employers for irregular and minimally reg-
ulated migrants overregulated alternatives will under-
mine, if not condemn to failure, well‐regulated
temporary migration schemes. In this paper, we test
the crowding out hypothesis by examining the experi-
ence with well‐regulated seasonal migrant worker pro-
grams in the horticultural sectors of Australia and New
Zealand. This experience, which in both countries has
involved recruitment of workers from the Pacific
Islands, has been divergent, despite the two programs
being similar in design. Our findings suggest that the
relative attractiveness of regulated and unregulated
migrant labour sources depends on a range of factors,
including the export orientation of the sector, the costs
of collective action and regulation, differences in policy
design and implementation, and external factors.
Depending on industry and economy‐wide characteris-
tics, quality and reputational benefits for employers can
offset the cost of regulation.
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Migration and Work symposium on February 6, 2017, at the Univer-
sity of Sydney, and at the Devpolicy labour mobility workshop on June 1–2, 2016, at ANU. Thanks to participants at both
events and to reviewers for their comments.
--------------------------------- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- ---
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distri-
bution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2018 The Authors. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd and Crawford School of Public
Policy at The Australian National University.
Received: 1 May 2018 Accepted: 9 August 2018
DOI: 10.1002/app5.261
462 Asia Pac Policy Stud. 2018;5:462–480.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/app5
KEYWORDS
horticulture, labour mobility, Pacific island countries, public policy,
seasonal workers
1|INTRODUCTION
“Crowding out”is a widely accepted claim in migration analysis. It is often argued that profit‐
maximising employers will prefer irregular and minimally regulated migrants to more regulated
alternatives, given the costs of regulation. Thus, poorly regulated temporary migration schemes
will crowd out better regulated ones.
This paper revisits the crowding out hypothesis by comparing and contrasting the experi-
ence with well‐regulated seasonal migrant worker programs in the horticultural sectors of
Australia and New Zealand (NZ), which in both countries has involved recruitment of workers
from the Pacific Islands. This experience has been divergent despite strong similarities between
the two programs and despite the fact that both economies are structured on the same liberal
market principles and have labour markets that exhibit high proportions of migrants. In NZ,
a regulated labour supply of temporary migrants has thrived in horticulture, whereas in
Australia, an unregulated migrant labour supply has dominated.
This paper sets out to explain these contrasting outcomes, which are highly relevant for the
future of labour mobility programs involving workers from Pacific island countries. It first sur-
veys the relevant literature and provides the context, after which a detailed analysis of the Aus-
tralian and NZ horticultural sector labour markets is presented. The final sections of the paper
explain the contrast revealed by this analysis.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW
Since Castles' (1986) obituary for European guest worker systems, written on the premise that
these programs “inevitably lead to permanent settlement”(Castles, 1986), much has changed in
global migration. The apparent resurrection of temporary migration programs was acknowledged
by Castles (2006) himself. However, he then cautioned that “the frequent preference of employers
for undocumented workers undermines temporary worker programs”(Castles, 2006, p. 755). We
call a generalised version of this claim the “crowding out”hypothesis: the argument that the pref-
erence of employers for unregulated workers undermines regulated temporary worker programs.
1
The evidence for the crowding out hypothesis typically rests on within‐country comparisons
between small regulated schemes and large unregulated ones. For example, Castles (1986,
p. 764) documents how Belgian and French employers came to rely heavily on migrants with
a tourist visa but no work rights in the late 1960s. More generally, Wickramasekera (2002,
p. 5) finds that “businesses and employers in host countries reap enormous profits by exploiting
migrant workers, especially irregular workers.”
Exploring these labour dynamics in the context of “immigration policy and labour short-
ages,”Anderson and Ruhs note how profit‐maximising employers will choose to hire migrant
workers illegally based on three “business and recruitment objectives”:
1
This is a labour market equivalent of Gresham's law that bad money will drive out good.
CURTAIN ET AL.463
(i) minimising labour costs, (ii) recruiting ‘good workers’with the preferred qualities
and attitude, and (iii) minimising immigration costs, i.e. the economic and other
costs arising both from state sanctions and from complying with bureaucratic
requirements of the legal employment of migrants …Employers may also use
illegally employed migrants to lower costs through non‐compliance with employment
and tax laws. (Anderson & Ruhs, 2010, p. 198)
There are two possible policy implications of the crowding out hypothesis, both of which are rel-
evant to current efforts in Australia to expand labour mobility opportunities for Pacific
Islanders. One is for more enforcement. Ruhs and Martin (2006, p. 12–13) argue that “in both
the US and UK, the debate over how to deal with irregular migration includes the argument
that better enforcement of employment laws would reduce the demand for irregular migrant
labour by raising its cost ….”Ruhs (2006, 2013) himself argues in favour of well‐designed, reg-
ulated, and enforced temporary migration from existing sources. The other possible implication
is more defeatist: that temporary work programs are bound to fail. Castles (2006, p. 755) writes
that, because of crowding out, guest worker programs are still “unlikely to achieve their aims of
meeting low‐skilled labour demand and preventing settlement.”
As noted, the evidence for the crowding out hypothesis is based on single‐country studies. In
this paper, we re‐examine the crowding out hypothesis using a comparison of Australian and
NZ horticultural sector labour supply.
3|CONTEXT
Australia and NZ are prime examples of liberal market economies. The two countries have sim-
ilar migration regimes. The priority initially given post‐war to permanent “settler”migration
gave way to a strong emphasis on attracting skilled migrants, selected by points awarded for pre-
ferred characteristics. The growth in temporary skilled migration and international students has
also been important. Employers have increasingly been given a direct role in skilled migrant
selection, including via a two‐step migration process from temporary to permanent migration
through employer sponsorship (Hawthorne, 2011).
One major difference between the two countries is NZ's history of Pacific migration. From
1951 to 1972, the Pacific Islander population in NZ grew from 3,600 to over 50,000 (New
Zealand Immigration, 2016). The laissez‐faire approach of NZ policy‐makers to Pacific visitors
and visa overstayers in the 1960s and 1970s was gradually replaced by a more formal approach,
with the introduction of the first Pacific migration program in 1975–1976 (Ongley & Pearson,
1995). Specific Pacific migration “windows”remain a feature of NZ immigration policy today
(Curtain, Dornan, Doyle, & Howes, 2016).
In Australia, the White Australia policy before the 1970s and a rigid commitment to nondis-
crimination thereafter ensured that special concessions for migration from Pacific countries
were not forthcoming. As a result, the Pacific diaspora is much larger in NZ than in Australia.
Pacific migrants make up 3% of the NZ population, whereas in Australia, it has never been more
than 1%, made up mostly of Pacific migrants who have come via the NZ citizenship pathway
(Curtain et al., 2016, figure 2).
