Comments

This is very interesting, ko rabwa Akka n am insights. Now I know why Kiribati is not included in the pilot PEV scheme. We could never get a straight answer, not even from our own Ministry of Labour. This is a shame as we all know there is over population and under employment and this is another pathway for our people to improve their lives.

How does the truth in the statement, "it seems Australia offers both higher wages and better worker protections," correlate to the reality , or the perceptions. Many workers who register through my agency want to go to Australia because of the perception that wages are higher and therefore they earn more. (That, and that Australia is warmer. They don't know about Tasmania, since they only equate it as red deserts and kangaroos!) The reality is quite different. That reality is caused by the latter part of the above sentence, "better worker protections," Nether parts of the statement is false, as there are indeed higher wages and better worker protections, however it is also important to note that for reasons unknown [ok, let's not kid ourselves- we do know], there are more welfare issues occurring amongst PALM workers than within RSE workers, so despite "better worker protections," the workers appear to be more vulnerable. But that is in itself an issue as it is all perception - the perception imposed on seasonal workers in Australia that they are being exploited as told to them by many groups. Meanwhile most RSE workers are quite content and feel safe. At least mine do. But here are the comparisons 1. Tax NZ = 10.5%, AU = 15%. 2. Work type: NZ Piece Rate dominates, AU - Hourly dominates 3. Hours: NZ (No overtime) workers are very happy to work as many hours as possible. AU (Overtime) vast majority of farms limit hours to max 38 hours per week. 4. Increase to accommodation: NZ and AU both up to 15% PA. 4. Minimum hours: NZ and AU now both guaranteed 120 hours over 4 weeks. That last point is important. When Australia tried to bring in a 30 hour minimum per week rule (was going to be in effect 1 July 2024), there was a 25-40% drop in worker numbers, with some approved employers pulling out or threatening to pull out of the scheme. That was alleviated by a pause until 1 July 2025. And THAT is where thousands of Pacific seasonal workers lost - effectively finding themselves out of a job, having surrendered their places to much cheaper backpackers. Quantitative evidence shows that RSE workers on a piece rate, and given no limitation on hours (but within expected health and safety requirements), and given better crop reliability, not only make more per hour compared to their Australian counterparts, but more hours per week to add to a substantial income. When one factors in wages, tax, deductions and living expenses, and allowing for super (PALM) vs holiday pay (RSE) the RSE worker nets significantly more net returns over a seven month stint than their PALM candidates make in 9 months. When considering the "guaranteed minimum $200 per week," the requirements are the employer must pay a minimum of 20 hours per week is a redundant factor given that the PALM employer under the deed can "top up" hours to meet the threshold, while in NZ, the RSEs very rarely have a situation where workers are working less than, a $200 earning, or 20 hours per week. And where it does happen, it is highly likely the week before and after they worked 40-50 hours. All I know is that the Vanuatu workers I send to NZ for RSE work love their jobs, their accommodation, their employers and New Zealand. And the RSE staff love them in return. So maybe that is why Pacific Island RSE workers win? At the end of the day, the compromises appear to be helpful to the needs of employers, and add stability of work for employees. Drastically swinging the pendulum either way is most likely to hurt both RSEs and seasonal workers.

John, I agree with you wholeheartedly. John Paska was a staunch workers' advocate who firmly believed in the power of collective benefit over individual gain, tirelessly championing the rights and welfare of the workforce. Unfortunately, such people are in short supply in today's world.

Can you assist me with any Nursing Health Position vacancies in PNG?

Thanks, Lisa. And thanks for writing such a great blog! One model would be to do this through regional "hubs"(e.g. Mekong, Pacific etc.) which could have a pool of expertise across evaluation, working-in-partner systems, design etc. But, as you say, I do think ultimately this "learning" work needs to have some firm institutional expression that is headed by someone senior with the authority/autonomy to ensure that it is happening and is actually being translated into programs and policy. I think ill-defined concepts such as "statecraft" and "influence" are too nebulous and ephemeral to hang a $5 billion aid budget upon. It is much clearer to say that an effective aid program that delivers development impact is in Australia's national interest.

Thanks, Peter: I think turn-over is one factor which is why you need this role to have a much firmer institutional expression (which it did with ODE/IEC until 2020, even if it was weakened toward the end). On the positive side, DFAT has resumed annual whole-of-aid program performance reporting: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/performance-of-australian-development-cooperation-report-2022-2023.pdf It would be good to see more of this kind of work reflected in the DPPs.

