THERE are several views on the recent debate surrounding M. Saravanan’s rejection of participation in the Australian visa scheme for agriculture workers. The rationale for the rejection is evident in a statement from the minister’s office dated October 19, which is consistent with the disclosure in the Dewan Negara on October 11, notwithstanding the wordplay and semantics. 

Perhaps a lack of appreciation for the multi-dimensional issues have resulted in such a view and perhaps a lack of consultative approach prevented the government from understanding the context of the issue at hand. After all, high level diplomatic conversation often packages “the truth” to be palatable and evade embarrassment; such is the reality of politics and diplomacy.

To understand the dimensions of the problem that the Australian visa scheme seeks to solve requires us to have a glimpse of the Australian culture and political conversation in a pragmatic manner without niceties. 

Australian has a vibrant democracy and like Malaysia, it is a federation. However,  unlike us, it has local municipal elections which tend to amplify localised policy issues in rural Australia. There are many common issues that crop up consistently during the election season between the Liberals and Labour Party (which are the two main Australian political parties) and among the top three issues are:

• Border security and influx of migrants and asylum seekers, both legal and illegal; 

• Social welfare and government spending on the wellbeing of its citizens and residents; and

• Labour shortages that have plagued horticulture and agriculture industry and increase of Wage Award as lobbied for by the trade unions.

These three issues are often correlated, and while they are crucial for shaping economic development policy, these issues are often politicised. The issue of labour shortage is an old issue and has been around for more than 30 years in the Australia social political debate. The fruit-picking industry relies heavily on seasonal workers, simply because harvest is seasonal dependent. Hence when the demand for labour drops during the winter months, some workers are left without an income during these times. So apart from the farm work being considered “dangerous, dirty and difficult”, the issue of consistency of income for the workers and the costs for a farm to maintain and support a large workforce during the unproductive months are also an important issue that is not often discussed openly, especially not in diplomatic circles or the press. This is because notwithstanding Australia’s strict enforcement of workers’ rights, businesses have been known to resort to unscrupulous tactics to survive and at times rely on illegals to address the labour gap. These issues are more rampant in rural Australia, where agriculture is the main economic driver. The disconnect between federal and rural politics and the lack of political will often delay a pragmatic solution simply because there are many different and opposing views having competing interests depending on which party one belongs to or whether one is from rural Australia.

The existence of irrefutable evidence and a tacit acknowledgement of large farms using illegal migrant labour was first exposed in 2016 by two Malaysians working with the Age and Four Corners on a pro-bono and apolitical basis. This expose hastened the federal government’s passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2018, which revamped and regulated certain industries to prevent the perpetuation of this harm and the black economy from expanding. The rationale for the legislation can be seen in a report by the Australian Federal Parliament entitled “Hidden in Plain sight (2017)”. One of the solutions consistently mooted was a visa scheme for workers from Malaysia and other Asean countries to address the labour shortages transparently without middlemen, syndicates, migration agents and lawyers milking these workers. However, competing political interest and the politicising of issues have prevented an effective solution from being formed in a timely manner.  

The Covid-19 pandemic has changed all that. Party interest that were at the both ends of the political spectrum has been dwarfed by the severe shortage of labour which is severely affecting prices of produce and affecting the yield from harvest seasons. The timing of the proposed Australian visa scheme is a reflection of this. As the saying goes, “Necessity is the mother of all inventions”.

The Malaysian government also needs to realise that Malaysians are one of the largest groups of over-stayers, applicants of bridging visas, and asylum seekers in Australia. Therefore avoiding engagement in this scheme would not limit the outflow of workers to Australia. It also needs to realise that most times, the Malaysians are applying for asylum for economic reasons, notwithstanding the official reasons of “persecution” and “discrimination” stated on their applications because these are the reasons that have a better chance of securing approval for their pleas.

The rationale for the application for protection is to enable the applicant to stay in the country while the application is being considered. This usually buys time for the said migrant to work legally in Australia. Many realise that their chances will not be successful but due to desperation and syndicates, the flow of applications for asylum never ceases, aided by lawyers and migrations agents who perpetuate false hope in these migrant workers.

The Australian visa scheme is a golden opportunity for the Malaysian government to partake in a progressive policy that can solve many problems. We have a chance now to negotiate bilaterally to regulate these issues and prevent the syndicates from taking advantage of the workers. We can negotiate for the number of applicants to be controlled and for the seasonal workers to return to Malaysia when the harvest season is over to prevent families from being separated, encourage the transfer of knowledge, and enable exposure to agriculture abroad. This is also a move that will lower poverty for approximately 18,000 people, most of whom are Malay.

We can adopt a progressive policy while negotiating a mutually beneficial and equitable solution for all stakeholders. A cursory rejection of this scheme has many unintended consequences. This is a complex matter and has several dimensions. 

The three main unintended consequences of not regulating illicit labour flow are as follows:

• The continued rise of Malaysian illegals may affect the chances of genuine Malaysian tourists and visitors attaining a visa from the Electronic Travel Authority; this has already had some effect as many genuine visitors are not granted a tourist visa because there is an unwritten policy to reject tourist from Malaysia of a certain age group due to the influx of illegal labour;

• Illegal syndicates operating from Malaysia provide false hopes and causes severe hardship to the unsuspecting victims, who are mostly poor, and has a ripple effect on the family structure. Desperation for income during the unproductive months results in the illegals being abused by the syndicates for prostitution, drug trafficking and money laundering; and

• The policy of the government to not engage with the Australian government on the visa scheme, which thus prevents Malaysians from legitimately participating in this scheme, may be argued at the Migration Tribunal or the Australian Federal Court as resulting in the breach of social and economic rights of the workers, and all it takes is one precedent to be set which will cause severe embarrassment to our nation.

Finally, if the above rationale of national interest does not provide ample reason for the Malaysian government to reconsider its stance, let it be a reminder that most of these illegals are aged 18 to 40, who are also going to be the largest group of voters in the next election. My my last count, that is more than 18 thousand Malaysians, excluding the legitimate Malaysian diaspora in Australia.

Suffering and hardship provide a great catalyst for change so let’s be progressive to avoid any further unintended consequences. – October 23, 2021.

* Vicknaraj Thanarajah has lived and practised law in Australia for 12 years. 

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.