‘Beyond Underpayment’: The unfinished business of stopping employers using job structures to exploit people on visas
Note: this is a digital version of the report. You can access/download the official print-ready report here.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Solidarity Center and the ILAW Network, and especially Jeffrey Vogt, Neha Misra and Monika Mehta, for their expert input on the study design and the report, and the Open Society Foundations’ International Migration Initiative, which funded this research.
This report has been a collective effort. We are indebted to the many dedicated practitioners, advocates and experts around the world who generously provided examples, legal sources and explanations in order to support colleagues in other jurisdictions. We particularly appreciate the insights shared by each of the individuals who gave their time to participate in the workshops, interviews, questionnaire and email exchanges for the study. We are also extremely grateful to the following experts who provided input into earlier drafts of the report: Terri Gerstein (Harvard Law School), William Gois (Migrant Forum in Asia), Ben Harkins (ILO), Ray Jureidini (Hamad Bin Khalifa University), Sophia Kagan (ILO), James Lynch (FairSquare Research and Projects), Douglas MacLean (Justice Without Borders), Nick McGeehan (FairSquare Research and Projects), Mustafa Qadri (Equidem Research and Consulting), Henry Rojas (Lawyers Beyond Borders, Philippines), JJ Rosenbaum (Global Labor Justice), Cathy Ruckelshaus (National Employment Law Project), Vani Saraswathi (Migrant-Rights.org), Max Tuñón (ILO), Leah Vosko (York University) and Jill Wells (Engineers Against Poverty). This report has benefitted greatly from their considered feedback.
The series of regional workshops held in early 2021 would not have been possible without the extremely skilful coordination and technical assistance of Monika Mehta and Matt Hersey from the ILAW Network and the Solidarity Center. The authors also appreciate the work of the Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish interpreters in these workshops.
We are very grateful to Mia Trzecinski who provided exceptional research and editorial assistance on the report. We also thank Angela Smith, Catherine Hemingway, Adan Tatour, Praveena Sivanesarajah and Michele Savicki for their research contributions, and LLM graduate volunteers at ILAW Network, who provided detailed research briefs on particular national contexts: Camille Alexandre Belanger, Shweta Duggal, Ayda Hassan, Arahman Musa, Kazuo Nakai, Sneha Pradeep, Cortland Reiner, Ahmed Yacout, and Zheyu Zhang. DongJu Lee provided expert assistance in the set up of the questionnaire.
We hope this report will support the inspiring community of practice that contributed to the study, which is clearly eager to collaborate to improve migrant workers’ access to justice globally.
Executive Summary
Our 2024 national survey of 370 PALM Scheme workers reveals a programme in crisis: two-thirds would not report serious workplace problems—unsafe work, wage theft, or being told not to join a union—to anyone beyond friends and family. The reason is structural: workers' visas tie them to a single employer. Speaking up risks immediate termination, visa cancellation, deportation and permanent exclusion from future work in Australia. Most workers choose silence.
This silence has consequences for all stakeholders. For workers, it means enduring exploitation with no recourse. For government, it means programme failure: protections exist on paper but are inaccessible in practice. For compliant employers, it means reputational risk as exploitation cases undermine the Scheme's social licence. For Pacific Island nations, it means remittances purchased at the cost of workers' dignity. For exploitative employers, it means impunity.
The silence is rational. A worker who discovers wage theft faces an impossible choice: report it and risk deportation plus debt, or accept the exploitation and keep earning. Their visa conditions mean losing their job equals breaching their visa. They cannot choose their employer before arrival or change employers without approval from both the current and prospective employer, plus DEWR. Retaliation risks extend to co-workers and family members who hope to participate in the Scheme. As one aged care worker explained: "We do as we are told, take whatever you're given and be thankful that you're given a job with good money, compared to what you get in Fiji."
“We were threatened for all our mistakes that we would be sent back.”
— 28-year-old man from Papua New Guinea, PALM Scheme worker
“PALM workers can't talk because they don't have any right… They can't leave their work if they find hardship at work.”
