Comments

Hi Kingtau, that in comparison to the regulation of migration and the movement of people, international finance and international trade are relatively unhindered. if as market fundamentalists argue the market delivers the best outcomes for all in the long run, why does the argument not apply to people? It is argued that Pacific work schemes protect Pacific peoples - really?

Thanks for sharing valuable content.

At least for safety it's a must to prevent us not to transmit any disease into our country and safety is better than cure.

It would be helpful if those who make claims and assertions about PALM workers base them on available knowledge. Of relevance to the discussion at hand is the actual content of the very recently adopted and publicly available Deeds & Guidelines for the PALM Scheme, with which all Approved Employers must comply. Stakeholders in the Scheme will acknowledge that the level of support and protection for PALM workers has been significantly enhanced in very newly adopted Deeds & Guidelines. A perusal of these documents will indicate that the plea of the partner nations - about prioritising care and support for their own people - is being heard and acted upon. Increasingly, it is the Approved Employers who are under increasing pressure to perform their task in ways that are not required from any Employer outside the program. By far the biggest dangers for PALM workers occur when, for a variety of reasons (including false promises of earning more money more quickly, of being able to stay longer than the PALM contracts allow for, or even of becoming permanent residents), they 'disengage' from the program. (I avoid the common term 'abscond' because it contains a value judgement which suggests quite wrongly in most cases, that the workers are at fault.) In disengaging, workers immediately lose the structured protections of the program, and thus become far more vulnerable to exploitation. The experiences of this cohort of disengaged workers are often misunderstood to be the experiences of engaged PALM workers. Over three years of working 'on the ground', supporting worker groups across Victoria, distress calls for help are far more likely to originate from disengaged workers who are without income, have lost their promised work, have no access to accommodation, or have expired visas. If there has been a fault in the program, it is the failure to act more quickly to assist disengaged workers in a way that prevents such distressing outcomes which impact severely not only on the workers, but on their families and their home communities. Of course, no-one would claim that the program is anywhere near perfect; all stakeholders are conscious of the ongoing need for further improvements in order to maximise the benefits and limit the damages. By working in the spirit of partership, this evolution can continue. ...Randall Prior

Any update for the Pacific engagement visa please 🙏

Applying the recommendations in this article would land us on another "governance paradox": countries with weak governance would get less governance support, with more aid circumventing existing governance systems, thus further undermining institutions.

Thoroughly enjoyed this response Lisa, and examples. We often see much of donor 'governance' badged spend goes towards helping achieve improved service delivery/TA across a variety of sectoral areas. It's not strictly for governance as a sector in itself is but helping across other sectoral areas when you dig in. Aidworks data /program tagging only goes so far. Revitalising the core governance expertise and reporting systems to match the spend in light of the new Policy seems a good place to start.

The defence of the PALM offered by the author seems to hinge on two important assertions: (1)”The scheme is highly regulated and closely monitored by a range of agencies and organisations.” (2) “But workers are not cattle, being directed by a whip to do this or that – they are able to assess their working conditions and decide whether to return to work in Australia or not.” The first assertion of being “highly regulated and closely monitored” can be contested. “Regulated, yes, but ”highly” is doubtful, at least from the cases I’ve dealt with and not the experience of all. The condition for workers to be assigned to an employer for the duration of their work visa is good for stability but also raises issues of possible exploitation. Is there regular independent inspection of the work site and arrangements? How regular are the inspection? Are there whistleblower’s rights for the workers, including automatic right of workers to be moved to another employer if they raises complaints? What is the complaints process and are workers informed of it? Can’t rely on dealing with Unions. It is not sufficient and workers pay fees from their salary, something PALM scheme does not cover (unless that has changed). The workers feel trapped – they can’t complain. No independent inspector on site and no guarantee for protection including working rights should they complain against their employer or against their recruitment agencies, with genuine fear that their prospect for returning is slim to none if they complain. What has PALM done to address that? So, the assertion of the industry being “highly regulated and closely monitored” should be questionable. Assertion 2: 2) “But workers are not cattle, being directed by a whip to do this or that – they are able to assess their working conditions and decide whether to return to work in Australia or not.” This is backed by another often ‘be grateful’ line of “It fails to acknowledge that migration for work overseas through regulated pathways is an important strategy for many from poor countries to escape poverty.” It is a common power dynamic often advance by the employers and recruitment agencies, wanting the workers to be grateful of the opportunity. A very problematic approach. What this assertion implies, amongst others, is that the measurement of satisfaction seems to be by an employee’s willingness to return to Australia for work or not. That can never be a valid assessment. That thinking clearly puts the responsibility back to the employees which should never happen. There are many reasons why a worker would like to return, not necessarily on the basis that they are satisfied with the working arrangement and conditions. An escape from their village or towns/their Island countries and its obligations would be among the most pressing. Or “to escape poverty” as the author puts it, yet, they could very much remained in a state of poverty when in Australia due to their conditions they are subjected to. Overall, the tenor of the article in response to the Archbishop in Fiji should also suffer some criticism. Insights from both and the discussions it raises should help to better the PALM system which at this stage is far from being “highly regulated and closely monitored.”

Australian govt officials appreciate that DFAT governance investments gives them a reason/vehicle to engage with their local counterparts. However, offering a governance investment doesn’t change the local political economy of reform. PNG serves as a case in point.

Hi Suzanne, what do you mean by "money and goods flow freely"?

Religion can either lock people in poverty or bring them out of poverty: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0215-z Those given the respect in that space should deal with this power responsibly. With due respect to our Arch Bishop, one should imagine livelihoods of these thousand Fijians participating in labour mobility schemes with and without the schemes.

"A good place to start here would be for DFAT to re-establish core governance expertise, which has been significantly eroded. The volume of spending on governance alone is good reason to ensure that DFAT has requisite expertise on the topic to spend it well." Thank you Lisa: this comment strikes me as spot on.