Support Pacific workers’ access to Australia


What is in fact a very old dispute has currently been simmering again in the labour movement, about migration in general, and in particular about unskilled migrant access to Australia. This always-present controversy has now sharpened around a new scheme requested by the governments of small Pacific states, and introduced by the Australian Labor Government for organised and controlled access of seasonal workers from the Pacific nations to Australia to fill specific labour shortages in unskilled jobs in agriculture.
There’s general agreement in the labour and trade union movement that the Howard government’s 457 visa scheme was a disguised form of super-exploitation, and should be eliminated.

The new scheme is significantly different to the objectionable 457 visa scheme in a number of respects. Firstly, the governments concerned, of both Australia and the Pacific states, have stated that Australian award wages and conditions are the minimum basis of the scheme.

There are two points of view on the new scheme in the trade union movement, with several of the left unions adopting a traditional trade union attitude of deep reservations about migration, particularly unskilled migration, and therefore opposing the scheme. In addition to this conservatives in the indigenous community who advocate pushing their fellow indigenous people off welfare oppose the scheme, saying there should be a more or less compulsory alternative scheme that obliges unemployed indigenous people to move 1000km or so to fill the gaps in the agricultural labour force, thus forcing them off welfare, (implicitly speeding up the abandonement of many indigenous outstations).

In addition to this, in the Green Party, and in environmental circles, there is a certain traditional opposition to all migration by conservationists who believe that Australia is already overpopulated, (an extremely dubious proposition in my view). The Liberal Opposition in the federal parliament has also opposed the scheme. The indefatigable and articulate conservative populist-anti migration lobby, the Monash Institute of Population Studies, also opposes the scheme, in its usual publicity seeking, rather bellicose way.

On the other hand, Paul Howes, the new federal secretary of the Australian Workers Union, which covers agricultural workers, a youngish bloke in a bit of a hurry, has successfully the AWU federal conference to support the scheme, with the following provisos.

  • That there be agreements with the country of origin to provide facilities for the union to interview the workers in the country of origin and join them up and make them familiar with Australian award conditions, trade union coverage and eligibility.
  • That they should be paid not just the minimum award rate, but the prevailing rate in the industry, which is generally higher than the award.

Howes asserts that he has agreement from the governments in the countries of origin to the first, and with the Australian National Farmers Federation for the second. A grey area seems to remain about whether several seven-month stints in Australia will get the Pacific workers a reasonable speedy access to a migration path via the existing points system for permanent residency.

As a matter of urgency, in my view, the AWU should press this point strenuously to remove the possibility that these temporary workers are kept as a permanent pool of relatively low-wage workers, by Australian standards, without access to permanent migration.

A question arises immediately for socialists, as to what attitude they should have towards this scheme, whether to support it critically while demanding significant improvements, or oppose it outright.


The fact that the AWU has come out in support of the scheme, while suggesting some improvements is, to anyone with any knowledge of Australian working class history, a matter of great importance. The AWU was the heart and soul of the labour movement aspect of the racist White Australia Policy.

In the 19th century and the early 20th century it fought against Chinese, Indian and Pacific migration. It was the main force in the labour movement that campaigned for the deportation of the Kanak workers from Australia at the start of the 20th century, a most lamentable episode in Australian history, (despite this, thousands of Kanak workers managed to evade the deportations and there are now 20,000 or 30,000 of their descendants scattered all over Central Queensland, particularly around Mackay).

In the 1920s, the AWU even opposed Italian and Maltese migration, classifying Italians and Maltese as coloured labour. It is a most extraordinary commentary on how far the working class movement has come, that the AWU is leading the trade union charge for access for Pacific workers to the Australian labour market. (I have written more extensively elsewhere on the history of the Australian labour movement’s attitudes to migration and the impact of migrants in Australian society).

