Comments

Thank you for the update Prof Howes

Here's the latest on the PEV: The PEV legislation was debated today (Monday) in the Senate. You can read the Hansard <a href="https://devpolicy.org/will-the-greens-support-the-pacific-engagement-visa-20231013/" rel="ugc">here</a>. The Greens supported the PEV but (i) wanted an amendment to make it illegal for Australia’s migration regime to discriminate on the basis of disability, (ii) called for a cessation to new oil, gas and coal projects, and (iii) wanted an amendment to prevent a lottery being used to select refugees. The Coalition reiterated their opposition to the PEV on the basis of its reliance on a lottery. Jacqui Lambie was ambivalent on the lottery, but supported an annual cap of more than 3,000. The second reading debate took up much of the morning, and was then adjourned, I think to Wednesday.

Hi, we put an update up last week: <a href="https://devpolicy.org/will-the-greens-support-the-pacific-engagement-visa-20231013/" rel="ugc">here</a>. However, it is already out of date. The PEV legislation was debated today (Monday) in the Senate. You can read the Hansard <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/27132/toc_pdf/Senate_2023_10_16.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf" rel="nofollow ugc">here</a>. The Greens supported the PEV but (i) wanted an amendment to make it illegal for Australia's migration regime to discriminate on the basis of disability, (ii) called for a cessation to new oil, gas and coal projects, and (iii) wanted an amendment to prevent a lottery being used to select refugees. The Coalition reiterated their opposition to the PEV on the basis of its reliance on a lottery. Jacquie Lambert was ambivalent on the lottery, but supported an annual cap of more than 3,000. The second reading debate took up much of the morning, and was then adjourned, I think to Wednesday.

I think this is a really important initiative one that benefits our pacific neighbours which included Timor Leste and benefit fits Australia too.

The PEV is an important opportunity for those who want to exchange their experience and life. Interestingly when will it be available for Timorese to apply?

Thanks Suzanne, money and goods can move easily and faster but "not freely". There is nothing free in this world. Moving Humans(Labour) unlike other material things isn't just a matter of economics. Other dimensions such as social, cultural and political dimensions should be taken into consideration. Its complex. Pacific work schemes might not be perfect at this stage but it has potential to benefit Pacific Island countries and can be improve along the way. Markets works well when interests of both supply side and demand side are reconciled. However, strong statements such as that of our esteemed Bishop can be a source of information asymmetry (feeding wrong information to either side of the market) and could potentially lead to market not working well in the long run. Leaders in respected offices should have proper matured dialogue with appropriate stakeholders in the labour mobility space in addressing inconsistencies rather than randomly appealing to the mass; it wont do us any good.

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.