Although both Australia and NZ have traditionally emphasised permanent migration, more
recently, both countries have experienced massive growth in temporary skilled migration. The
main focus has been on skilled temporary visas, the 457 visa in Australia (now renamed the
464 CURTAIN ET AL.
Temporary Skills Shortage Visa) and the Essential Skills Visa in NZ. Research themes in relation
to the skilled temporary visas include precariousness (Tham & Campbell, 2011; Velayutham,
2013), fairness (Wright, Groutsis, & van den Broek, 2016), marginalisation (Walsh, 2014), and
vulnerability (Yuan, Cain, & Spoonley, 2014). Other major temporary visa categories are for
international students and working holiday makers, and they too have recently come under
both public and academic scrutiny. Boucher (2016) convincingly argues that such programs
should be considered “de‐facto low‐skilled programs.”Mares (2016a, 2016b) and Howe and
Reilly (2015) discuss how lower skilled migrants face a more constrained environment com-
pared with those with higher skill levels.
Another recent development is the introduction of temporary migrant worker programs spe-
cifically designed to allow skilled Pacific Islanders to work in Australia and NZ. Programs
focused on occupations requiring postschool qualifications are only very recent. Tradesmen
from the Pacific assisted in the Canterbury reconstruction as part of a capped pilot that NZ is
now extending to other industries with labour shortages. In Australia, the new, less restrictive
Pacific Labour Scheme will see Pacific Islanders working for a period of up to 3 years in lower
skilled occupations in regional areas from July 2018. That scheme is also capped, at 2,000
workers per year.
More significant than both, the aforementioned initiatives in terms of worker numbers have
been temporary migrant worker programs in horticulture. Both Australia and NZ established
such schemes in the mid‐2000s.
2
These schemes have been analysed separately (see Hay &
Howes, 2012, Doyle & Howes, 2015, and Howe, Reilly, van der Broek, & Wright, 2017, on Aus-
tralia, and Bedford, 2013, and Gibson & McKenzie, 2014, on NZ), but their comparative perfor-
mance has only been analysed to date in a presentation and blog post by Curtain (2015, 2016),
on which this paper builds.
4|HORTICULTURAL LABOUR IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW
ZEALAND
The horticultural industries in Australia and NZ provide a useful comparison to evaluate the
crowding out thesis and, in doing so, to assess the prospects for well‐regulated labour mobility
schemes designed to provide Pacific Islanders with employment opportunities. Both the Austra-
lian and NZ labour markets have a large share of migrant workers, and both have experienced
similar policy changes with the introduction of seasonal worker programs, albeit with some
important differences in timing.
The RSE scheme in NZ and the Seasonal Worker Programme (SWP) in Australia are broadly
similar. They are both highly regulated schemes for the employment of low‐skilled migrant
labour. The contrasting use and different employer preferences for the RSE and SWP show
how the context within which schemes operate shapes the use or otherwise of temporary low‐
skill migration programs.
The following subsections explore the size and composition of the horticultural workforce in
the two countries and then look in more detail at the three main types of labour employed.
2
A number of the major employers who engaged with the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) from 2007 already had
experience of Pacific workers (and some had Pacific employees on their permanent staff as supervisors). These pre‐RSE
experiences and relationships with Pacific workers contributed to the early quick uptake of the scheme in NZ (Bedford,
2013; Bedford, Bedford, Wall, & Young, 2017).
CURTAIN ET AL.465
4.1 |The horticultural workforce: Size and composition
The size of the horticultural labour market in both countries is difficult to estimate due to the
complexity of the sector and its high reliance on temporary workers and, in the case of Australia
especially, illegal workers. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations estimated
a workforce of 55,000 to 65,000 in 1999 (Australian Senate, 2006).
3
In NZ, Horticulture NZ esti-
mated a workforce of 50,000 for 2009, which grew to 60,000 by 2016 (Herbert, 2017).
Assessing the composition of the horticultural workforce is also difficult, given the lack of
empirical data and the incentives for employers not to reveal any reliance on illegal labour.
We have excellent data on seasonal workers, some data on other migrant workers, and poor
data on domestic or locally sourced workers. Our best estimates for the two countries are pre-
sented in Table 1. They suggest that backpackers and other migrants dominate the horticultural
workforce in Australia, but that domestic workers dominate in NZ. Although seasonal workers
are the smallest category in each country, their share is more than twice as large in NZ than in
Australia.
4.2 |Domestically sourced workforce
In Australia, the share of the domestically sourced workforce is declining. Howe et al. (2017)
find that “although local workers traditionally formed the bulk of the harvest workforce, they
are no longer the primary source of labour for growers”(p. 20).
Domestically sourced workers are a more important contributor to the NZ horticultural
labour market. Charlotte Bedford suggests a local workforce of approximately 55% of the total
for the period 2007–2011 (Bedford, 2013, table 6.5). This is roughly equivalent to Horticulture
NZ's own estimates of the domestically sourced labour supply (Herbert, 2017). According to
Bedford (2013), the share of locally sourced labour is also falling in NZ.
There are a number of reasons behind domestically sourced employment declining in the
horticultural industry. Bedford (2013) finds retention is the “crucial problem”because of low‐
wage rates combined with the prospect of only temporary work (p. 57). In both countries, an
increasingly urbanised workforce is less interested in undertaking agricultural work (in relation
to Australia, see Thompson, 2018).
3
The horticultural subgroup Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification cohorts in the 2011 Austra-
lian Census only record a total 37,000 people. However, the census occurs in early August, which is outside the time
most harvest seasons occur.
TABLE 1 An estimate of the composition of the horticultural workforce in Australia and New Zealand (%)
Domestically
sourced workers
Seasonal
workers
Backpackers and other
migrant workers Total
Australia 32 8 60 100
New Zealand 55 16 29 100
Note. Based on the discussion in the text above, we assume a labour market of 60,000 in each country. Seasonal worker numbers
are closely monitored by government and available through official data sources. For Australia, we derive backpacker numbers
from second‐year visa issuances and domestic workers as a residual. For New Zealand, we take the share of domestic workers
from Bedford (2013) and derive the backpackers/other migrant category as a residual. Source. Table 2 and 3 sources, Bedford
(2013), Herbert (2017), and Australian Senate (2006).
466 CURTAIN ET AL.
4.3 |Backpackers and other minimally regulated migrants
Working holiday makers, known colloquially in both countries as backpackers, are granted visas
based on minimal eligibility criteria such as age, a return ticket or equivalent, evidence of support
funds, and, in most cases, a level of postsecondary educational attainment. The visa entitles them
to live in Australia or NZ without dependants and to work without any supervision by migration
authorities. From the perspective of the employer, backpackers are identical to domestically
sourced workers except that they are not able to work for one employer for longer than 6 months.
4
In 2005, the Howard Government introduced a second‐year Working Holiday Maker visa
extension available to first‐year visa holders who had done at least 3 months of regional work.
This was in response to pressure from horticultural employers to address labour market short-
ages. This new policy was implemented as an alternative to a seasonal worker program, which
NZ was then introducing but which the Howard Government was opposed to. This decision
transformed the Australian horticultural labour market, as backpackers actively chose horticul-
tural employment in order to extend their residency in Australia. The Department of Immigra-
tion and Border Protection reported that 93% of second Working Holiday Maker visas are
granted due to work in horticulture (Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2016,
p. 25).
5
The number of second‐year backpacker visas grew dramatically from less than 2,700
in 2005 to nearly 46,000 by 2013–2014 before declining to 34,506 in 2016–2017 (Table 2).
4
Additional changes to backpacker employment rules were announced in the 2015 Northern Australia White Paper,
which relaxed single‐employer employment limits.
5
The second‐year working holiday visa is approved for backpackers who work in agriculture, which is further defined as
“the harvesting and/or packing of fruit and vegetable crops, fishing and pearling, tree farming and felling.”
TABLE 2 Number of second‐year backpacker visas granted in Australia and New Zealand, financial year
2005–2006 to 2016–2017
New Zealand Australia
Second
backpacker
visas
Second backpacker visas
as proportion of all
backpacker visas (%)
Second
backpacker
visas
Second backpacker visas
as proportion of all
backpacker visas (%)
2005–2006 —— 2,692 2
2006–2007 —— 7,822 6
2007–2008 —— 11,826 7
2008–2009 —— 21,775 11
2009–2010 1,163 3 25,315 14
2010–2011 1,475 3 22,500 12
2011–2012 1,963 4 30,501 14
2012–2013 2,127 4 38,862 15
2013–2014 2,911 5 45,950 19
2014–2015 3,087 5 41,339 18
2015–2016 3,731 5 36,264 17
2016–2017 4,108 6 34,506 16
Source. Department of Home Affairs (2018) and New Zealand Immigration (2016).
CURTAIN ET AL.467
Although not all backpackers who work on a farm apply for a second‐year visa, this figure of
second‐year visa applicants is the best proxy available for the number of backpackers working
on farms. Although the growth has moderated and even turned negative in recent years due
to a fall in the number of backpackers coming to Australia, the absolute number of backpackers
applying for a second‐year visa has remained large (Table 2).
Hay and Howes (2012), in their nationwide survey of horticultural employers in Australia,
found that 73% of growers report that backpackers are their main source of labour. Doyle and
Howes (2015), in a second survey of horticultural employers, found that 46% of growers reported
that backpackers are their main source.
NZ also promotes additional backpacker residency for work in horticulture, but the incen-
tive it offers is more limited than in Australia. Whereas a backpacker in Australia can gain
an additional 12 months of residency by working for 3 months in regional agriculture, in NZ,
the additional residency is limited to 3 months, and the backpacker must continue to work in
horticulture. This change was implemented in 2009, well after the introduction of its seasonal
worker program.
Many backpackers working in the regional horticultural labour markets are not motivated
solely by income, as they are also seeking to obtain a longer term skilled work visa. Approxi-
mately one in five backpackers from 1991 to 2014 eventually ended up with some form of per-
manent residency (Productivity Commission, 2015, p. 373). The first aim for many is simply to
get the second‐year visa. This puts them in a vulnerable employment situation, as they are
dependent on their employer for work certification. The Fair Work Ombudsman (2016) recently
found through an inquiry into the wages and conditions of people working under the 417 Work-
ing Holiday Visa Program that “unreasonable and unlawful requirements are being imposed on
visa holders by unscrupulous businesses”(p. 4).
Illegal migrants also work in horticulture. These may be people who enter Australia on a
tourist visa and/or are visa overstayers. Four out of five (79%) employers surveyed in 2015
recognised that “undocumented workers were used to at least some extent in the horticultural
industry”(Doyle & Howes, 2015, p. 13). Data from the Australian Department of Immigration
and Border Protection show that more than 64,000 people are living in Australia illegally after
overstaying work and tourist visas (Mcllroy, 2017). The department estimated that 20,000
overstayers are also working illegally (Mcllroy, 2017). Media reporting, including investigative
reporting in the Fairfax Press, has suggested that tourist visas are used as part of an organised
labour sourcing regime rife with middle men and “fixers”in clear contravention of government
regulations (Baker & McKenzie, 2016).
Finally, it is important to recognise that the illegal and backpacker categories overlap. Back-
packers are a legal source of labour but, as noted above, are often paid less than they are entitled
to. This is confirmed by the evidence from a 2017 online survey of 4,322 temporary migrants in
Australia, which showed that the worst paid jobs are in fruit and vegetable picking and farm
work, where 15% of respondents said they had earned $5 an hour or less and 31% had earned
$10 per hour or less (Berg & Farbenblum, 2017).
4.4 |Seasonal workers
The use of migrant workers in the horticultural sector has differed between Australia and NZ.
NZ has long had managed temporary migration programs for workers from the Pacific in hor-
ticulture (Ramasamy, Krishnan, Bedford, & Bedford, 2008; Lovelock & Leopold, 2008, pp. 218–
219). In Australia, farmers had been lobbying the government for such schemes unsuccessfully.
468 CURTAIN ET AL.
Mares (2016a, 2016b) notes that the Australian Senate's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade in its 2003 report “A Pacific Engaged”recommended that “a pilot program
to allow for labour to be sourced from the region for seasonal work in Australia.”
The 2006 World Bank report, At Home and Away: Expanding Job Opportunities for Pacific
Islanders through Labour Mobility, with its solid evidence base, endorsed the need for and
helped to legitimise the value of managed seasonal work programs for the Pacific to address
labour shortages in horticulture in Australia and NZ (World Bank, 2006). The NZ government
set up a pilot scheme in April 2007, based on a design that was already well advanced at the
time the World Bank report was published in late 2016. The World Bank worked with the NZ
government to pilot the sourcing of workers from Vanuatu (McKenzie, Garcia Martinez, & Win-
ters, 2008, p. 4). This later became the RSE.
The development of a similar program in Australia was less rapid and more contested. The
Howard Government, re‐elected for a fourth time in 2004, did not support temporary seasonal
migration programs from the Pacific. Instead, as noted above, in response to horticultural
employer pressure, it introduced the second‐year backpacker visa in 2005. At the same time,
in response to pressure from Pacific island countries for greater labour mobility opportunities,
it funded the Australia‐Pacific Technical College to upgrade the skills of Pacific workers to
enable them to migrate to work in Australia as skilled workers.
An Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into Pacific Region Seasonal Contract Labour was set
up in December 2005 but recommended against a seasonal worker program for the Pacific. This
was despite most submissions arguing there were major labour shortages in the Australian hor-
ticulture sector (Australian Senate, 2006).
With the election of a labor government in 2007, the new PM Kevin Rudd said the new gov-
ernment “will closely monitor New Zealand's experience of seasonal employment of workers
from the Pacific to decide whether Australia should create its own seasonal worker program”
(Maclellan, 2008). Australia introduced a pilot scheme in August 2008, which became an ongo-
ing program in 2012.