Paul Howes is rather proud of the fact that in his recent visit to Vanuatu to negotiate about the labour scheme he made an official apology on behalf of the AWU to the government of Vanuatu for the blackbirding and the subsequent expulsion of the Kanak workers from Australia (the painful contradictions of migration were encapsulated in the experience of the Kanak workers who replicated the experience of the Irish before them. After the Revolution of 1798, thousands of Irish rebels were deported to Australia. When their sentences concluded, despite the forcible nature of their deportation to Australia, many of them decided to stay because living standards in the colony of NSW were better than in Ireland, and this started chain migration to Australia, with many of their relatives coming to join them. Much the same thing happened to the Kanaks later in the 19th century. Despite the brutal nature of many kidnappings by the Queensland labour trade, after the event many thousands of them decided to stay because of the better living standards in Australia, which made their subsequent deportation so poignant.)


One of the traditional weaknesses of the left in Australian unions has been a negative attitude to migration. This issue has again erupted at a time when the unions as a whole are beginning to fight back against the negative features of federal and state Labor governments.

A feature of this fightback, so far, has been an entirely healthy united front in the beginnings of this fightback between both “left” and “right” unions. My impression is that the active members of all the trade unions involved, the left-wing metalworkers and the CFMEU, and the right-wing AWU have no intention of letting disagreements over migration interfere with this united front. Nevertheless, differences in approach on the migration question clearly exist in the trade union movement, and it is in the interest of everybody who is active in the labour movement to conduct this discussion in a careful way.


Unfortunately, true to its erratic form, the DSP Majority, adventurers that they are, have rushed into this argument with the crudest and most reactionary and confusing arguments that they could assemble, in Green Left Weekly, on the side of the forces opposing the new labour scheme.

They have recently had several comments attacking the Pacific scheme and they have now produced what amounts to a line article under the by line of Jody Betzien, a DSP activist in the Metal Workers Union in Victoria.

They also promptly posted the same article on a website they influence, Australian Asia Workers Links. This DSP line article puts the arguments against Pacific worker access to the Australian labour market in the crudest and most reactionary way. It opposes the new scheme out of hand.

This article has a number of tendentious and implicitly reactionary features. For a start, the DSP leadership tries to create the impression that the new scheme is essentially similar to the objectionable 457 scheme. They also try to create the impression that it’s somehow like the notorious blackbirding or kidnapping of island labour in the 19th century.

This implied slander of the new scheme is a bit barefaced when you consider the fact that the governments of the island nations have been pressing for such a scheme for years, and that now East Timor wants to join the scheme. Far from being blackbirding of any sort, the scheme is voluntary for the workers involved. Where’s the blackbirding?

A second argument used in this article is also extremely problematic. A great hullaballoo is put made about how agricultural labour is poorly paid by Australian standards, which is of course true, but it is spiced up with unsubstantiated stories about how there are many undocumented workers working in the industry.

This is a dubious line of argument from socialists. The maximum slogan, often used by activists in the refugee movement — “no one is illegal” — surely applies here. It hardly behoves socialists to be implicitly blowing the whistle, so to speak, on workers who are deemed to be illegal immigrants.

To its great credit, the CFMEU, which on balance tends to be sceptical about migration into lower paid jobs, when it encounters undocumented workers, which it does from time to time, tries to join them up in the union and get back-pay for them, and doesn’t make a big hullaballoo, as this Green Left article does, about their undocumented status, at least not in such a way as to encourage their deportation. (It would be naive to gloss over the problem that these questions present to a number of unions. From time to time, some low-wage immigrants are used industrially very badly. Many Australian unionists remember vividly the striking images of big islander blokes in balaclavas scabbing in the MUA dispute. To the great credit of the officials of the maritime unions at that time, they deliberately discouraged workers from attacking the scabs for their country of origin. They even made strenuous efforts to get them to join the Maritime Union. Happily, these days most big islander blokes working in different sectors of industry are well and truly in trade unions, and on the right side, as most pictures of industrial disputes when they take place show.)


