Comments

Encounters with aggrieved workers (noting those that were courageous enough to speak, the majority aren’t), and some that have left their work, raises some serious human rights issues, under both domestic and international legal frameworks, including questionable contractual terms in an environment that seems out of firm oversight mechanisms. Asylum visa is not an issue, but a result of deeper issues of inequities. Imputations by commentators that Pacific Islanders may have possibly premeditated such strategy is misleading and unfortunately only adds to fueling the patronising views among some quarters. Speeding up the processing time for such visa, yet knowing fully that the expected outcome would be negative, as the article observes to be the case, may serve primarily as deterrent but that would overlook some of the real issues of inequity embedded in the labour scheme. Contrary to the conclusion, the ‘intergrity’ of the scheme should not come at the expense of serious concerns with its operations, even if those complaints are ‘minority’. Victoria Stead makes some good observations: https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-better-conditions-not-shaming-for-pacific-farm-workers-171404 Research into this is ongoing but I hope to properly discuss in an article/blog soon. I think there are ways this scheme can be better improved for both Australia and the Pacific.

Hello Terrence, I think your article of 2 December, 2021 is a classic straight out of “Yes Minister.” I can just picture Hacker trying to follow the logic of your analysis in a discussion between Bernard and Sir Humphrey. “Come, come now Bernard, the government’s change in classification from “Significant” to “Principal” is merely a tautological mechanism to meet our obligations with Brussels and keep everyone happy.” Hacker – But surely Humphrey, that’s cheating isn’t it? Humphrey – Cheating? Why no, no Minister. Merely an innovative way to meet our obligations in accordance with how business is done. I would venture that every bit of your analysis applies equally well to aid directed at governance, health and education. My gripe is that while huge quantities of treasure have been channelled over the years to Waigaini and to a lesser extent to Honiara and Port Vila, there is no escaping the fact that outcomes at the “grass roots” have largely been backwards. And yet we appear happy to keep singing from the same hymn sheet and the name of the game appears more and more to be keep Canberra happy rather than face up to inconvenient truths. I hope the Labor government will make a step change and attach greater importance to initiatives that demonstrate an ability to facilitate measurable and lasting improvements to health, education, gender and economic indicators at community level where impact is needed most – no matter how they want it measured - period.

Thanks Stephen, I agree, what we really want to know about is the outcomes caused by the aid. I'm all in favour of more of that type of data, so long as it's robust and reliable. Absent that, or combined with that, it's still useful to know what the aid program is trying to achieve. On the subject of climate finance and data accuracy, my post on Australia from last year might be of interest: https://devpolicy.org/awkward-arithmetic-of-australias-climate-finance-promise-20211202/ Terence

I take your point that determining what percentage of aid has a gender focus depends on which “yardstick” you use and who is using it. Surely the test of whether aid is gender effective or not is in the measures of women’s health, education, domestic violence and economic indicators. No faffing around. Has an intervention improved access to Gardasil for adolescent girls, are more girls completing grade 12 and entering tertiary institutions, do out-patient records show a decline in presentations as a result of domestic violence, are incomes for women rising in a particular demographic? It’s not rocket science but the gobble de gook served up by agencies worried about their next tranche is misleading and unhelpful. We are again hearing calls at COP27 from those most affected by the climate emergency for less colonialism and more help. In my view the aid “game” can be part of the problem it seeks to solve and more often than not is.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading of the highlighted issues facing the Pacific Islands particularly in the loss of semi-skilled worker and public servants to Australia and New Zealand. I The flow on effect of this to other small Pacific Island countries who may be relying to fill their skills gaps from bigger Pacific Island countries like Fiji may have yet to be explored. Smaller countries such as Nauru have their teaching and nursing skills gap filled mostly from the Fiji labour market and as these bigger PI countries experiences their own brain drain to Australia, it also affects other smaller PI countries too

