Comments

The visa has been targeted at ASEAN countries since its announcement in June. See https://devpolicy.org/asean-ag-visa-makes-no-sense-20210617/.

My immediate impression was that the visa is intended for UK citizens (a post-Brexit trade matter) and citizens of other countries as they sign up. I didn’t hear “Asian” in the news snippet.

The question is raised about DFAT being involved with this given that DHA is responsible for visas is not an issue really. After all, the SWP program operates under DESE/DHA and the PLS is currently through DFAT. So if it works there it can also work here. With the frustrating shenannigans of SWP and PLS workers, quite a number of current Approved Employers are sure to consider switching to the new scheme and perhaps look to Asian countries as their preference. Cheaper Aisan flights and a more skilled population would make it more attractive. The ability to recruit a worker that has a pathway to residency and beyond, and given a much longer length to the visa is another huge attaction. The maximum 9 month SWP visa simply wont cut it. The new visa may also have less restrictions and hoops for employers than the current arrangements, especially those of the SWP. So given those realities, I agree with the author that the SWP and PLS schemes are threatened. Where I disagree is that the SWP will be equally impacted. In my opinion, for the SWP and PLS to survive it will need to become more flexible and 'smarter,' while still maintaining a high level of worker welfare AND let's not forget employer welfare. Perhaps providing a pathway for permanent residency? The alternative is to keep these two schemes at status quo but hamstring the Ag Visa with a small quota. At least at the start.

Ultimately the bigger picture is being missed here. As a colonised state, the people have been historically oppressed and it is written within their culture to hold the coloniser in a position of power. The fact they come and continue to ‘save’ them only depends that feeling of oppression. It excels the feeling that Eurocentric culture and behaviour are superior and to be looked up to, and ignores the confidence needed by the colonised to help themselves again. Only people of the land know what’s best for it, sadly colonisation sent most countries back hundreds of years in this regard. The problem with the colonisers is that deep down they often think their actions have benefitted the country they colonised in some way. Sadly their behaviour sent every place on earth that they invaded back by hundreds of years, actively contributing to the ruination of our planet and climate change. To think that the same people can return to these countries and impose views again under the guise of aid, shows how little everyone has learnt. Please think more deeply about what on earth a white man is doing in an African country and what right he has to do that, considering the legacy of his peoples in that country.

Interesting thank u

Thank you very much for your take on family violence, very pleased reading the causes and consequences and plans to combat family violence. Thanks

Yes, I agree that they are self-evident and non-controversial, but nevertheless need to be stated. Thanks for doing that so clearly and concisely. I am tempted to provide one initial answer to your question of how the sector can improve: while acknowledging that all the principles outlined are important, numbers 1 and 9 are the foundations, don't you think? Most of the others are either difficult to implement or somewhat compromised without these 2 foundational elements - and thus the research outcomes and impact will undoubtedly be compromised. Indeed, the questions you pose in number 10 are far easier to answer if this foundation is in place, in my experience: the learning, application and engagement with key findings extends far beyond the completion date when the research is designed in collaboration with local in-country actors - particularly those who have a long-term commitment and investment in sharing and taking up findings to achieve their policy and change goals. One thing that I think deserves somewhat more emphasis in your list is the contribution that local actors can make to the later phases of the research process: interpretation of the findings. I have found that locals engaged in the process of implementing social change agendas can bring very different perspectives to the interpretation of findings. I know you are highlighting the importance of diversity and grounding - but I do think this point needs to be more explicit. These people can often provide key insights into the missing links between the macro and the micro.

Is there re-validation of accreditation going on and how often?

Thanks Albert and sorry I missed your comment earlier. The fundamental issues with aid that you raise are of course real and I suspect you know more about the in-country operational realities (e.g. in PNG). Evaluations have shown that SWAps can be useful tools for increasing accountability and transparency of health aid funding allocations, both of recipients and donors alike. Our research supports this, showing that health SWAps have on average, improved the efficiency of development partnerships. We’ve found that even with mixed levels of donor engagement, SWAps have had impact. With effort and engagement, this evidence provides compelling evidence that can work again. Kind Regards, Rohan.

So good to see these common sense, practical approaches to aid articulated clearly and succinctly. I started work on aid programmes in 1970 and this is the best summary of best practice that I have seen. One suggestion: 1. Partnerships- understanding of local language should be included.

Microfinance is the right choice, it helps poor people who are in need. Unlike other banks in Papua new Guinea they say the provide service but as for me they don't, they only want to make money, that is why the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor. I would like the microfinance management to operate in an honest way in order to change life. I am struggling too, I want a good future for my children and us as clients we must be honest especially in borrowing, please do not be selfish because it will affect everyone.

Article does well to describe one of the the first localized response program in Vanuatu. In 2020 besides COVID-19, our islands were affected by TC-Harold in northern Vanuatu and volcanic ashfall in Tanna. The positive response of both State and NGOs in post-disaster activities was possible because of coordinated efforts by both State and NGOs. To me, one of the crucial component to the somewhat successful response was the assured on-site leadership by the Community Disaster Committees (CDCs). CDCs an NDMO initiative consistitues of village chiefs or elder, community leaders and village representatives (men, women and youths). Through CDCs, the state and NGOs were able to distribute relevant aid in a timely and fair manner.