The appropriate response of socialists to these kind of trade union problems is not to give an inch to a certain traditional chauvinism in the workers movement, in relation to migration while, however, conducting the debate in a careful and responsible way so as to not divide the trade union front between workers and union officials, whose unions have opposed views on these questions.

Another argument is used in this article which is obviously pitched towards making friends with the anti migration current in the environment movement. The last paragraph in the article says that “in reality support for the pilot program based on arguments about Pacific Island developments is allowing big business to get away with establishing a program that will result in more super–exploited migrant workers in Australia, while failing to address to the real causes of poverty in the Pacific.” This ending quite adequately sums up the reactionary anti migration policies that the DSP Majority have lurched into.

Apparently they are opposed “to super-exploited migrant labour” in Australia. The paragraph comes after the fig leaf cover they try to give themselves, in which they say they want permanent migration, but in current labour movement reality, it’s not their fig leaf that matters, it’s the DSP leadership’s glib adaptation to the old anti migration sentiment that still exists in some of the unions.

The first thing that has got to be said about this sentence is that the business about development models for the Pacific is a complete phony. For socialists, none of us have much chance of imposing a perfect development model for the Pacific under the still prevailing capitalist system. We should obviously raise the idea of a better development model for the Pacific, but we are forced to, in the day to day, choose between the different schemes on offer. In the absence of adequate development aid to the Pacific Nations from the two imperialist nations, Australian and New Zealand, both the governments of the Pacific Nations, and the overwhelming majority of the population in the Pacific Nations desire whatever access they can get to the Australian and New Zealand markets for labour. If a tiny place like Kiribati can send a couple of hundred workers to Australia, and they send back a half or even a third of their wages to their families, that is an important gain for the people of Kiribati. It is certainly not the socialist revolution, but is sure beats the hell out of the previous arrangements, from the point of view of the exploited masses of the Pacific.

A second point of importance, concerning domestic politics in Australia, is that when migrant workers fill a perceived gap in country towns, that’s a very substantial practical step towards internationalism, and it tends to break down racial, religious and other prejudices in rural Australia.

The really bizarre feature of the DSP’s locating itself on the extreme right of the debate in the labour movement on this question, is that it comes at a time when the Left trade unions are, in an uneven and contradictory way, clearly moving towards a better position on migration. It seems to me that the DSP leadership see some advantage to their pretensions to being a significant force in the labour movement by adapting to what they see as the prevailing sentiment in a particular union in which they operate. From the socialist point of view, the proper name for this kind of tactical approach is reckless opportunism.

The alternative possibility which the DSP leadership clearly reject, is the more correct one from the socialist point of view. Such a position embodies giving critical support to the new scheme, while trade unions monitor it extremely carefully to see that the prevailing rate is paid, the workers join the appropriate unions, and such parasites as migration agents are eliminated from the process. In addition to this the unions involved should insist vigorously that the seven month workers are brought immediately into a clear and reasonably short pathway to permanent residency and migration status. The DSP leadership’s attempt to act as attorney for all the backwardness that still exists in some trade union circles on the question of migration, should be comprehensively rejected.

PS: I apologise in advance to Jody Betzien, with whom I have never had a conversation on this question, or on anything else, for taking an article with his name on it as my point of departure in this piece. It seems to me that a line article of this sort is to some extent a collective effort and I make the quite reasonable assumption that the article has been workshopped amongst the DSP leadership. I say this without prejudice to the fact that as your name is on the article, you obviously support the propositions in it.


8 Responses to “Support Pacific workers’ access to Australia”

  1. Norm Dixon Says:

    This is more unsubstantiated slander of the DSP by Gould (who can’t even get ASAP’s web site name right). The article calls for unrestricted assess to Australia by Pacifc workers, not heavily qualified visas that force them to work only in poorly paid jobs. The DSP program calls for complete freedom of movement of Pacific workers into and out of Australia with no visa restrictions.

  2. Terry Townsend Says:

    To clear things up: This is the long-held position of the DSP regarding access to Australia for Pacific islanders from 2001—

    Ths DSP …

    Demands that all Australian military aid to the region’s governments be ended and replaced with no-strings-attached development aid and unconditional, free of charge access for the region’s young people to Australian educational and training institutions.

