Comments

It is indeed a sobering thought when you start to think about how the influx of funds into the government machinery will be managed and spent in a transparent way to reach those people in the remotest parts of WP or PNG. Sadly the track record of successive governments does not inspire confidence, Whatever happens I hope that the state maintains the spending on reducing the environmental impact of the mining at the levels that PNGSDP has ensured over the last 11 years

You might have noticed that this post has generated a fair bit of media coverage, which I’d like to respond to for the sake of clarity. I’ve also come across another source which gives a more recent update of the situation, at least with respect to the ADB. Various Fiji sources have covered the story with glee, of course not mentioning my support for other sections. Rowan Callick's <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canberra-vetoes-fiji-global-bank-loans/story-e6frg6so-1226652554704" rel="nofollow">article</a> in The Australian included a response from DFAT which said "The World Bank and ADB are independent institutions with their own decision-making processes. Decisions to lend to Fiji are taken independently (of Australia) by both banks. Australia's support for the banks' work in Fiji is limited to providing technical advice and grants that directly benefit the people of Fiji, who are experiencing increasing poverty and hardship." In fact, as the World Bank's response (on which more below) clarifies, decisions to lend to Fiji (or any other country) are taken by the Banks' Boards, on which Australia is represented. What position Australia has been taking as an influential shareholder is not addressed by the DFAT statement. The World Bank's response was <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-30/an-australia-vetoing-fiji-loans2c-says-economist/4721930?section=business" rel="nofollow">reported</a> by the ABC as denying the allegations, but in fact it does anything but. The Bank's response, which the ABC provided to me, reads as follows: "The World Bank Group has not committed any loans to Fiji in 22 years, with our last loan in 1991. The World Bank Group is a cooperative, and Board approval for any new lending - in Fiji or elsewhere - would normally be sought when there is a broad consensus among shareholders. Through grant funds, the World Bank Group has a carefully focused program designed to help the people of Fiji. This includes technical advice to the Government of Fiji to improve the targeting of its social protection system to assist the poor and also a risk sharing initiative to encourage commercial banks to provide greater financing for households and businesses to adopt renewable energy solution. The World Bank Group has also provided assistance to the telecoms regulator while investments by our private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, IFC, in Digicel, have helped to significantly reduce the cost and expand access to mobile phones in Fiji. The Bank has also provided support through Pacific regional organisations to strengthen flood early warning systems along the Nadi river basin." The statement that "Board approval for any new lending - in Fiji or elsewhere - would normally be sought when there is a broad consensus among shareholders." supports my case. Why hasn't Board approval been sought? Because there isn't a broad consensus among shareholders. Which shareholders disagree with lending to Fiji? It could only be Australia and perhaps New Zealand. Two other clarificatory remarks about the Bank statement. The Bank draws attention to the lack of lending to Fiji over 22 years. Since coups have, sadly, been a recurrent feature of Fiji since the 1980s, this fact doesn't undermine the case I'm making. The Bank doesn't mention that it had a loan at an advanced stage of preparation at the time of the coup, which has since been dropped: see my article for the link. Finally, the Bank notes all the other things it is doing in Fiji apart from lending. This only further puts the spotlight on the question of why, given all this, no lending. A good explanation is that Australia is happy for the World Bank, and the ADB for that matter, to be active in Fiji as long as they are not lending to the government. (For those of you not familiar with the Banks, lending to governments is their main activity, and the World Bank is now preparing about 7-8 loans a year to various Pacific governments, but not Fiji. See <a href="http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=223066" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Finally, I did come across another <a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/780430/Fiji-thanks-ADB-for-technical-assistance.aspx" rel="nofollow">illuminating exchange</a> between Fiji and the ADB, this one more recent than the one I quote in my post. In fact, it was just a month ago. This time when Fiji asked about the prospect of ADB re-engagement, the new ADB President responded more positively: "While the president acknowledged the progress Fiji has made [towards democracy] and expressed the Bank's support for re-engagement, further discussions both within the Bank and with Fiji were necessary to agree on the processes and timelines to facilitate full access to the various forms of assistance available to member countries once re- engagement is formalized." Translated into non-diplomatic language, this would seem to mean: you’ve made some progress in returning to democracy, and we'd like to lend to you, but we need to check with Australia and New Zealand first.

Thank you for your comment Aidan -- I agree completely that there needs to be more teaching of the skills required to transfer knowledge. Improving pre-departure training could really help on this.

