Comments

The reason that negative anecdotes stick out is discomfort about the PALM scheme. Like many, I'm uncomfortable that to build their countries, Pacific Island people must leave their families, homelands and communities, and go to Australia to do work Aussies don't want to do. Even if it appears economically rational for both Australia and Pacific peoples it doesn't feel right. See the beautiful comment of Former Prime Minister of Samoa Fiamē Naomi Mata'afa: "The true measure of nationhood is not whether people can leave, but whether they can imagine a future at home without feeling left behind."

I’ve been reading your articles about PALM workers and have assisted many, deductions are always a big problem, but as soon as they say in their own country they want to come they are in debt, just to apply to a recruiter. I think someone in government should actually take a good look at the deductions, most of these deductions aren’t of the workers choice, the airfares should be paid by the employer or the agency here, but then look at the deduction for medical not viable to the worker, then the health insurance is it needed, I haven’t known one worker to get something back from health insurance, then when the companies rent the house, do they ask the worker what they want no, and those despicable dormitories, no cultural safety there. I could go on for hours, but if this scheme could work for the worker someone has to step out of the box and make a decision for a better working agreement.

This was a fascinating and thought-provoking response. I appreciated how the author challenged the assumption that migration automatically weakens Pacific economies by pointing to real-world examples such as the Cook Islands, Niue, and Palau. The argument that migration should be evaluated not only through remittances but also through the broader income and opportunity gains for migrants and their families is particularly compelling. At the same time, I think this debate highlights the need to balance both perspectives. Migration can create significant economic opportunities and improve living standards, but concerns about skills shortages, depopulation, and long-term domestic development should not be dismissed entirely. The key issue may not be whether migration is good or bad, but how Pacific governments can maximize its benefits while strengthening local institutions, education systems, and employment opportunities.

Great article on a topic that is very difficult to navigate. My question is that since Australia provides direct budget support to PNG it is not clear to me how we are able to control whether or not our aid money is implicated in corruption. And our lack of transparency there has been strongly criticised by Stephen Howes.

Fascinating!

Transform, Hugo and Anouk, Thanks for your contributions on this important topic of Solomon Islands education. For me, I see PM Wale's re-casting of education as a national priority as an opening for a renewed national tok stori on Bugotu's pre-independence question, "Education For What?" If this opening is seized, our focus will not just be on schooling or its efficiencies or otherwise. Rather, we'd be mobilizing every Solomon Islander family, Church, organization and youth etc, again, and to focus on the purposes and outcomes of education (inclusive of schooling). A casual look at SI national state of (educational-social-eco) affairs does indicate some urgency for a national task beyond the issue of fee-free schooling. Might SINU and MEHRD be interested in leading the thinking on a National 'Education For What?' Tok stori (to which all of us can contribute and action)?

Congratulations Miranda on a riveting blog piece! 'What's in a name' indeed! Perhaps my next grandchild should be named after his wealthy great uncle (a confirmed batchelor).

Is there are a reason why Vanuatu was excluded from the 2026-2027 PEV ballot?

David, you have worked in the communication technology space for years. I would love read and see your work out there. Please email me and let's talk.

Hi Stephen and Finn, absolutely agree on the need to reform the WHM schemes. As a first step I would suggest revoking the third year visa altogether (for all countries but the UK since, unfortunately Canberra's hands are tied by the Morrison-Johnson free trade agreement). I do not believe the third year visa is part of any other bilateral agreement so it could be easily dispensed with. It was a Coalition-era initiative and if Labor wants to take credit for reducing Net Overseas Migration then scrapping the third visa option would make sense as a first step. If the definition of "specified work" to allow WHMs to qualify for a second visa is broadened to include any "regional work" as you propose, then I suggest this needs to be accompanied by a narrowing of the definition of "regional". (Is Adelaide really "regional"?)

I lived in PNG and noted that very little aid reaches the people for whom it was intended, as a bulk goes into ridiculous admin costs, most of which are fabricated. Agreed, security is flaky, but not as exaggerated as they make it out to be.

Agree, learn from Fiji.