A UNIVERSITY research project suggesting overseas labourers working in Australian red meat processing are exploited  has been widely condemned by industry as being inaccurate, selective and agenda-driven.

Under a heading “Report reveals grim reality for Australia’s migrant meatworkers,” the RMIT University study said the project “gave voice to the experiences of Pacific Island workers in Australia’s meat industry who say they feel trapped and exploited.”

The report, titled ‘Meat the reality: unpacking the exploitation of PALM scheme workers in Australia’s meat industry’, called for improvements beyond changes made in 2024 to address “worker exploitation” in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme.

The Australian Government’s PALM scheme provides foreign workers with temporary visas to work in meatworks and other industries with labour shortages. About 10,000 PALM scheme workers are currently employed in Australian red meat processing.

As well as providing a detailed legal critique and recommendations for reform, the report used personal experiences of five PALM scheme workers who each took photographs to represent their daily lives. The researchers used these photographs as prompts for in-depth discussions with the participants.  The five workers were chosen to participate based on their “experience of previous labour law breaches,” the report stated.

Professor Shelley Marshall from RMIT’s Business and Human Rights Centre said the photographs and interviews revolved around themes of “darkness, injustice and feelings of being trapped.”

“The participants in our study were sent to isolated rural towns, far from familiar faces, and placed in shared housing with strangers,” she said.

“The photos hauntingly depict how they rarely see daylight due to physically demanding shifts, which are often extended with overtime, leading to an oppressive sense that their lives are consumed entirely by work.”

“At work, these workers are often burdened with lifting heavier meat—a demand fuelled by racial stereotypes about their strength—yet earn less than colleagues on other visa schemes. Outside work, they are stripped of the full tenancy rights enjoyed by most Australians and are forced to endure high rents that are automatically deducted from their wages,” Prof Marshall claimed.

Among the sweeping claims made in the report, based on the chosen sample of five were:

• Restricted Freedoms: Workers experienced limitations on their personal freedoms.
• Long Working Hours: Many reported extended working hours with significant unpaid work.
• High rent and limited accommodation Use: Workers paid high rent but had restricted access to their residences.
• Lower pay rates: PALM Scheme workers received lower pay than others in the same workplace.
• Unpaid overtime: Overtime work was often unpaid.
• Deductions from wages: Deductions, including for rent, left workers with minimal take-home pay.
• Deception: Workers felt misled by promises made during briefings that did not match the reality of their work conditions and pay.

RMIT study co-author, PhD candidate Ema Moolchand said the PALM worker challenges were compounded by a visa condition requiring the employer’s permission for a worker to quit and seek work elsewhere.

“Dependence on employers – even if they are clearly bad bosses – remains a key source of feelings of being trapped and unable to do anything about poor conditions, especially when workers face racial stereotypes or restricted freedom that further limit their ability to act,” Ms Moolchand said.

“As the first empirical study since important changes to the PALM scheme, this report highlights the need for a completely new approach to the scheme that genuinely prioritises worker voices and ensures fair, safe and dignified working conditions,” she said.

Launching the report, Australian Council of Trade Unions president Michele O’Neil said the findings aligned with the experience of unions that represented PALM workers, showing these challenges to be systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

“This report adds a human voice to what we already know are significant and ongoing issues with a scheme that ties PALM workers to their employer; the lack of mobility for workers to change employers poses a clear modern slavery risk.”

“Among the changes we are calling for, mobility for these workers is paramount, as it would mean they can move to another approved employer if they need to leave a bad boss, unsafe conditions or harassment,” Ms O’Neil said.

“This would mean employers could no longer treat PALM workers as bonded labourers.”

Examples not representative of the broader PALM scheme experience

Prof Marshall said the methodology used to share the five participants’ stories in the study did not claim to be a representative survey sample of all PALM scheme workers.

“It is more a deep dive than a representative sample, that aids more comprehensive legal analysis,” she claimed.

Despite that qualifier, the report still uses sweeping statements like:

• “Unpacking the exploitation of PALM Scheme workers in the Australian meat industry”
• “Beneath the surface of juicy steaks and glossy supermarket shelves lies a grim reality marked by exploitation and precariousness for migrant workers”
• “This report finds that the industry thrives on the backs of vulnerable workers”
• “The industry’s reliance on vulnerable workers highlights a stark contradiction between its global success and the exploitation underpinning its operations”
• “The historical exploitation of Pacific Island labourers (since the 1800s) casts a long shadow over modern Australian labour practices, with the PALM Scheme representing the latest evolution of Pacific labour migration.”

It’s not hard to find PALM scheme labourer experiences that contradict and contrast sharply with the five selective individual examples used in the RMIT study. Most red meat processors and their labour companies are proud of their working and community relationships with their PALM scheme workforce, as indicated in this short video:

Plenty of discussions Beef Central has had directly with PALM scheme meatworkers such as during this recent Queensland event do not align in any way with the claims made in the report.

AMIC response

Beef Central asked the Australian Meat Industry Council for a comment on the report’s findings and methodology. While AMIC chose not to comment on the report itself, it made the following comments about the PALM scheme:

PALM workers are fully protected by Australia’s Fair Work Act and the PALM Deed and Guidelines.

PALM workers enjoy the same rights and privileges as every working Australian. Approximately 10,000 workers are employed under the PALM scheme in the meat industry. Many of these PALM workers have been engaged on long term rather than seasonal contracts and been afforded the ability to train, upskill and progress into more senior roles.

Workers employed under the PALM scheme are not only protected like any other Australian, they have also benefitted from the ability to earn an Australian wage and to share those economic benefits with their families, communities and home countries in the Pacific.

Any PALM worker concerned about their work conditions should contact their country liaison officer, the Fair Work Ombudsman or the PALM scheme support service line for help and advice.