— 43-year-old woman from Fiji, aged care worker
“Whether it's right or wrong… just accept it.”
— 42-year-old Fijian man, meat processing worker, on what employers expect from PALM workers
Key Findings
FINDING 1:
Most PALM workers want to change employers but cannot
Two in three respondents (64%) said they would change employers if they could. Only 18% said they would stay with their current employer. Three in five who wanted to change cited a desire to be treated better. One in three cited safety reasons. This suggests widespread experience of poor treatment or safety issues that workers feel they cannot resolve with their employer or through other channels.
"[The] company should treat us fairly and be honest with us not threaten us with our employment and our daily duties at work."
— 32-year-old Man from Fiji working in WA as a meatworker
"If a PALM worker is injured on job, especially repetitive injuries, they are too afraid to speak up for safety issues."
— Female aged care worker in NSW
FINDING 2:
Most PALM workers will not report serious workplace problems
Two in three survey respondents (66%) indicated that they would not speak with anyone other than a friend, family member or co-worker about serious concerns such as being asked to do unsafe tasks, being told not to join a union, or receiving few hours of work for several weeks.
More than two in five respondents (42%) believed that no, or few, PALM workers from their country would talk about a problem about hours and pay with anyone other than a friend, family member or co-worker.
This reluctance to report is particularly striking given that respondents in our survey are mostly highly connected, unionised PALM workers in high-skilled occupations and on long-term visas. It is likely that other PALM workers would be even more reluctant to talk to anyone about these issues beyond their immediate social circle.
FINDING 3:
Fear of retaliation drives silence
Respondents overwhelmingly stayed silent due to fear of employer retaliation in their current job and/or fear of retaliatory consequences for returning to Australia.
Primary retaliation fears (current job):
· 64% would stay silent fearing job loss
· 33% feared retaliation against co-workers
· 32% feared retaliation in the form of less or worse work
Future retaliation fears:
· 25% feared their employer wouldn't invite them or their family/community members back
· 16% feared their home government wouldn't recommend them or their family/community members for future work
· 50% said it would be easier to seek help "if there is a guarantee they can come back to work in Australia even if they raise problems"
The prevalence of these responses confirms the chilling impact of workers' desire to return on their willingness to seek help if problems arise. Indeed, 97% wish to return to Australia to participate in the PALM scheme again, which strongly motivates them to withhold complaints or concerns about their current job.
Other significant barriers to reporting:
· 29% believed reporting wouldn't change anything
· 21% said they "wouldn't want to let my family down"
· 19% cited fear of actual harm to themselves or their family
· 13% worried about paying off debts
When asked what would make it easier to seek help, just over half (53%) selected "if [workers] could raise problems as a group of workers" and two in five (40%) selected "if [workers] could easily change employers". Both responses that would reduce retaliation risks.
"I'm experiencing bullying with my supervisor, forcing to do the task which resulting me from injury. When I'm got my injury in my hand they would not believe and when I ask a light job, they placed me the job that my hand cannot lift a bin weighing 60ks up. That's why I suffer my mental health because I'm thinking about myself what's happen to me and for the future of my family."
— 39-year-old Male living in Qld as a meat worker
FINDING 4
Government and employer grievance channels
are inaccessible to most workers
The Australian government instructs PALM workers to first raise problems with their employer or the employer's mandatory welfare officer. 66% indicated they would not engage with their employer or welfare officer if problems arose. This is driven primarily by fear of retaliatory action and, for some, cultural deference to superiors or perception that reporting won't result in change.
Workers show limited willingness to engage with other channels:
· Only 14% would contact their Country Liaison Officer (some fear being seen as troublemakers; others noted CLOs actively discourage complaints to protect their country's reputation)
· Only 11% would use DEWR's PALM Support Service Line (workers fear DEWR would notify their employer)
· Only 23% would contact the Fair Work Ombudsman, and
· While 45% would tell a union (the most trusted channel) this was likely over-represented in our sample due to high unionisation rates.
