Comments

it Really saddens me about how we going to achieve that Goal of making "PNG Richest Black Nation in next 10 years" this isn't practicable . 80% of our total population is still influenced by Cultures.

I would love to see a simple migration path for our Pacific neighbours who wish to make Australia their permanent home - but I also believe that a general work visa for Pacific workers to come to Australia is very much needed - in any region and in any field of work. I will never downplay the significance of the SWP and the subsequent PLS and its economic benefits to those Pacific workers who are lucky enough to be chosen to participate. These programs have brought huge economic benefit back home to their communities. There are those Pacific Islanders who do not want to make Australia their permanent home but simply need employment to bring much-needed cash to their villages. Many return workers under the program invest in business opportunities back home which would never have been possible if it weren't for these programs. But they want to live with their families in the village that their forefathers built. They want to improve their own community's way of life, education, access to medical treatment and to create a thriving environment in their isolated villages. This means making the sacrifice of being away from their loved ones for many months under the labour mobility programs - working in Australia. The highly regulated SWP and PLS are not enough as mentioned in this article. Currently there are many Pacific Islanders in Australia working illegally for cash who have entered Aus under a visitors visa. These people have not been given the chance of legal employment under the 403 visas so they choose to come in, work for cash and sometimes overstay their visitor visa deadlines taking the gamble to earn as much money as they can until they are forced to return home to their own country. These people are desperate to get cash back home to their loved ones but if there was a simple Pacific working visa for Australia they could dictate their own timeframes without having to resort to working for unscrupulous employers who know these workers can never complain or report underpayments or mistreatment in the workplace. The work ethic of most Pacific Islanders is incredible. They are focused & highly motivated to earn money and send remittances home. They will work hard in Australia and be a benefit to their Australian employers building strong bonds between us and them. These ties carry over for generations; for example, our children's school now visits our workers' village every year bringing students and teachers from Queensland into their isolated jungle community schools. Friendships have formed which will last a lifetime. Let's bring in a simple working visa and let the workers direct their wages back home to where it is needed most. Let's empower them with opportunity to improve their home countries with economic benefit, hope and a sense of self worth. It's a no-brainer. We need them and they need us.

Dear Rohan, This has been a personal struggle for me as well. I am happy that I asked for help on Twitter and it led me to this portal. Thank you very much Rohan for this much needed initiative.

Thanks Stephen for the nice discussion I would like to offer some counterproductive options to the Pacific Labour Mobility (PLM) and the discussion that it would be a best outcome of the “Pacific Step Up”. Indeed the Pacific nations have a pressing need for employment opportunities that their countries are unable to afford. However, this pressing need is not in the agriculture or farming sector, nor in any opportunity that would help them to make an income for spending a few months on a farmland in the out sketch of Australia. After all, it would be unsustainable. Pacific Islanders are already farmers when they are born into the family. For them to work in a farmland in Australia is not something new but doing the same farm work in a different location. Compare that to a British student picking fruits in Australia, which would be a new adventure for the visitor. The Pacific Step Up Policy is to build something deeper and more innovative action for the Pacific Islanders to increase the people-to-people relationships not only with Australia and New Zealand but within the Pacific Islanders themselves. Why saying this? For example, Chinese have lived in the villages and homes of the Pacific Islanders; marry the locals and engaged in small-scale entrepreneurs and create lifetime employment for the locals. Now the Chinese finds it easy to do business with the local government and make more investments. At the national level, the Chinese would easily sign in big investments and make way for even more across the Pacific. Building a solid people-to-people relationships shapes the bigger political landscapes at the national level. This view holds truth in Papua New Guinea. In response to the four areas of labour mobility discussed in the blog, there are other view as well. Firstly, the SWP and the PLS would give Islanders an opportunity to earn a cash income, but not so much in building a long lasting relationships and sustaining same income opportunity elsewhere. Parties within the schemes would exploit and abuse the schemes; we have witness agents of labour recruitment soliciting funds from aspiring individuals in the past. Secondly, we have witness Australia giving wider opportunity for refugees from the Arab world to settle in Australia with or without tradesman skills but non-to the Pacific Islanders. The chances for them through the Pacific Step Up is unlikely, New Zealand is doing a fantastic job in that context by giving opportunity to Islanders to settle in NZ. Third, both SWP and PLS should not focus on agriculture or farmland jobs, but turn to semi-technical work that would build the human resource base of the Islanders. Blue and white-collar work is also a good battleground for the Islanders as well. Filipinos worked in these areas in Australia and how about giving an opportunity to the Pacific Islanders? Something to look into with the Pacific Step Up. Fourth, there would be middle agents and go in between people who would take advantage of the Pacific Step Up Policy and scavenge the good intend of the policy. The SWP and PLS schemes would not work well for the Islanders in the long run, it would be a temporary measure but to counteract the influence of China; Australia and NZ would need to undertake concrete actions.