The two schemes are similar in design, not least because the design of the Australian pilot
drew heavily on the pre‐existing NZ scheme. Employers who wish to employ seasonal workers
in both Australia and NZ must engage with a robust regulatory framework. Employer obliga-
tions include obtaining prior approval from government to employ seasonal workers, testing
the local labour market (advertising job vacancies), and meeting pastoral care responsibilities,
such as arranging accommodation and helping with some costs (particularly flights). Under
the Australian scheme, workers must be sourced from the Pacific or Timor‐Leste. The NZ
scheme allows employers to recruit from Asian countries, due to legacy arrangements, but in
practice, the focus of recruitment for the RSE is also from the Pacific. The NZ scheme has
always been capped to ensure that domestic workers have priority. However, the cap has been
gradually increased over time (see Table 3). The Australian scheme was initially capped, but
after several years of low growth in which the cap was not met, the cap was removed in 2015.
Seasonal workers are a more expensive option for employers than backpackers. Employers
have to cover part of the airfare of their workers; they also have to incur the costs of meeting
government approval and reporting requirements, as well as costs such as recruitment and pas-
toral care. These costs can, however, be offset by the productivity, quality, and reliability bene-
fits of using seasonal workers.
For NZ, Bedford (2013) finds seasonal workers are more efficient than both backpackers and
domestically sourced workers. This leads to productivity gains from “the timely removal of the
crop from the tree/vine as well as more skilful selection of the individual pieces of fruit that are
CURTAIN ET AL.469
picked”(Bedford, 2013, p. 311). She shows that seasonal workers have “significantly higher
rates of attendance at work, higher maximum, minimum, median and average earnings, and
there is much less variability in earnings between Pacific RSE workers than there is among
the non‐RSE workers”(Bedford, 2013, p. 312).
Productivity studies in Australia have produced similar findings. Analysis of payroll data for
a large Australian horticultural employer found that Pacific seasonal workers were “signifi-
cantly more efficient than working holiday makers”, with seasonal workers earning an average
of $24 per hour, whereas backpackers earned $20 (Leith & Davidson, 2013, p. 1). A more recent
study, also undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and
Science, came to the same conclusion, with seasonal workers found to be on average 20% more
productive than backpackers (Zhao, Binks, Kruger, Xia, & Stenekes, 2018, p. 14).
There is also evidence from both Australia and NZ to suggest that returning seasonal
workers are more productive (Bedford, 2013). Bedford found returning seasonal workers to be
10% more productive than new seasonal workers in her study of workers in Hawke's Bay, NZ.
Zhao et al. (2018, p. 15) found seasonal workers to be 15% more productive, on average, than
new seasonal workers in a sample of Australian farms.
Despite their similar designs and benefits, the two schemes show very different trajectories
(Table 3). The NZ scheme quickly reached its initial cap of 8,000 and has since grown in size
in line with or more recently more than the modest increases in the cap (Table 3). NZ employers
constantly call for an increase in or removal of the RSE cap to address labour shortages (e.g.,
Horticulture New Zealand, 2016), both of which would lead to a large increase in seasonal
workers. The Australian program has grown much more slowly. Even in 2016–2017, after more
rapid recent growth, there were, despite the NZ cap, just under twice as many seasonal workers
in NZ as in Australia (Table 3).
The limited take‐up of the SWP in Australia supports the claim that employers in horticul-
ture prefer low‐cost and irregular migrant workers. However, the NZ experience contradicts this
TABLE 3 Seasonal workers in New Zealand and Australia, 2007–2008 to 2016–2017
New Zealand—RSE‐
approved visas (cap)
Australia—SWP‐
approved visas (cap)
2007–2008 4,426 (4,500) —
2008–2009 7,617 (8,000) 57 (2,500 over 4 years)
2009–2010 6,829 (8,000) 63 (2,500 over 4 years)
2010–2011 7,619 (8,000) 423 (2,500 over 4 years)
2011–2012 7,742 (8,000) 1,067 (2,500 over 4 years)
2012–2013 8,175 (8,000)
a
1,473 (2,000)
2013–2014 8,415 (8,000)
a
2,014 (2,500)
2014–2015 9,275 (9,000)
a
3,177 (3,250)
2015–2016 9,757 (9,500)
a
4,490
b
2016–2017 11,102 (10,500)
a
6,166
b
Note. RSE arrival numbers broken down by nationality by financial year (July 1–June 30) and various government documents.
RSE: Recognised Seasonal Employer; SWP: Seasonal Worker Programme. Source. Australian Government Department of Home
Affairs (2018) and New Zealand Immigration (2016).
a
RSE visas approved exceed the cap, but the numbers who actually arrived does not exceed the cap.
b
Cap removed for SWP for the 2015–2016 financial year onwards.
470 CURTAIN ET AL.
claim. As Table 4 shows, the ratio of seasonal workers to backpackers in horticulture is approx-
imately 1:2 in NZ but only 1:10 in Australia (measuring backpackers using the second‐year visa
data). Although these ratios are only estimates, they are telling, especially when it is recognised
that demand for seasonal workers in NZ is suppressed by the cap, which is binding. It is clear
that there is a much higher employer preference for regulated seasonal workers in NZ than
in Australia.
6
The differences in policy formation also suggest that in NZ, there is a much greater interest
in regulated labour options than in Australia. According to two key participants in this process
(Whatman & Van Beek, 2008), NZ government officials saw the horticulture industry as facing a
crisis in the early 2000s. This was due to tight profit margins, a growing demand for labour, low
wages and poor working conditions, poor quality work, and low productivity due to the use of
casual, often illegal workers (Whatman, Bedford, & Bedford, 2017, p. 2). The push for the RSE
came from employers facing a “crisis in the profitability of the horticulture industry because of
an inability to get sufficient high‐quality fruit and vegetables picked, packed and to the market
in time”(Whatman et al., 2017, p. 2). The RSE also had a long period of preparation over
12 months, involving a series of workshops with growers, government officials from different
agencies, and researchers (Whatman et al., 2017, p. 3). By contrast in Australia, the SWP was
designed and introduced with very little direct employer input.
7
Survey evidence from Australia confirms a historical lack of interest from employers in the
scheme. Doyle and Howes (2015, p. 11) show that even in 2015, after 6 years of operation
(including the pilot), only two out of three horticultural employers were even aware of the pro-
gram. Doyle and Howes (2015) also note that “28 out of 43 industry associations had not
received any information about the SWP from Government”(pp. 12–13). Although this lack
of awareness can superficially be regarded as a cause of the lack of take‐up of the SWP, it is
6
Another interesting difference in the two schemes is that in NZ, the majority of seasonal workers are hired directly by
farmers in horticulture, whereas in Australia, the majority are hired by labour hire companies. However, in viticulture in
NZ, labour hire contractors predominate. This different situation for horticulture in the two countries may reflect the
greater fragmentation of the Australian horticultural sector.
7
The name of the NZ RSE scheme stresses the employer; that of the Australian scheme (SWP) the worker. The objectives
of the two schemes are defined in similar terms, but the wording of the objectives in the NZ case places greater weight
on the benefits for business. Both of these facts are consistent with the greater role business had to play in introducing
the RSE.