Thanks, Sara: DFAT may well not see itself as an aid or development agency but, at same time, the government does. The Minister has publicly and repeatedly said he wants DFAT to be a "world-class development agency", the govt. is rebuilding DFAT's "development capability", and that "development is at the heart of our statecraft" etc., etc. I'm not sure how to square the picture above with these statements (or whether to even try!). To your point, it was telling that the government chose not to add "development" to DFAT's title when releasing the policy last year; this would have been a small & simple, but symbolically important, change. I agree that the reforms being pursued through the Australian Centre for Evaluation and the wider APS are positive and hopefully they find some meaningful institutional expression within the aid program.

Your comment that "aid agencies are capable of learning and adapting" says it all, really. DFAT is not, and does not see itself as, an aid or development agency. Your comparator, the USA, still has a standalone agency and perhaps that is the key differentiating factor. To my mind, the real opportunity or enabler to build a stronger culture of learning and reflection within DFAT may come from the wider evaluation agenda in the Australian public sector and the signals coming from central agencies rather than the Ministers who oversee the development program.

Really good to read your 2022 Mitchell Oration, 'Ofa. Continue to be bold and to 'speak truth to power', as Sabet has put it. Hope that your fearless Pacific feminist voice, informed by long years of experience of working effectively within Tonga and the wider Pacific region, will bring changes to thinking and practice in donor communities.

Hi Cam and Lisa As a former member of the APS for over 4 decades, can I suggest that this lack of reflection may well be due to staff turnover? Short-term occupancy of positions (e.g. less than 2 years) leads to inability and disinterest to focus on the long-term - not just in Foreign Affairs. In the various Departments where I worked, staff were more concerned at satisfying the Minister and Secretary (in that order). Robodebt lessons, anyone? And as the Minister moved on and the new one had different priorities, so did the varying priorities of staff (at all descending levels). I note that the last Aid Program Performance Reports were in 2018-19: https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/development/aid-program-performance-reports

Could not agree more Cam - and yes, very much the questions I was driving at in my earlier blog. I have just been reading the DPPs and you are right about the lack of reflection on what has been learnt from significant past investments. Given that they are political documents, perhaps we should not be altogether surprised. What seems more shocking is the absence of analysis of change dynamics that lies BEHIND those DPPs, or anywhere else in the aid program. Why is there not regular reflection of these questions built into routine operations? Where is the bringing together of Team Leaders, local partners and Managing Contractor Reps at Post to share analysis and generate collective understanding of how change happens in a given time and place? I suspect the 'all the tools of statecraft' mantra that you flag may be crowding out space for this bigger picture thinking. It strikes me that there are actually endless ways in which one could build a culture of reflection on how change happens and yet none of them happen... which suggests this is lower down the priority list than I'd like to believe.

Many thanks for your follow-up comments, Lisa Having been involved in lobbying on foreign aid for 38 years, I have seen many "promises" and statements of "good intentions" and significant "strategic plans" made by the federal government and its various Ministers for Foreign Affairs. However, DFAT's "Performance Reports" relate to annual progress in countries: https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/development/development-program-progress-reports. Not eventual outcomes - usually requiring several years. In 1990 at the World Summit for Children, Australia committeed to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where Section 38(4) remains highly-relevant to our war-torn world: "4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict." Which Australia did in the 1990s, in its participation in peace-keeping missions in places like Cambodia, Somalia and Rwanda. With military support of civilians in northern Iraq (under Operation Habitat) and later in East Timor. But now ? When there are elements in Australia who say all aid should be abolished while we have poverty in Australia. In all those years since 1986, I have never heard a Minister for Foreign Affairs say something like: "Remember that aid program which Australia started X years ago ? It was intended to achieve (name objectives and targeted groups) and we spent $Y million dollars on it. I am now very pleased to announce that it has demonstrably achieved the following........................ Australia's foreign aid and your tax dollars make a difference to reducing extreme poverty and improving our world." According to the World Bank: "Around 700 million people live today in extreme poverty – they subsist on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line. After several decades of continuous global poverty reduction, a period of significant crises and shocks resulted in three years of lost progress between 2020-2022." Unimaginable in Australia. But where Australia can make a difference.