"Most PALM are scared to speak up because of lack of English-speaking skills, not knowing who to talk to and sometimes scared of what they might say is wrong."
— 31-year-old woman from Tonga working in Qld in meat work
"They feel that they may be accused of lying about a situation at work. Even if they were telling the truth."
— 40-year-old female from Fiji working in QLD in aged care
Heading 1
Overview
The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (‘PALM’) Scheme facilitates temporary labour migration to Australia from nine Pacific Island nations and Timor-Leste. The Scheme is unique in Australia: a heavily-regulated government program intended to support regional development in the Pacific, while filling labour shortages in key industries and regions in Australia, and maintaining worker protections for this vulnerable cohort. As of September 2025, there were 31,225 PALM Scheme workers employed in agriculture, horticulture, meat processing, aged care, tourism and hospitality in Australia.
The program is a cornerstone of Australia’s strategic engagement in the region and is a ‘long-term commitment’ intended to ‘foster deeper connections between Australia, the Pacific and Timor-Leste.’¹ The Australian Government intends to further expand the program and has committed resources to ‘improving [the Scheme] and supporting Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to participate in a way that delivers for each country’s unique labour mobility ambitions.’²
Recognising the vulnerability of workers in the Scheme, and the consequences for Australia’s reputation if workers are mistreated, the program is far more heavily regulated than other temporary migration programs in Australia. The Australian Government states: ‘[t]he wellbeing of Pacific and Timor-Leste workers is of the highest priority for the Australian Government and Pacific and Timor-Leste governments.’³ Employers of PALM workers must be vetted and approved by the government and have specific legal responsibilities for worker wellbeing. The government spot-checks workplaces and provides dedicated support services for workers. These include a supportive role for representatives from workers’ home governments (Country Liaison Officers (‘CLOs’)), a dedicated service line within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (‘DEWR’), a formal grievance process and a Community Connections program to assist workers to settle into life in Australia.
Despite these protections, employer noncompliance and mistreatment of workers persist within parts of the Scheme. Recent media coverage of concerns about workplace exploitation has challenged social license for the Scheme. In response, the Government has invested in strengthened grievance processes, while delicately seeking to balance employers’ willingness to participate in the program despite its unusually heavy compliance burden compared with other migrant labour streams.[1]
PALM workers clearly value the income, skills and opportunities the program provides: 97% of respondents in our study expressed a desire to return. This does not, however, indicate that their working conditions are satisfactory, or that Government wellbeing efforts and grievance processes are working to identify and address employer noncompliance and workplace exploitation.
“Addressing workers’ ability and willingness to report problems is critical to the program’s success. A reluctance to report makes migrants vulnerable to exploitation because employers have limited expectations of accountability. It can compel workers to remain in poor or exploitative conditions and makes government and industry detection of noncompliance difficult if not impossible.”
Name, Title
This is especially the case for PALM Scheme workers, whose visa requires them to work only for their designated employer. If they leave their employer, they will be in breach of their visa and can be sent home with significant barriers to returning. In practice, DEWR attempts to redeploy workers to alternative AEs where they raise a substantiated complaint. However this assumes that workers will contact DEWR with a complaint, and be able to substantiate it.
This study does not seek to estimate prevalence of exploitation or employer noncompliance in the PALM Scheme. Rather, it examines[2]:
· Whether and why PALM workers want to leave their current job, as an indication of potential problems;
· Whether existing government and employer grievance mechanisms are accessible to PALM workers to articulate concerns and achieve a resolution; and
· Risks and structural barriers that render PALM workers unwilling or unable to report problems at work.
Migrant Justice Institute’s 2024 National Survey on Access to Justice for Workers on the PALM Scheme
Migrant Justice Institute conducted the National Survey on Access to Justice for Workers on the PALM Scheme in October and November 2024. Funded by the International Labour Organization Country Office for Pacific Island Countries, the survey yielded 370 valid responses.
‘PALM Scheme workers can’t complain because if they lose the job then they will be sent home. They can’t work anywhere else due to the visa status’
Fijian woman working in aged care in NSW
Participants were clustered in two key industry groups: 51% were meatworkers primarily in Queensland with small numbers in Victoria, WA and NSW (43% were union members), and 35% were aged care workers primarily in NSW and in Queensland (72% were union members). A further 9% worked in agriculture and 6% in other industries.
The survey was available in English, Bislama, Fijian and Tetun. It was disseminated by a range of organisations and individuals with whom we had consulted, including unions. Some PALM workers were assisted to complete the survey by enumerators whom we paid to read out the survey questionnaire and record participants’ oral responses. Most PALM workers completed the online survey themselves.
Participants were not representative of the population of PALM Scheme workers. They were likely among the most empowered workers on the Scheme - overwhelmingly on long-term visas, with higher levels of English language ability and literacy, placed in more highly skilled positions, heavily unionised and more deeply connected to the Australian community than other PALM workers. The survey was likely inaccessible to the majority of PALM workers who could not engage with an online survey instrument on their phone, and who had limited proficiency in the survey languages. As a result, our findings likely underestimate the challenges PALM workers face in raising problems through established grievance channels. At the same time, since participants self-selected to undertake the survey, this may over-represent workers with specific grievances about the Scheme.
Key Survey Findings
1. Most PALM workers would not report problems at work and wish to change employers
The survey findings suggest that there is likely a substantial proportion of PALM workers working under unacceptable conditions that they cannot change, and as a result they would like to leave their employer.
· Two in three respondents said they would change employers if they could.
· Three in five respondents indicated the reason they would change employers is to be treated better. Around one in three would change for safety reasons. This suggest that these workers are experiencing poor treatment or safety issues that they feel they cannot resolve with their employer or through other channels
· Two in three survey respondents indicated that they would not speak with anyone other than a friend, family member or co-worker about important concerns in relation to poor working conditions, such as being asked to do unsafe tasks, being told not to join a union or receiving few hours of work for several weeks.
· Two in five respondents believed that no, or few, PALM workers from their country would discuss a problem with their pay with anyone other than a friend, family member or co-worker.
This reluctance to report is particularly striking in light of the fact that the respondents in our survey are among the most highly connected and unionised PALM workers, working in high-skilled occupations and on long-term visas. It is likely that other PALM workers would be even more reluctant to talk to anyone about these issues beyond their immediate social circle.
2. Many PALM workers do not report problems at work due to retaliation fears in the context of employer-tied visas
Respondents overwhelmingly stayed silent due to fear of employer retaliation in their current job and/or fear of retaliatory consequences for returning to Australia. Almost two thirds said they would stay silent for fear they would lose their job. A third feared employer retaliation against co-workers, and a third feared retaliation in the form of less or worse work.
Addressing fear of retaliation was also a key theme in respondents’ answers to the question ‘what would make it easier for PALM workers to seek help?’. Just over half selected ‘if [workers] could raise problems as a group of workers’. Two in five selected ‘If [workers] could easily change employers’. A quarter of participants selected ‘if nobody knows the name of the PALM worker seeking help’. These all suggest that workers would be more likely to get help for problems at work if they did not have to risk retaliation by their employer.
A second set of reasons for staying silent concerned fear of jeopardising workers’ future return to Australia. Indeed, 97% wish to return to Australia to participate in the PALM Scheme again. One in four pointed to a fear their employer may not invite them or their family or community members to work in Australia again as a reason not to report problems. When asked what would make it easier for PALM workers to seek help, half of all respondents selected ‘If there is a guarantee they can come back to work in Australia even if they raise problems.’ The prevalence of this response confirms the chilling impact of workers’ desire to return on their willingness to seek help if problems arise.
A related set of concerns relates to fear of retaliation by a PALM worker’s home government or others involved in selecting and deploying PALM workers. One in five respondents cited fear of actual harm to themselves or their family as a consequence of reporting problems. One in six respondents indicated that other PALM workers would not report problems because ‘their home government may not recommend them or their family/community members to work in Australia again’.
Substantial proportions of respondents raised several other reasons for staying silent. Just over a quarter of respondents lacked faith in systems to deliver change if they spoke up about a problem. One in five selected cultural deference to superiors at work as a reason to not report. One in eight cited worries about paying off debts. One in five selected ‘I wouldn’t want to let my family down’.
3. Many PALM workers are unable or unwilling to raise concerns through government and employer grievance channels
The Australian government instructs PALM workers to first raise problems with their employer or the employer’s mandatory welfare officer. Two in three survey respondents indicated they would not engage with their employer or welfare officer if problems arise at work. This is likely primarily driven by fear of retaliatory action by their employer and, for some, cultural deference to superiors and/or a perception that reporting would not result in change.
Only around one in ten PALM workers would use DEWR’s PALM Support Service Line. Fewer than one in four would contact the FWO. Many workers are understandably fearful to raise concerns directly with the Australian government for fear that the Australian government would need to notify the employer in order to investigate. Workers likely fear employer retaliation in response to DEWR raising their complaint, without knowing whether DEWR would move them to another AE or whether they risk returning to their employer and facing repercussions.
Only around one in seven participants indicated they would talk to their home country’s Country Liaison Officer or home government labour attaché if they had problems at work. While some CLOs approach their support role with dedication and are trusted by workers, there is also evidence that some PALM workers do not have contact from their CLO. Some may fear reporting problems to their CLO for fear they will be seen as a troublemaker and not selected to return. Indeed some stakeholders noted that certain home country representatives actively discourage workers from complaining about problems and want to protect their country’s reputation as a source of good and compliant workers.
The largest proportion of respondents (just under half) indicated that if PALM workers would tell anyone about a problem with their hours or pay they would tell a union. Participants’ willingness to engage with a union is likely substantially higher in our survey sample due to the disproportionately high level of unionisation among respondents.
Conclusion
The PALM Scheme has clear benefits for Australian employers, as well as for the economies of Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste, and for individual PALM workers and their communities. Indeed, 97% of our survey participants want to return.
Our survey findings suggest a large proportion of PALM workers are working in jobs where they feel they are not treated well or are unsafe. Only around a third of workers would tell anyone other than a friend, family member or co-worker if they encountered problems at work, and most would change their employer if they could. Only one in ten would use DEWR’s hotline and most would not raise issues with their employer.
Fear of employer retaliation has a powerful chilling effect: workers are unwilling speak up because they perceive this as a risk to their job and their stay in Australia, and their abililty to return. Many commentators on the Scheme, including the World Bank, recognise the disempowerment of workers resulting from employer-tied visas, and acknowledge the need to provide workers with agency to change employers.
The Australian Government has committed significant resources to supporting PALM workers, including through a government support line and formal grievance processes. However unless the Australian Government can insulate PALM workers from actual and perceived risks of retaliation, the majority will remain unwilling to report concerns through these channels – including serious noncompliance and exploitation.
Regardless of the conditions of their work, many PALM workers value their ongoing participation in the Scheme over all else. Without the option to change employers, workers perceive themselves as trapped between risking losing their job and ability to remain in the Scheme on the one hand, or being compelled to remain in an unacceptable working (and/or living) arrangement on the other.
Establishing a form of supported mobility in the PALM Scheme is the only clear way to enable workers to feel they can safely report problems at work without jeopardising their current and future participation in the Scheme. Short of this, the Government must explore other robust mechanisms that address workers’ actual and perceived risks of retaliation that foster fear and silence. Without these changes, Government will be unable to meet PALM workers’ expectations of fair, safe and respectful working conditions in all Australian workplaces.
Recommendations
Numerous recent reports and submissions have recommended initiatives to improve support for PALM workers and enable them to address problems. We support many of these recommendations, and focus here on further structural reforms needed to ensure workers can safely report problems at work.
Commonwealth, State and Local Governments:
Commonwealth, State and Local Governments:
[1] Asd
