Australia relies on seasonal workers, particularly in agriculture and hospitality, to fill shortages of much-needed skills.

But a combination of low pay, strict visa conditions and housing unavailability in regional areas is placing these workers at risk of overcrowded and inappropriate housing conditions.

To provide seasonal workers with safe and secure accommodation, we need to better understand who they are and the housing problems they’re facing.

Our research examined the experiences of these workers. Interviews and focus groups captured the views and experiences of almost 100 workers and other stakeholders in five locations in regional Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.

We found widespread poor accommodation with little storage, safety risks and inadequate enforcement of basic standards.

Who are these workers?

Many seasonal workers come to Australia from other countries. Their working conditions are shaped by the visa they’ve been granted.

Workers coming as part of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme can stay for up to four years and are prevented from moving or changing employer.

Those with Working Holiday Maker visas are under 35 years old. They’re required to work for three or more months annually in regional locations to extend their visa.

Australian seasonal workers are not restricted by visa conditions and tend to be either under 35, or older Australians on working holidays.

We also found another vulnerable group: long-term workers in seasonal industries being forced into temporary or precarious housing due to shortages of affordable and suitable accommodation.

In June 2024, there were 173,216 working holiday makers in Australia (mainly in urban areas) and in December 2024, there were 27,260 PALM workers in regional Australia.

PALM worker numbers increased during the COVID pandemic when working holiday maker numbers declined.

Crowded and cramped conditions

There are large differences in quality and cost among seasonal and vulnerable worker accommodation, even in the same locations.

Often, workers rely on temporary and informal housing, such as shipping containers, caravans and portable buildings.

Even in permanent housing, temporary measures such as bunk beds, sharing rooms and shared facilities are common for extended periods.

Residents reported that crowding and a lack of privacy affected their mental health, productivity and sleep.

Working holiday makers and seasonal Australian workers are willing to tolerate crowded and poor-quality accommodation for short periods. But PALM workers sometimes endure inappropriate conditions for extended periods. As one worker in Victoria described:

the worst thing was the sleeping arrangements: sometimes three of us would share one room, and the beds were just like that, crammed together. One person slept on one side, another in the middle, and another on the other side.

Storage was an issue across all locations, particularly for longer-term residents. PALM workers revealed particularly extreme experiences, such as having to sleep on top of their clothes due to lack of storage space.

Accommodation costs are highly variable even within locations. PALM workers are most at risk of exploitation and poor housing due to their reliance on their employer. A person involved with organising worker accommodation observed:

before [the labour hire company] took over that caravan park, those caravans were going for $200, $300 a week. And then once the PALM workers came, there was a change in the lease arrangement, and they went up to $800.

This group is also the most hesitant to complain and may require culturally competent advocates to assist them with addressing accommodation issues.

What’s causing these problems?

Effective responses should be based on the underlying causes of poor accommodation.

While employer-provided accommodation is an important part of the solution, it has also been found to lead to inappropriate housing at times. This is possibly due to the level of power imbalances involved.

PALM workers are particularly at risk because they cannot change employers and the vast majority of their housing is provided by their employers. Workers in employer-provided accommodation are more reluctant to advocate for improvements than those in private housing.

Second, standards and costs are often inappropriate for workers. This is particularly the case for long-term workers who often reside in accommodation with standards intended for short, seasonal stays.

In Coral Bay, Western Australia there were unacceptable risks to mental health, and from fire and extreme temperatures. Standards were poor and workers were often unwilling, or unaware of how, to make complaints.

These issues were also present for many PALM workers we interviewed on four-year visas.

Third, private investment in worker accommodation is limited due to lower returns on investment, with local governments being increasingly asked to step into this gap.

What can be done?

Our research provided an opportunity to explore solutions with government and industry stakeholders and workers.

While larger businesses can invest in accommodation, such as the Royal Automobile Club has done in Coral Bay, smaller businesses struggle due to the cost.

There is a desire for local collaborative models that understand the realities these smaller businesses face. For instance, the Coral Bay focus group floated a business cooperative model that could co-invest with government to develop accommodation for staff working for small businesses.

As a group often defined as expendable and cheap labour, seasonal and vulnerable workers fall through the many cracks between levels of government and the private sector. Poor accommodation outcomes affect workers, industries and communities.

Australia needs policies that address the social and longer-term aspirations of Australian and international workers and give them the opportunity to make meaningful lives in regional communities.

The authors would like to acknowledge researchers Joseph Cheer and Carla Chung for their contributions to the research this article discusses.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tod Jones, Curtin University; Amity James, Curtin University; Michael Volgger, Curtin University; Salome Adams, Curtin University, and Sara Niner, Monash University

Read more:

Tod Jones receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Australia Research Council.

Amity James receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Australian Research Council.

Michael Volgger receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. He has previously received funding from a range of entities and organisations including Tourism Western Australia, the WA Government's Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia's South West Inc. and the RAC.

Salome Adams receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Australian Research Council.

Sara Niner receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.