TABLE 4 Number of seasonal workers per thousand backpackers with a second visa in
horticultural industry, 2009–2010 to 2016–2017
Australia New Zealand
2009–2010 2 5,872
2010–2011 19 5,165
2011–2012 35 3,944
2012–2013 38 3,843
2013–2014 44 2,891
2014–2015 77 3,005
2015–2016 124 2,615
2016–2017 179 2,703
Source. See Tables 2 and 3.
CURTAIN ET AL.471
more an indication of the lack of employer interest in seeking out a stable, reliable, and experi-
enced workforce. The employer surveys also reveal a lack of aggregate labour shortage in the
horticultural labour market in Australia. Most employers, when surveyed, responded that they
had no need to use the SWP program to provide a supply of workers, with this figure rising from
60% in 2011 to 67% in 2014 (Doyle & Howes, 2015, figure 4.2).
5|ECONOMIC, POLICY, AND SOCIAL FACTORS SHAPING
LABOUR MARKET OUTCOMES
Why has a regulated labour supply of temporary migrants been crowded out in Australia but
not in NZ? This section of the paper attempts to answer this key question, with reference to four
sets of factors: the greater export orientation of the NZ horticultural sector, differential costs of
collective action and regulation in the two countries, differences in scheme design and timing,
and external factors.
5.1 |Export orientation
8
Horticulture is NZ's fourth largest export industry. The sector exports 61% its total production to
some 124 countries, particularly Europe, the United States, Japan, and China (Horticulture New
Zealand, 2017, p. 1). In Australia, domestic consumption for a limited number of retailers is the
major product destination. For example, over 60% of NZ's apple harvest in 2014 was exported,
but only 1–2% of Australia's total marketable production of apples was exported (Apples and
Pears Australia, 2014–2015; Pipfruit New Zealand, 2015).
This has important implications for horticulture, both for the labour market and for the
prospects of temporary migrant worker schemes in the industry. In NZ, growers wanted to
remove any threat to their export trade through bad publicity by stopping the use of illegal
workers and improving the working conditions of the workforce. This provided a powerful
incentive for supporting the RSE. More generally, high‐value export markets put external pres-
sure on employers to meet quality standards through compliance with a sourcing code of quality
and employer conduct, supported by consumer preference for ethically sourced products. The
European code of practice, GLOBALG.A.P., requires growers to show that they have production
practices that meet specified quality and environment standards. It includes the requirement of
“Ensuring a responsible attitude towards worker health and safety.”Compliance with the code
is independently audited (Tipples & Whatman, 2010, p. 49). Related to GLOBALG.A.P. is an
add‐on assessment tool called Good Risk‐based Agricultural Social Practices. This 11‐point
checklist is used to audit a grower's compliance with employment law and worker rights on
farms (Tipples & Whatman, 2010, p. 49).
9
Employer compliance with GLOBALG.A.P. is much more widespread in NZ than in Austra-
lia. According to the 2012 annual report of GLOBALG.A.P., there are 1,516 accredited producers
in NZ and only 153 in Australia. Horticulture NZ notes that about 80% of the produce grown in
NZ is covered by a third‐party assurance certification program (Horticulture New Zealand, 2017,
p. 13). Meeting higher product quality standards means employers place more value on
8
This subsection draws on Curtain (2015, 2016).
9
See the NZ webpage: “GLOBALG.A.P. Risk Assessment on Social Practice (GRASP) Add‐on,”http://www.
newzealandgap.co.nz/programmes/grasp/.
472 CURTAIN ET AL.
workforce reliability and quality. As a result, NZ employers are more likely to be willing to incur
the additional costs of hiring seasonal workers and more eager to employ more productive
return workers.
Australian growers, by contrast, have been more focused on domestic markets with their
strong emphasis on price competition and cost minimisation. This means that Australian
growers are more likely to view transient, inexperienced backpackers as adequate for the task.
Without codes of conduct and quality requirements related to export markets, Australian pro-
ducers have had little incentive to incur greater costs to meet quality standards. Indeed, the
opposite has occurred. The incentives for Australian growers have been to cut operating costs.
This is partly the result of the monopsony power enjoyed by Coles and Woolworths, the
country's two largest supermarket chains, which together control 73% of the Australian market
and which in turn are supplied by 350 to 400 fresh food suppliers (Leigh, 2016).
The supermarkets' trading terms with suppliers require that they abide by all laws, regula-
tions, and community standards in Australia. However, in practice, there has been little moni-
toring of suppliers to see whether they are doing so (Australian Senate, 2016, pp. 283–287). In
contrast, the supermarkets confirmed in their evidence to the Senate Inquiry into the Seasonal
Worker Programme that they place strong pressure on fresh food producers to cut their costs
(Australian Senate, 2016, pp. 178, 282).
5.2 |Collective action and the costs of compliance
Another difference between horticulture in Australia and NZ is the relative ease of collective
action and, linked to this, the cost of compliance. The decision in NZ to turn to seasonal
workers was a collective one, made at the sectoral level, with the active participation of growers.
In Australia, growers played a passive role in setting up the SWP and continue to have no direct
role in shaping how it is implemented.
This was itself the result of the structure of the horticulture industry in both countries.
Industry representation in NZ is strong, with Horticulture NZ representing 5,500 commercial
fruit and vegetable growers. A key aim of Horticulture NZ has been to develop and encourage
industry‐wide projects to benefit all growers. An example is the association's funding of a
National Labour Steering Group, which represents the key horticulture and viticulture
employers and master labour contractors.
In contrast, industry representation for horticulture in Australia is fragmented, both by
geography and by product focus. The Australian Department of Agriculture lists 43 horticulture
industry associations. The two organisations that play a national role, the National Farmers
Federation and the Voice of Horticulture, appear to be little more than lobby groups whose
main activity is making submissions to government. As one report put it: “agribusiness in Aus-
tralia today is highly fragmented and many industry‐wide intentions ‘fail at the gate’because of
a lack of an agreed peak industry body to represent this ...sector of the Australian economy”
(Agribusiness Council of Australia, 2012, p. 4). The same report noted that “government‐indus-
try interfaces can be fractious, adversarial, and politicised at times, given the historical past of
some representative groups”(Agribusiness Council of Australia, 2012, p. 4).
The costs of using the regulated migration option are also lower in NZ. Wages in the horti-
cultural sector are closely linked to the minimum wage in both countries. In NZ, the minimum
wage is $NZ15.25 per hour as at January 2017 (Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,
2017). In Australia, the minimum wage in the same month was $AUD17.70. Although the NZ$/
CURTAIN ET AL.473
A$ exchange rate is variable, typically one Australian dollar buys more than one NZ dollar. The
higher the regulated wage, the greater the incentive to avoid it by using an unregulated option.
The weaker the enforcement regime, the greater the incentive to use the unregulated option.
Enforcement tends to be much stronger in NZ, for at least two reasons. First, the NZ govern-
ment has put in more enforcement effort. Alongside the development of the RSE program,
the NZ government established a national contractor registration in 2008 for new and existing
labour contractors for seasonal labour (Bedford, 2013). Similar reforms are only now being
put in place in some Australian states (Sherrell, 2017). Second, the horticulture sector in
Australia is much more geographically dispersed than in NZ. This not only makes collective
action harder to achieve in Australia, as discussed earlier, but also makes both self‐regulation
and external regulation cheaper options in NZ.