    Demands that all restrictions on the entry of the region’s peoples to Australia be lifted, that Australia’s harsh immigration laws and the policy of mandatory detention of people who arrive in Australia without prior approval be rescinded and that the detention centres be closed immediately All people who arrive in Australia—by whatever means and under whatever circumstances—should immediately be entitled to full political, social and economic rights.


  3. Alan B Says:

    The other side of the guest worker story:

    This is what Australian citizens will be doing while the new Kanakas will be picking our vegetables.

    Black gold bonanza for region
    September 10, 2008
    By Lacey Burley

    THE Surat Basin coal seam gas mining rush is here and will forever
    change the face of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs.

    The figures are astounding.

    Dalby Regional Council mayor Ray Brown has seen projections that up
    to 16,000 workers will be solely employed in the mining industry by

    Cr Brown said the flow-on effect would be up to 100,000 new residents
    coming to live across the Surat Basin, including Miles, Chinchilla,
    Dalby and Toowoomba.

    (The rest of the story is at the address above.)

  4. daggett Says:


    If what you accuse the DSP of, that is, that is starting to become a little embarrassed by its cornucopian ‘open borders’ baggage, is true, then it’ s about time. However, for my part, I see scarce evidence that the DSP is intending to shift its position to such a point that it will make any practical difference to the Australian working class for the foreseeable future. I certainly could see no evidence last time I searched their web site with either of the search terms ‘migration’ or ‘immigration’

    If you want to raise the question of immigration, then I think you should address all aspects of this question, particularly who is driving it and how it affects the lives of ordinary Australians, how it affects our environment and our prospects for long term sustainability.

    These days the most strident advocates of high immigration are the ultra-reactionary and virulently anti-democratic Murdoch Press. Please read Paul Kelly’s Open door of 17 May 2008 or theOpen Door.

    The chief beneficiaries are land speculators who openly welcome the way in which it has driven the cost of housing through the stratosphere.

    If you read Tim Murray’s Is it reactionary to oppose immigration? you will learn that opposition to high immigration was the mainstream position of trade union activists and socialists including Jack London, Victor Gerber, Samuel Gompers, George Orwell and Cesar Chavez. The fact that almost all the far left has adopted the ‘open borders’ stupidity is further confirmation that they stopped thinking and lost all their numeracy skills in the 1920’s

    The fact is that the case for immigration doesn’t stack up and never has. If you don’t believe me, go to any online discussion in which the case for immigration is seriously challenged. You won’t find any far-left (or far-right) cornucopians sticking around to argue their case for very long.

  5. geoff h Says:

    A prerequisite for any Pacific Island wishing to be a part of this scheme should be an effective policy to control rapidly growing populations.

    Otherwise this scheme will have no real benefit in the long term.

    I would also like to see a neutral study on using Australian unemployed to meet the precieved need for labour.

    It is pointless paying overseas labour to come here if the million or so unemployed, who are already here, are not given the same oppoprtunity.

  6. Bob Gould Says:

    The DSP and James Sinnamon find a new ally in Tony Abbot, whose arguments against the Pacific migration scheme parallel theirs.

  7. martin mcgill Says:

    Happy New Year to the blog readers, looking forward to a more active Ozleft in 2009

    Not an endorsement but this website from the small Sydney based Trotskyisty Platform makes for fascinating reading.

  8. Peter Robson (Bold Young Boyleite) Says:

    The DSP has also found an ally in organised Australian labour, who (childishly, according to Bob Gould) reckon that workers on 457 visas should have the same rights as them, and not be homeless poor and working on a massive construction job unless they have the right to seek alternate employment if sacked.

    For some obviously racist reason, members of the CFMEU tend to believe that these workers deserve better, which is what the DSP’s editorial called for.

    Racist bloody CFMEU. Much better to support Paul Howes in the AWU.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: