Working visa review must not forget ag and regions

It's the dream of many a young foreigner to backpack around Australia.

And just as important as the tourism value in these, often long-term, stays is the employment these visitors seek.

For agriculture, and rural and regional Australia, the jobs many of these young travellers take on, particularly in farming businesses, are crucial for ensuring businesses can keep operating effectively and efficiently. Without that labour source, some of these businesses would struggle to fill vacancies.

But that is the fear as the federal government's regional migration review could result in the axing of the requirement for those with a Working Holiday Maker (WHM) visa to complete at least 88 days of specified work in a regional or remote area.

Currently that work includes the likes of tourism and hospitality, plant and animal cultivation, fishing, fishing, tree farming and natural disaster recovery.

It's clear then just why regional Australia and our agriculture industry values this requirement so highly because, as many non-metropolitan businesses in these fields will tell you, it can be hard to fill the number of roles that are needed from the local population.

Their concern is justified, too, as from July of this year - as a result of the free trade agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom - British residents became exempt from this 88-day, specified work requirement.

And, we've also had a sobering preview of Australian agriculture as well as regional businesses - hospitality in particular - without the input of backpackers on working visas. When the pandemic closed the door to international visitors for a number of years, regional businesses were particularly impacted as they struggled to fill vacancies.

Just why this particular change is being considered is unclear, but it really does beg the question of why change something that is clearly yielding valuable benefits for the bush, the businesses that fuel our regional economies and the national bottom-line as a whole? As an example, many fruit-picking operations would tell you they couldn't manage annual harvests without at least some visa-holders on board. And how often do you go into a country pub and hear a foreign accent from behind the bar?

These jobs are obviously up for grabs for all Australians, but the reality is they can't be filled from our local population for a myriad of reasons. The other reality is they are vital, paid roles that need to be done, so if working holiday-makers can lend a hand for three months in order to satisfy our visa requirements, then that seems like a reasonable trade-off. I don't think we'd argue with other countries imposing similar conditions for the privilege of a long-term stay with plenty of scope for travel and adventure.

And, many young visitors will tell you how much they get out of their time in the regions, and how they may not have made it to many of these areas without that 'specified work' visa clause. It also shouldn't be underestimated the value these travellers bring to the businesses and communities they work and live in, and how much we gain from their culture, engagement, insights and perspectives.

Surely it's a win-win and we can only hope the current review takes into account all of the benefits this condition yields and the potentially devastating ramifications of removing it.