5.3 |Differences in horticultural labour market policy
Although Australia and NZ's seasonal worker and backpacker programs are broadly similar,
there are three differences in the design, history, and implementation of these schemes, which
may also help explain their different trajectories.
First, Australia provides a much stronger incentive than NZ to backpackers to work in hor-
ticulture. In Australia, the prize is another year of work anywhere in the economy, whereas in
NZ, the incentive is just 3 months more and only of horticultural work. This helps explain why
16.4% of Australian backpackers applied for the second‐year visa in 2016–2017, but only 5.6% of
NZ backpackers did in the same year.
Second, NZ developed and implemented its RSE first (in April 2007) and then introduced a
backpacker visa extension (2009). In Australia, the sequence was reversed with the backpacker
visa extension coming in 2005 and the SWP pilot becoming operational in early 2009. Hysteresis
may play a role here. It seems clear that there was a labour shortage in the Australian horticul-
tural sector prior to 2005. It is hard to understand the industry lobbying the government if this
were not the case. The second‐year reform got rid of the labour shortage problem. In the words
of one experienced industry insider, that one change “almost singlehandedly …pretty much rec-
tified the issue of labour shortages in horticulture for unskilled workers.”(Hayes quoted in
Howes, 2012). Once that problem was overcome, employer and government interest in the sea-
sonal worker option naturally waned. In NZ, by contrast, the labour shortage problem was
solved by the regulated option. If Australia had introduced a seasonal work program a couple
of years before its backpacker reforms, it is likely that industry would have gotten behind it,
and take‐up would have been much faster.
Third, the NZ government agencies involved in implementing the RSE have been better
coordinated than those involved in Australia. The RSE was an initiative of Immigration NZ,
which was located originally within the NZ Department of Labour (Whatman et al., 2017,
p. 3). Immigration NZ was later subsumed into the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment (MBIE). This location means there is a strong focus on the needs of employers.
A senior MBIE manager told the RSE Employers Conference in Apia in July 2015 that “the gov-
ernment will continue to support RSE ... we do want to make it as easy for you as possible”
(Mannering, 2015).
10
10
In NZ, two other major government agencies are also actively involved in the operation of the RSE. One is the Ministry
of Social Development, which has a say in approving employers for engagement in the RSE as well as in specifying the
numbers that can be recruited for each of the major regions. The other is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
which provides funding for programmes that support the operation and delivery of the RSE in the Pacific.
474 CURTAIN ET AL.
In Australia, the program is operated by the Department of Employment (which became in
2018 the Department of Jobs and Small Business).
11
This department approves employers for
participation in the scheme. Approved employers are then required to enter into a Special Pro-
gramme Agreement with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (now the
Department of Home Affairs). Australia's employers, therefore, have to deal with these two
departments, instead of one in the case of NZ. In addition, whereas NZ's MBIE sees its primary
role as providing support to employers to engage seasonal workers, the Australian Department
of Employment acts as a gatekeeper, based on its primary objective, which is, as per its website,
to “help Australians find and keep employment and work in safe, fair and productive work-
place.”The Department does little to promote the scheme, and it has a reputation for imposing
a heavy regulatory burden on employers.
12
5.4 |External factors
Finally, there are two other explanatory factors between Australia and NZ that are external, that
is, have nothing to do with horticulture. First, Australia is more attractive as a destination for
backpackers than NZ, so the potential unregulated migrant horticulture labour supply is much
larger in the former. According to the official data of the two governments, in 2016–2017, Aus-
tralia had 211,011 backpackers and NZ 74,235 (Department of Home Affairs, 2017; New
Zealand Immigration, 2016). If NZ had as many backpackers as Australia but still only 5.6%
applying for an extension, that would give them not 4,000 but 11,860 backpackers working in
horticulture.
Second, it is possible that NZ's greater Pacific diaspora has facilitated the higher take‐up of
the RSE. Massey et al. (1994, p. 1,525) argue that the development of migrant networks “makes
migration an increasingly common social and economic practice and lowers the costs and risks
of movement.”Diaspora networks have contributed to recruitment of Tongans and Samoans in
both NZ and Australia under the RSE and SWP. The role of Tongan labour hire agents in Aus-
tralia, for example, is well known. However, it should be noted that the largest worker‐sending
nation in the RSE is Vanuatu, which has a very limited diaspora in NZ. This would suggest that
migration networks are not essential for participation in such schemes, even if they do at times
play a role.
6|CONCLUSION
This paper explains the greater success of a regulated low‐skilled migration program in NZ
relative to Australia with reference to four sets of factors. First, there is a stronger focus by
employers on reputation and quality in NZ horticulture due to its greater export orientation.
This makes NZ growers value the benefits of the more expensive regulated option more highly.
Second, the costs of both collective action and regulation for employers are lower in NZ's hor-
ticultural sector, due to stronger industry organisation and lower enforcement costs—both at
11
In addition, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade funds the Labour Mobility Assistance Program,
which has operated offshore since 2014 in Pacific countries with some limited marketing activities only Australia in
2018.
12
Though whether the regulatory burden is bigger than in NZ is unclear. Recent reforms aim to reduce the regulatory
burden of the Australian SWP (Minister for Employment Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, 2017).
CURTAIN ET AL.475
least in part due to the lower degree of geographical dispersion and product fragmentation of
the industry in NZ—as well as lower minimum wages. Third, subtle differences in policy set-
tings, timing, and implementation arrangements have worked in favour of regulated labour in
NZ. Fourth, factors completely external to the two countries' horticultural sectors may favour
the greater use of regulated workers in NZ and unregulated ones in Australia.
It is certainly not possible to assign quantitative weights to this mix of economic, institu-
tional, geographical, and policy factors. However, we would argue that the differences in pol-
icy design, implementation, and timing are likely to reflect the different preferences of the two
national groups of employers. Given that Australian horticultural employers in general prefer
unregulated employees, it is not surprising that backpackers got a first‐mover advantage and a
stronger incentive to work in horticulture in Australia than in NZ. The diaspora argument,
though a factor in some cases, cannot explain Vanuatu's success. We would therefore stress
four factors when comparing the relative success of the schemes: NZ horticulture's export ori-
entation, its lower costs of regulation and of collective action (both tied to its lesser geograph-
ical and product dispersion), and Australia's status as a more attractive backpacker
destination.
In terms of the implications of our findings for the broader migration literature, the
crowding out hypothesis of Castles (2006), Anderson and Ruhs (2010), and others is oversimplis-
tic. There is no guarantee that unregulated will crowd out regulated migration labour options. It
will depend on the extent to which regulated employees are more valued than unregulated ones
and on the costs of going with the regulated option. The trade‐off employers make between
these costs and benefits will vary from sector to sector and country to country.
