Comments

Thank you for sharing such heartfelt words about Peter, Ian. He was not just a colleague but also a dear friend, and his absence will be deeply felt. My visits to Peter at ADBI revealed his immense popularity, both within the Institute and beyond, a testament to his character and impact on those around him. Peter's willingness to share his time and offer valuable advice to others was a true reflection of his generous nature. However, what truly leaves an indelible mark on my memories of him is his sharp and witty sense of humor, which never failed to brighten any moment. As we bid farewell to Peter, let us remember the joy he brought to our lives and the positive influence he had on so many. His legacy will continue to inspire us, and he will always be dearly missed. May he rest in peace, my dear friend.

Surely it is better to be a small island country facing two global powers, than one facing a single global power? At least when there are two, there's scope (if the political capacity exists) to play them off against one another. But if local vulnerabilities mean there is a risk local leaders being misled, is that risk likely to be greater or less if there are two superpowers around?

Come on big brother! Act like one.

Ian, you're right about Peter's views on long sentences. He particularly disapproved of using the word 'and' to link different ideas. His circular on how to write influenced my writing enormously, to this day. I often think back on it with gratitude. I worked as Peter's executive assistant for a year or so around 1997-98. I think I had stars in my eyes being able to work with someone I admired so much. He was very easy to work with, and I remember there was always a bottle or a cask of red wine at late afternoon meetings with division heads. Thank you for your very thoughtful eulogy.

Good summary and questions... the ADB converted itself, at least in PNG in the 2010s ( notably under the former Country Director) into being exclusively a transport financing platform, although in the past 3 or 4 years it's diversified with some social sector and of course budget lending. This transport financing was almost exclusively to Chinese contractors as featured in papers by Pete Connolly; although Lae Port was of course China Harbour, PNG Port's engagement with ICTSI and with Matheson took a different direction. Of course, Matheson had a finger in multiple land and prospective construction pies and certainly not exclusively the ports, eg a new HQ- township for Jiwaka on an agricultural estate etc. Questions certainly need to be asked and answered in Canberra and Manila also. There is a concern up here that governance on issues related to PNG are set aside down south to avoid ruffling feathers, and pushing some leaders towards other camps. That won't wash with the PNG public though, which expects high er standsrds, and not just opportunism, compromise or real politic from GoA... including when it comes to PNG leaders committing abuse ( money laundering etc) with Australia, or lawyers or others wanted in PNG but residing in Australia not being promptly delivered to the the justice process up here. With Fega and his protagonist I hear strong indications that it was more than a drunken dispute and that protagonists felt feared that something was owed and undelivered, but we'll probably never know that.

Until COVID, farmers used many more backpackers than they did Pacific seasonal workers. So a comparison with backpackers is definitely the best way to measure the relative costliness of SWP workers. Of course, during COVID the backpackers went home. But they are back now, so it is still a very relevant comparison. On your second point, I would say that SWP are the most profitable option for some employers. That is very different to being the cheapest option.

Great article

Hi Stephen, Cheap relative to the counterfactual of employing locally-available labour in rural Australia - I'm just not convinced that itinerant WHMs or illegal labour practices are great barometers against which to measure the relative costliness of SWP workers. I apologise if I misconstrued your point about employer preferences for higher-waged SWP workers as a suggestion of benevolent motives (though it is a sentiment that's been prevalent in farming groups' responses to e.g. recent PALM reforms). One does nonetheless wonder why some employers do opt for SWP workers if, as you mention in your review, others prefer lower-waged options: I suspect that the answer relates to SWP workers being the cheapest option (per unit of output) for those employers. Are the 'productivity' and 'reliability' you mention not relevant factors in costing the relative expense of labour?

Hi Matt, When you say SWP workers are relatively cheap, relative to what? Relative to other types of horticultural labour they are relatively expensive. That is what the data shows. I'm not sure how you read an implied suggestion that employers are paying more out of altruism. Clearly, those who employ seasonal workers are trading-off their higher costs for their greater reliability and productivity.

With regard to the cost of employing SWP workers, I'm not convinced the minimum wage has any meaningful bearing in a context of rural labour scarcity. During COVID, fruit withered on the vine and otherwise unilateral border closures were lifted only to charter in SWP workers - i.e. many employers demonstrably did not have recourse to an alternative supply of labour, let alone a cheaper one. Exceptional circumstances, of course, but I think it stands that SWP workers are relatively cheap within a constrained rural horticultural labour market - only undercut by less productive WHMs or the illegal brokerage of undocumented or irregular workers. The implied suggestion that employers altruistically bear additional expenses in employing SWP workers brings to mind one of Adam Smith's more memorable quotes: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages".

'How to reshape the state in PNG to deliver them' is a million-dollar question. We will have to work outside of the adopted governance system and successfully deliver that to make a mark and win the credibility desired or needed.

Thanks, Stephen, for linking to our slides on the survey, and foreshadowing the report. Bal, as we surveyed workers, we can discuss issues like awareness of where to report problems, comfort in doing so, net pay, and so forth, and some of this is covered in the preview we gave at the Pacific Update in the link from Stephen above. Regarding regulation, monitoring, and enforcement, however, you probably won't so much get at this from a worker survey and we don't look at it. To answer your question on who, I'd start with the FWO (and DEWR) website, as I think (but welcome correction) that this is mostly their remit: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/find-help-for/visa-holders-migrants/pacific-australia-labour-mobility-scheme In the past, I've seen helpful blogs and short reports there on audits and case numbers too (re: how regular, whether implemented etc.), including in comparison to similar sectors and against non-visa holders, but couldn't find it from a quick search just now. Perhaps you have more luck. Its probably also worth familiarising yourself with the new deed and guidelines, which mark a regime shift of sorts around the matters you seem concerned with: https://www.dewr.gov.au/pacific-australia-labour-mobility-scheme/consultations/pacific-australia-labour-mobility-palm-scheme-approved-employer-deed-and-guidelines Best, Ryan