I see absolutely no reason why it would be. If anything I think it's fairer to be skeptical of the role played by consultants who think (and write) in English. But fascinating as debates over the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be, they have no real relevance to the issue of tourism policy in Timor-Leste. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-your-language-influence-how-you-think/ The 'resource curse' might be a more useful framework to understand some of TL's struggles with diversifying its economy, although even then it's not that simple. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-natural-resources-are-a-curse-on-developing-countries-and-how-to-fix-it/256508/

Thanks Emma for the nice discussion Just to add few thoughts on violence against women and girls. In a balance discourse, what would be a nice definition of violence against women and girls from a Western perspective including Australia and what is adopted by countries in the Asia Pacific region? Especially in some Pacific nations, the principles as adopted in this article may not necessarily apply, given local context including traditions; myths; customs and societal norms. One would need to look into the elements of violence against women and girls in the traditional context. Sometimes, people cannot dismiss these ancestral creed in violence against women and girls and quickly "westernised or modernised" the act or context into something as unlawful or as illegal. Learning the circumstances/contexts why the violence took place between a man and woman or girl is important to appropriately brand a clear meaning to the act or context, especially in the Asia Pacific regions. Whilst in the Western world, we would simply say it is a violence against women and girls. Modern laws guiding against violence to protect women and girls is not the only development framework to build a strong family or society; understanding and adopting traditional ways of lives for women and girls as well as men and boys equates a stable society. Violence is a society’s developmental aspect. Especially in the Asia Pacific region, many studies would say; violence against women and girls have not improved, or many measures taken to combat the issue have not succeeded, it is simply because violence against women and girls is a two way out, not a one way solution, it is an evolving phenomenon than a discreet event.

Why can't these issues just get fixed?!! Is thinking in Portuguese the problem?

I found this to be so true in indigenous programs, mistakenly blamed program intent/design, when it is actually operational rigidity and focus on the process, that is stifling progress. Work needs to be done on impact measuring and accountability, to push through old and poor delivery routines, to achieve licence (for field workers), to work on suitable adaptation. Adaptation requires dialogue and all players to believe in equality of contribution. Where top down systems are working well, (for some) adaptation will be considered risky.

Hi David, Thanks for your comment. I agree. It's worth noting, however, that this fact is true of any evaluation method, and -- for that matter -- any research method in social sciences. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

Hi Terrence. I came to this article via google, and so a little late to the party. Something I notice about the RCT debate and the issue of non-transferability is that non-transferability is almost always taken to mean geographic / cultural transferability. But there is also temporal transferability: societies change over time, and the findings of an RCT from last year may not be applicable in the same place this year. An example of this is the current Samoan measles crisis, due in part to a medical error in vaccination made by two nurses (later jailed for negligence) radically altered public attitudes towards vaccination. It seems almost certain, to me, that the applicability of any RCT conducted on incentivisation vaccination conducted before the medical error, would be highly dubious after the error. The change in population perception between before and after might in fact be greater than that any geographic / cultural difference between Samoa and, say, Afghanistan.

Thanks for the feedback. It was the most amazing place to live as a child. No doubt it is challenging but the future will be great!

What a captivating and insightful blog. I loved your story at the beginning - got me in! Always appreciate opportunity to understand more about PNG it’s past, present and possible futures.