
Supermarket giant acts on 'appalling' worker conditions
Workers under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme were particularly vulnerable due to their strict visa conditions, which stop them from changing employers, lawyer Joshua Strutt said.
"PALM visa holders are one of the most exploited temporary visa holders in Australia," said Mr Strutt, the chief executive of the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre.
The PALM scheme allows eligible Australian businesses to hire people from Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste, usually to work in agriculture and meat processing.
The legal service has heard from PALM workers who have been severely injured in workplace accidents, but are too scared to seek medical care.
"There's this really huge power imbalance that exists through this system that needs to be fixed," Mr Strutt told the inquiry in Sydney on Monday.
The NSW parliamentary inquiry is examining the risks of modern slavery in rural areas, investigating the extent of forced labour, violence, sexual servitude, labour trafficking and wage violations.
Supermarket giant Woolworths took on a labour hire company after being told migrant workers in its Queensland supply chain were living in poor conditions.
"We did a site inspection and the housing conditions were indeed appalling and unliveable," Woolworths group's human rights general manager Rachel Elliott said.
"The workers had raised this with the labour hire provider to no avail."
The unnamed labour hire organisation was booted from migrant worker schemes, but there have since been reports of the company attempting to operate in other states, she said.
Woolworths conducts 1000 workplace audits in its supply chain each year, revealing about 5000 incidents of non-compliance that range from fire safety issues to underpayment.
The underpayments were often the result of labour hire companies failing to pass on entitlements to workers, Ms Elliott said.
After audits in NSW over the last two years, Woolworths has worked with suppliers to repay $50,000 in the meat industry and $48,000 in horticulture.
Overcrowded accommodation was another pressing issue, with regular reports of 10 people living in one house and paying $170 per bed, Australian Workers' Union organiser Jonathan Cook told the inquiry.
"It is a clear and obvious exploitation of farm workers," Mr Cook said.
Several agricultural industry bodies cited an independent survey conducted by the Australian National University and the World Bank that found 98 per cent of PALM workers would recommend the scheme to others.
But workers were not in a position of power to be open about their conditions, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association industrial officer Bernard Govind said.
"We know migrant workers ... have a visceral fear of speaking up against workplace exploitation for fear of visa cancellation and deportation."
The inquiry is due to hold a hearing in Griffith on June 19.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.

The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.

The Age
7 hours ago
- The Age
The move that has killed off Friday night drinks
Gather round, young workers. Let me tell you a story of what work was like in the olden days. It might sound strange, but once upon a time people across the city would descend upon a central location at the same time, toiling away from Monday to Friday in a common space together. Then, on the final afternoon of the last workday, a small ritual would occur in many workplaces. In some of them, platters laden with 'chips and dips' would materialise on a large table near the kitchen. In others, a drinks cart would be wheeled between cubicles, offering cold drinks to weary workers. And, more often than not, a colleague would appear at your desk to invite you to the pub to digest the week's events and swap upcoming plans for the weekend. These historic vignettes are not from decades in the past, you only need to rewind your memory back to 2019 to remember them. For countless generations, workers celebrated the end of the week by heading to the local watering hole. Today, however, thanks in part to changing ways of working, WFH is killing Friday night drinks. Loading According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 40 per cent of Australian employees now spend some of their week under hybrid arrangements, and it's caused a drastic change to how we socialise. The most common days to be in the office? Tuesday to Thursday. And the most likely days to work from home? Mondays and Fridays. But it's not all the fault of WFH, as there's a perfect storm of trends that has led us to this moment. The first is a long-term shift of younger Australians away from alcohol.