Technically, yes the 457 visa allows aged care, the occupation is classified as Regsitered Nurse (aged care). The ABS classify this as a highly skilled occupation, typically requiring a a Bachelor degree or higher and includes registration and licensing. However what I was referencing was a lower skilled occupation, probably Health and Welfare Support workers. These require certificates and diplomas as opposed to bachelor degrees. These occupations are currently ineligible for 457s. The other barrier that presents are the current salary thresholds, which is $51,400. Often in the lower skilled jobs, this threshold rules out employers hiring lower skilled workers. This threshold is a key component at keeping the 457 program as a highly skilled program. While there are many benefits to this, they do not include encouraging emigration from developing nations such as PNG and the Solomon Islands.

Yes Tony, I am well aware of the arguments in favour of the dual salary system in PNG. I was once a beneficiary of that system myself, when the public sector version was subsidised by budget support from the Australian government. However, my point was to explain why highly skilled Papua New Guinean workers have an economic incentive to emigrate, and why their emigration might not be such a bad thing for national development in PNG.

Thanks Margaret for this post and mention of the on-going work we're involved in. I would also just support Tess' comment around the lack of information on the effects of corporate development efforts. For a couple of decades now people like Colin Filer, John Burton, myself and others have been pushing for forms of 'social monitoring' around these operations that would provide rigorous evidence of development effects, with very patchy and partial results. In part it seems that companies simply aren't interested (there being no formal requirement, or at least none that is regularly enforced by the regulators), they don't have the skill sets needed to really research and understand the social effects and changes (the attribution of effects is tricky), and in part I think there is a fear that a transparent monitoring process might reveal (and implicate them by association) a range of dysfunctional social changes... The contrast with the extensive environmental monitoring programmes is revealing as these programmes are (surprisingly!) far less political and concern processes that companies have a high degree of control over, unlike the social processes that mining tends to induce.

Some sense in this article, good to see the concept of Public Goods applied, of which Development Assistance is part, but the problematique is still wrong, the meaning of terms like 'extreme poverty' and 'poverty reduction' is still difficult to comprehend in societies which have for centuries met their needs through subsistence production. In the Pacific (and Timor-Leste) its got to be about the relationship between the subsistence sector and cash markets and knowledge, attitudes and skills and how they can be mobilized, rather than how much money is available for a project. People forget where the Millenium Development Goals came from, all the World Conferenes held in the 1990s, since there hasn't been another set of such conferences it will be difficult to mobilise the consensus needed for another group, also, as the article points out, now different countries have widely differing intersts. It is such a pity that Pacific Studies is not taught in many Australian universities as people are graduating with no knowledge of the particularieis of these countries and many mistakes were made by Australia's lack of knowledge of its closest neighbours. Land tenure is one issue which has not satisfactorily been solved in any country in the region, or in Australia for that matter.

Once again the subject of comparative remuneration makes its unwelcome appearance. "The Australians who work in the PNG sector are generally paid more than twice as much as their local counterparts with the same qualifications, which is why their local counterparts have an incentive to migrate to Australia, where they no longer suffer this form of discrimination." Why use "discrimination"? Please compare the economies and infrastructure of the two. Infrastructure along the Eastern seaboard of Australia is not comparable to what we suffer under in PNG. Agricultural labour earns K100 per fortnight and this is more than they can earn as farmers on their own soil; such is the state of our agricultural economy. Australia can support high wages in certain sectors, resembling PNG in so far as the mining sector is out of balance with some other parts of the economy. i.e. Ford closing down because they cannot compete with other manufacturers. Should PNG pay its engineers and other professionals in the mining sector as they do Australians? The knock on effect would put the rest of us out of business. We are a small country with enormous hurdles to development. The mountains, the swamps, the horrible roads and not last and not the least is our politicians appetite for the good life. Corruption is rife in most countries; our problem is that the proportion of our population in productive work does not enable us to support a level of corruption that would be acceptable in a Western country. Our cake is just not big enough! Our politicians are the ones who are not baking it properly. Tony Flynn

Thanks for posting this Colin. Dick Bedford from AUT/ Waikato has been digging into the numbers for Solomon Islanders living in Australia. They are, it turns out, tiny, especially once you whittle them down to people of Solomon Islands sole ancestry born in Solomon islands: a total of 494 as at the 2011 census. The total number of Solomon Islands born people in Australia (including children born to Australians in SI and of mixed ethnicity) is nearly 1800, and this is increasing at around 3% a year: less than 60 newcomers total. Meanwhile, the Solomon Islands population increased at around 2.5%, or 12,500 a year. There were similar tiny increases between 2001-2006 censuses. By way of comparison, more than 4000 Solomon islanders were involuntarily repatriated in the first decade of the last century, following Australian federation. The Solomons' diaspora is tiny, and barely functioning, if we compare it to other Pacific situations. I am keen to learn more bout how they are faring in the resources sector: my suspicion is, not as well as the PNG folk. Australia, then, is not yet contributing a great deal to the labour mobility situation in that part of Melanesia, though some of us are expecting that will change, if slowly. Brain drain barely enters the picture, either: there are thousands of young people, many qualified, entering the labour market, and mere 10s leaving. One last comment: Henry above notes that there might be a future for unskilled PNG workers in aged care. Currently as I understand the 457 visa is obtainable by people with a qualification (usually a certificate) in aged care. The couple I know of are actually self funding in coming to Australia to take the certificate course, and working part time in the industry as they do, hoping for a transition via a 457 offer from their employer. It's skilled work, I would say: but again, Solomons numbers are tiny. Are they much larger from PNG?

This blog has brought great attention to the work of in-country managers (ICMs). I am old enough to remember when there was much less reliance on professionally appointed ICMs. I also manage a program that depends on them less than most contributors to this blog would see as necessary. In a very technocratic, instrumental way we Westerners seem to get stuck with particular models because they are seen as the professional response to actual or potential difficulties. Even if their effectiveness is limited, we are seen to manage the risk and cover our asses. It may well be that one of the things we need to learn from the communities in which we go to serve is that reliance on a web or network of relationships is the most effective way to support people faced with what are significant challenges. Instead of holding one person (the ICM) responsible for the welfare of volunteers and the engagement of counterpart organisations any volunteer agency with time to provide effective preparation will enable the volunteer to identify and establish many supports. In our organisation we find the best support is provided through having one person to oversee the volunteer from application to placement matching, as well as through preparation, during placement and upon return home. That one person is pretty special in that s/he has a significant appreciation of interpersonal relationships as well as a sound background in development, especially development volunteering. S/he builds a significant relationship with each volunteer and counterpart organisation in her/his charge and is responsible for assisting each volunteer to develop all other relationships, especially those with counterparts; ICMs; other volunteers; Australian community/professional support groups and overarching institutional links in country etcetera. One of the very important reasons we provide a nine-day residential orientation is to enable the development of a sound relationship between volunteers and the staff who will support them throughout the entire process. It's a professional relationship, but much more than a professional relationship, that is enabled in this time. The course also allows significant relationships to develop with other staff, and the cohort of volunteers going into the field at the time get to know and are able to support one another as well. I hear everyday at the office about one volunteer or another who is supported through this intricate web, which is enabled in the field due to the excellent network of communications we have available today, even in some of the most remote locations. Volunteer support is probably one of the most highly rated aspects of our evaluations because I think that while one person is the main contact for each volunteer, there is so much more than one person, or personality, from whom a volunteer is encouraged to seek support. Support being provided by a coordinated web of supporters also can draw on invaluable reflection and support for newer volunteers from those in the field during a second year. Ashlee's comments and others help us to stay tuned to the needs of the volunteer and the issues affecting them and their counterparts. We welcome critiques like Ashlee's as an opportunity to share the learning and hopefully improve Australia's volunteer efforts overall.

Great article Colin. This topic goes to the heart of why I believe immigration policies in general should be considered more broadly than they currently are. The 457 visa program may be primarily about the labour market and gaps in skilled migration, but it also goes directly to relationships with other nations and how people movement facilitates different objectives in the 21st century. At a recent Senate Enquiry in the 457 visa program (submissions <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/457_visas/submissions.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>), a number of organisations raised the example that there are over 800,000 Australians working overseas. By discussing Australian immigration policy in terms of 'Aussie jobs', surely we open Australians living and working overseas up to the same treatment? This is perhaps more true for developing nations than developed nations. At a higher level, there is substantial evidence to show that highly skilled migration, of which Australia has perhaps a world-leading framework, leads to substantial economic benefits for the host nation. For example, 94 per cent of the rise in labour market participation in the last decade can be attributed to migrants (see Cully <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/economic-fiscal-impact-of-immigration.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf]). In addition, US and European research shows the fiscal and job creation effect. The amazing thing is that this is still an argument. Perhaps what we really should be having a public discussion about is unskilled migration. The global literature on remittances grows everyday yet Australian policy seems unable to integrate immigration into a development context. The Seasonal Worker Program is hardly a success while other forms of unskilled migration, such as aged care, will become very prominent in the future given demographic trends.

As a recently returned volunteer, much of this article strikes a chord. I don't agree with everything written, but even those things I do not agree with have been expressed by other volunteers I know, so are not isolated feelings. I have already given my feedback to Austraining and AusAID on what I believe is an overwhelmingly positive program so will not go into great detail about my thoughts for improvement. What I will state is that I agree the focus on capacity building is too great for a program expressly created for professionals with little experience themselves. Beyond this, I believe it to be a great fault of development as a whole that the skills required to transfer knowledge and skills (i.e. capacity building) are rarely, if ever, taught to professionals and certainly not to an expert level in the AYAD/AVID programs. If we don't build the capacity of volunteers to build capacities then the process amounts to little more than a wish and a prayer for positive outcomes in that realm.