Comments

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.

Thank you Hiroshi, That is very helpful to know. It is worth noting, I think, that the main argument made for the emergency alternate runway in Munda in Solomon Islands, was that reduced fuel load would lower the costs of flights, and thereby reduce prices. This would increase demand for flights to Solomons, and so more planes would fly, bringing more tourists. I never really brought the argument in Solomons, but it does seem plausible that less emergency fuel carried will lead to cheaper tickets. And that this will lead to greater demand and perhaps more flights. In other words, I'm skeptical that the runway upgrade will actually lead to lower emissions in PNG. It seems to me that if donors are reduced to claiming this type of work as climate finance they aren't really that serious about the issue. Thank you though for your comments, and particularly for the link to the document. It is great to know more about the project. Terence

I would argue it is time to see the closely regulated Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme for what it is - a means to deliver workers at a price that favours employers. In a global context in which money and goods flow freely, when will all workers be afforded the same rights and respect?

Hi Hiroshi, thanks for your comment and the additional info - that's useful to know how the case has been made for the Nadzab Airport loan/project being climate-related. Better reporting in the data to reflect the level of climate-specificity would definitely help make the picture clearer!

Sharing this excellent review from Guo and co-editors, which does a great job of taking one important aspect of governance from its often hand-wavy, nebulous place to something precise and tractable. https://voxdev.org/voxdevlit/bureaucracy

Hi Alyssa! Thank you for sharing the insightful article. Just out of curiosity, I checked how the redevelopment of Nadzab Airport would contribute to climate change mitigation. It relates to a potential reduction of the emission of CO2, but I am not sure whether we should categorize this project as "climate-related development finance". It is not a main objective at all. According to the report published by JICA, "this project allows international aviation companies to reduce fuel loaded in their aircrafts by selecting Nadzab Airport as an alternative airport to PMIA, thereby improving fuel efficiency and reducing CO2. Since emissions vary according to aviation companies and aircrafts used, calculating the quantitative effects of emission reduction is difficult. However, this project will likely make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change by reducing emissions together with the use of Japanese technologies" You can check the report from: https://www2.jica.go.jp/en/evaluation/pdf/2015_PN-P11_1_f.pdf

I could not agree more. Australia clearly has a role to show leadership globally as it drafts its gender equality strategy. I thank these organisations and many more in and outside Australia for highlighting this issue. You cannot talk of gender equality without access to abortion. Finally! Well done Western Australia for removing all areas restricting access to abortion.

Thank you to everyone who commented, and I look forward to more! All of the comments are useful contributions and I think most don't require a specific response from me. On Lisa's excellent points, I think the examples she provides of where aid can make a useful difference are in line with my overall argument. Aid for governance can be helpful, but in small rather than big ways. I also agree with her that we could spend aid better, but that is true across the board. In summary, I remain sceptical that we should in any sense give priority in our aid program to governance. That was really the point I was trying to make. Or, to develop that conclusion a bit, let's double down on effectiveness rather than governance.