Hi David For information on Australian Government labour mobility schemes please visit the website: https://www.palmscheme.gov.au/ For further information on the Pacific Engagement Visa also mentioned in this post, please see the Australian Government website: https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/pacific/people-connections/people-connections-in-the-pacific/pacific-engagement-visa

I am David Danga from PNG and have great internet to be part of labour's scheme in Australia and how can I apply for this opportunity. I need your assistance to provide me or email me for the application form and necessary document for meet the labour's requirements. Your help will be appreciated Thank you in advance

Andrew, what then is the estimated real non-resource GDP per capita? If we assume about eighty-five percent of the population lives in a rural community and a further ten percent make up the informal urban sector, what does this mean for them? While income from mineral resources may have swelled government coffers from time to time, income from this source has not translated into improvements to essential services on a per capita basis. If we acknowledge that a nation’s greatest resource is its people, what strategies would you recommend going forward? As an outsider who has spent decades in your beautiful country, I am convinced that working with rural populations to address their basic concerns is an essential component of any pathway forward. Given the multiple challenges posed by such a diverse environment it should be obvious by now that neither the government nor its agencies can solve these issues alone. And yet the accepted mantra appears to have changed little since independence: that government will bring development to the people. This fantasy is built into the ideas behind the DSIP which by any rational analysis has been a tremendous waste of scarce resources. For a possible lead I would point toward models of economic empowerment such as that pioneered by North Fly Rubber Growers cooperative that after fifty years provides income to family rubber block holders living in some of the most remote settings in PNG. For all intents and purposes people living in back water lagoons in Middle and South Fly have no services and yet North Fly Rubber Ltd is able to get a ship alongside their scattered communities and inject significant quantities of cash into local families several times a year. This model works because it aligns with the traditional lifestyle of the riverine communities and confers benefits of value to them without disenfranchising or impacting negatively on their world view. My point is that if this can be achieved by civil society actors, why hasn’t there been a much greater emphasis on developing similar models throughout the country? I return to my pet rant, which is until and unless government and its development partners place as much emphasis on empowering people where they live on their own terms as is placed on infrastructure and “strengthening” government modalities there will be little momentum for change.

A quick note on the fact that successful incumbents tended to be reelected earlier than challengers. I looked at this more & there are very clear relationships between: (1) the number of candidates and the probability an incumbent will be reelected. (The Hegarty rule). (2) the number of candidates and the time taken for votes to be counted. This suggests a possible explanation for the -- otherwise suspicious looking -- finding that reelected incumbents tended to be declared earlier: usually when sitting MPs are reelected they do so in races with fewer candidates (1 above). And counting is more rapid in races with fewer candidates (2 above). So the relationship between incumbent victory and time for results to come in stems from the average number of candidates being higher in races where new MPs are elected (and incumbents lose their seats). I checked this empirically, and when candidate numbers are controlled for, incumbent re-election ceases to be correlated with number of days until results came in. Terence

Thank you Australia and New Zealand for this Pacific Engagement Visa program coming soon. The industries in Australia need more skilled labours and why not most of us can make it through this time. Waiting to apply for one asap and why not.

Sasha nailed this set of realities

Very pertinent article by Peter Walton. I would suggest the realisation that people don’t need saving, is the epiphany every development practitioner needs in order to remotely become useful. Further, levelling up the playing field and vesting ownership and control over the proposed prescription, treatment and cure with the intended recipients is another essential understanding. From where I sit, as someone who has lived in communities throughout Melanesia, the tone of INGOs remains overwhelmingly constrained by a western world view, too often delivered with overtones of a paternalistic saviour complex that comes across as arrogant and inappropriate at best rather than useful. The woeful track record of the development assistance spend for lack of sustainable impact at community level across primary healthcare, education and environment sectors in Western Pacific countries, is testament to how far INGOs and their funders have yet to move their thinking and models of development if they wish to deliver what they would have you believe on their websites. Until and unless they seek to align their goals with the lived experience of communities and incorporate the knowledge, talent and ownership for the desired outcomes with those that live in them, I would venture that results will continue to be decidedly underwhelming.