In terms of policy, those who support regulated migration options should take heart from
our findings. Preferences for regulated labour will depend on a wide range of factors, some of
which will be amenable to policy influence. First, over time, Australia's horticultural sector
might itself become more export oriented; certainly, Australia aspires to be “Asia's food bowl.”
Second, repeated media exposure and consumer pressure on supermarkets might lead those
supermarkets to be more concerned with labour supply issues. Both these developments would
shift employers' preferences in favour of the SWP. The same pressures might also lead govern-
ments to invest more in enforcement, in particular, to follow NZ's example and require labour
contracting companies to be licenced: an approach that has the advantage of pushing many of
the costs of regulation back onto the private sector. Indeed, these developments are not just
hypothetical; supermarkets and peak bodies are already working on stronger codes of conduct
to improve labour practices on farms (Field, 2016), and three Australian state governments have
moved to regulate labour hire companies (Sherrell, 2017).
It is hard to see backpackers losing their place as Australian horticulture's preferred labour
source, and there seems to be no appetite for radical reform such as reduction in the incentive
for backpackers to work in horticulture. It is possible, nevertheless, to envisage a scenario in
which Australia's SWP, now uncapped, continues to grow, notwithstanding the fact that the
number of seasonal workers in Australia remains small when compared with both the number
in NZ and with the number of backpackers in Australian horticulture. Two recent trends are
worth noting. One is the rapid growth in SWP numbers (by 73% in 2016–2017 from the previous
year, see Table 3). The second is the decline in the number of backpackers from 258,000 in
2012–2013 to 211,000 in 2016–2017 (Department of Home Affairs, 2018). These trends give
cause to think that workers from the Pacific Islands will become an increasingly important
source of labour for the horticulture industry. This bodes well for the future of temporary
migrant worker schemes that benefit Pacific Islanders.
476 CURTAIN ET AL.
ORCID
Matthew Dornan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1674-1009
Stephen Howes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9562-3619
REFERENCES
Agribusiness Council of Australia. (2012). “Growing solutions for the national food plan”, Submission to the
Green Paper to inform development of a national food plan, Canberra.
Anderson, B., & Ruhs, M. (2010). Migrant workers: Who needs them? A framework for the analysis of shortages,
immigration, and public policy”, Chapter 2. In M. Ruhs, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Who needs migrant workers?
Labour shortages, immigration, and public policy. Oxford University Press.
Apples and Pears Australia Ltd (2014–2015). “Export markets”, Consumer Info, accessed 7 January 2017.
Retrieved from http://apal.org.au/selling/export‐markets/
Australian Senate. (2006). “Perspectives on the future of the harvest labour force”, Senate Standing Committee
on Education and Employment, Tabled 15 October 2006, Canberra.
Australian Senate. (2016). “Seasonal change: Inquiry into the Seasonal Worker Programme”, Joint Standing
Committee on Migration, Canberra, tabled 5 May 2016,
Baker, R., & McKenzie, N. (2016). “Fruits of their labour: Fruit picking investigation”,Sydney Morning Herald,
accessed 5 January 2017. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/fruit‐picking‐
investigation/
Bedford, C. (2013). “Picking winners? New Zealand's Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) policy and its impacts
on employers, Pacific workers and their island‐based communities”, PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide.
Bedford, R. D., Bedford, C. E., Wall, J., & Young, M. (2017). Managed temporary labour migration of Pacific
Islanders to Australia and New Zealand in the twenty‐first century. Australian Geographer,48(1), 37–57.
Berg, L. & Farbenblum, B. (2017). Wage theft in Australia: Findings of the National Temporary Migrant Work
Survey, University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and University of new South Wales (UNSW).
Boucher, A. (2016). Australia's de facto low skilled labour immigration program. Melbourne: Committee for Eco-
nomic Development of Australia.
Castles, S. (1986). The guest‐worker in Western Europe—An obituary. International Migration Review,20(4),
761–778.
Castles, S. (2006). Guestworkers in Europe: A resurrection? International Migration Review,40(4), 741–766.
Curtain, R. (2015). “New Zealand's Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) Scheme and Australia's Seasonal
Worker Program (SWP): Why so different outcomes?”, presentation to the international migration institute,
Department of International Development, Oxford University, 29 April.
Curtain, R. (2016). “NZ's seasonal worker success: Lessons for Australia”, Devpolicy Blog, 23 March 2016,
accessed 5 January 2017. Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/nzs‐seasonal‐worker‐success‐lessons‐australia‐
20160323/
Curtain, R., Dornan, M., Doyle, J., & Howes S. (2016). Pacific possible: Labour mobility: The ten billion dollar
prize, The World Bank and The Australian National University.
Department of Home Affairs. (2017). “Working Holiday Maker visa programme report”, 31 December 2017, Aus-
tralian Government, Canberra.
Department of Home Affairs (2018). Pivot table: Working Holiday Maker visas granted 2017–18 to 31 December
2017—Comparison with previous years. Canberra: Australian Government.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection (2016). “Working Holiday Maker visa programme report”, June
2016. Canberra: Australian Government.
Doyle, J., & Howes, S. (2015). Australia's seasonal worker program: Demand‐side constraints and suggested
reformsDiscussion Paper World Bank/Australian National University.
CURTAIN ET AL.477
Fair Work Ombudsman. (2016). Inquiry into the wages and conditions of people working under the 417 Working
Holiday Visa Program.
Field, E. (2016). Coles and Woolworths supermarkets in farm watch, The Weekly Times, September 14, accessed
20 November 2017. Retrieved from http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/coles‐and‐
woolworths‐supermarkets‐in‐farm‐watch/news‐story/094d2e613a293ec4f5792515701b3a0a
Gibson, J., & McKenzie, D. (2014). The development impact of a best practice seasonal worker policy. The Review
of Economics and Statistics,96(2), 229–243.
Hawthorne, L. (2011). Competing for skills: Migration policies and trends in New Zealand and Australia‐full
report. department of labour, government of New Zealand, Wellington. Retrieved from http://www.dol.
govt.nz/publications/research/competing‐for‐skills/report/full‐report.pdf
Hay, D., & Howes, S. (2012). Australia's Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme: Why has take‐up been so low?
development policy Centre discussion paper #17, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National
University, Canberra.
Herbert, L. (2017). “Lessons to be learned from across the ditch as Australia struggles with farm labour woes”,
ABC Northern Territory Country Hour, 24 January 2017, accessed 25 January 2017. Retrieved from http://
www.abc.net.au/news/2017‐01‐23/seasonal‐worker‐program‐aims‐to‐fix‐farm‐labour‐issues/8195110
Horticulture New Zealand. (2016). More workers needed for harvest—NZIER report. Media Release, 12 October
2016, accessed 5 January 2017. Retrieved from http://www.hortnz.co.nz/news‐events‐and‐media/mikes‐blog/
more‐workers‐needed‐for‐harvest‐nzier‐report/
Horticulture New Zealand. (2017). We grow. Annual Report 2017, Wellington.
Howe, J., & Reilly, A. (2015). Meeting Australia's labour needs: The case for a new low‐skill work visa. Federal
Law Issue,43(2), 259–287.
Howe, J., Reilly, A., van der Broek, D., & Wright, C. F. (2017). Exposing labour supply challenges and finding
labour supply solutions: A report concerning the Australian vegetable industry. Commissioned by AusVeg,
University of Sydney, University of Adelaide.
Howes, S. (2012). Why there isn't a labour shortage in horticulture: An industry perspective on backpackers and
the Pacific Seasonal Worker Program, Devpolicy Blog, 16 October, accessed on 20 November 2017. Retrieved
from http://devpolicy.org/why‐there‐isnt‐a‐labour‐shortage‐in‐horticulture‐20121016/
Leigh, A. (2016). Markets, monopolies and moguls: The relationships between inequality and competition. John
Freebairn lecture in public policy, University of Melbourne, 19 may.
Leith, R., & Davidson, A. (2013). Measuring the efficiency of horticultural labour: Case study on seasonal workers
and working holiday makers. Canberra: ABARES.
Lovelock, K., & Leopold, T. (2008). Labour force shortages in rural New Zealand: Temporary migration and the
Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) work policy. New Zealand Population Review,33(34), 213–234.
Maclellan, N. (2008). Workers for all seasons? Issues from New Zealand's Recognised Employer (RSE) program.
Hawthorn: Swinburne Institute of Technology, Institute for Social Research.
Mannering, R. (2015). Balancing act: RSE and New Zealand workers. The Orchardist, 1 September.
Mares, P. (2016a). Comparing apples and oranges. inside story, 5 July. Retrieved from http://insidestory.org.au/
comparing‐apples‐and‐oranges/
Mares, P. (2016b). Not quite Australian: How temporary migration is changing the nation. Sydney: Text Publishing.
Massey, D., Goldring, L., & Durand, J. (1994). Continuities in transnational migration: An analysis of nineteen
Mexican communities. American Journal of Sociology,99(6), 1492–1533.
McKenzie, D., Garcia Martinez, P., & Winters, L. A. (2008). Who is coming from Vanuatu to New Zealand under
the new Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) Program?”working paper in economics 9/08. Hamilton, New
Zealand: University of Waikato.
Mcllroy, T. (2017). More than 64,000 people overstaying visas in Australia. The Canberra T imes, 19 July.
478 CURTAIN ET AL.
Minister for Employment Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash. (2017). ‘New measures to support participation in
the Seasonal Worker Programme’, Government of Australia, Media Release, 8 September.
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. (2017). Minimum pay rules. New Zealand Government, Wel-
lington, accessed 8 January 2017. Retrieved from https://www.business.govt.nz/hiring‐and‐manage/hiring‐
people/minimum‐pay‐rules/
New Zealand Immigration (2016). W1—Work applications decided (.zip). Wellington: Statistics, New Zealand
Government.
Ongley, P., & Pearson, D. (1995). Post‐1945 international migration: New Zealand, Australia and Canada com-
pared. International Migration Review,29(3), 765–793.
Pipfruit New Zealand. (2015). NZ Pipfruit harvest expected to reach 550,000t. Media Release, published 20 March
2015, Hastings, accessed 6 January 2017. Retrieved from http://www.pipfruitnz.co.nz/News_and_Events?
cms_584_param_detail=4241
Productivity Commission. (2015). Migrant intake into Australia, Draft Report, November, Canberra.
Ramasamy, S., Krishnan, V., Bedford, R., & Bedford, C. (2008). The Recognised Seasonal Employer policy: Seek-
ing the elusive triple wins for development through international migration. Pacific Economic Bulletin,23(3),
171–186.
Ruhs, M. (2006). The potential of temporary migration programmes in future international migration policy.
International Labour Review,145(1–2), 7–36.
Ruhs, M. (2013). The price of rights: Regulating international labor migration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ruhs, M., & Martin, P. (2006). Numbers vs. rights: Trade‐offs and guest worker programmes. Centre on Migra-
tion, Policy and Society, Working Paper No. 40, University of Oxford.
Sherrell, H. (2017). Cleaning up the horticultural labour market: Two breakthroughs, Devpolicy Blog, 12 May,
accessed 20 November 2017. Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/cleaning‐horticultural‐labour‐market‐two‐
breakthroughs‐20170512/
Tham, J., & Campbell, I. (2011). Temporary migrant labour in Australia: The 457 visa scheme and challenges for
labour regulation. discussion paper 50, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, University of
Melbourne.
Thompson, B. (2018). Australians avoiding farm work despite abundant jobs, award rates. Australian Financial
Review, 28 March. Retrieved from http://www.afr.com/business/agriculture/australians‐avoiding‐farm‐
work‐despite‐abundant‐jobs‐award‐rates‐20180323‐h0xv9f#ixzz5Dw1WfMZE
Tipples, R., & Whatman, R. (2010). Employment standards in world food production—The place of
GLOBALGAP supply contracts and indirect legislation. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations,
35(3), 40–60.
Velayutham, S. (2013). Precarious experiences of Indians in Australia on 457 temporary work visas. The Eco-
nomic and Labour Relations Review,24(3), 340–361.
Walsh, J. (2014). From nations of immigrants to states of transience: Temporary migration in Canada and Aus-
tralia. International Sociology,29(6), 584–606.
Whatman, R., Bedford, C. and Bedford, R. (2017). RSE: The ghosts of schemes past, present and yet to come.
invited paper for the RSE Employers' conference, Blenheim, 6–7 July.
Whatman, R., & Van Beek, J. (2008). The seasonal labour strategy and the role of Recognised Seasonal Employer
(RSE) in helping make transformative changes for employers and industry. labour, Employment and Work in
New Zealand. accessed 22 November 2017. Retrieved from https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/LEW/article/view/1641
Wickramasekara, P. (2002). Asian labour migration: Issues and challenges in an era of globalization. Geneva:
International Migration Programme, International Labour Office.
World Bank. (2006). At home and away: Expanding job opportunities for Pacific Islanders through labour mobil-
ity, The World Bank.
CURTAIN ET AL.479
Wright, C. F., Groutsis, D., & van den Broek, D. (2016). Employer‐sponsored temporary labour migration
schemes in Australia, Canada and Sweden: Enhancing efficiency, compromising fairness? Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies,43(11), 1–19.
Yuan, S., Cain, T., & Spoonley, P. (2014). Temporary migrants as vulnerable workers: A literature review. Innova-
tion and Employment, Government of New Zealand, Wellington, March: Ministry of Business.
Zhao, S., Binks, B., Kruger, H., Xia, C., & Stenekes, N. (2018). What difference does labour choice make to farm
productivity and profitability in the Australian horticulture industry? A comparison between seasonal
workers and working holiday makers. ABARES research report prepared for the World Bank, Canberra,
February.
How to cite this article: Curtain R, Dornan M, Howes S, Sherrell H. Pacific seasonal
workers: Learning from the contrasting temporary migration outcomes in Australian and
New Zealand horticulture. Asia Pac Policy Stud. 2018;5:462–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/
app5.261
480 CURTAIN ET AL.
