Comments

Thank you to all who have responded to my blog. Other comments have picked up points I would have made in response to the critical feedback. Suzanne asked why can’t workers be afforded the same rights and respect as the free flow globally of money and goods. Kingtau Mambon in response noted that ‘Moving Humans (Labour) unlike other material things isn’t just a matter of economics. Other dimensions such as social, cultural and political dimensions should be taken into consideration. Its complex’. Bal Kama doubted that the PALM scheme was highly regulated based on the cases he has dealt with. Randall Prior, who has extensive experience as an independent monitor of worker welfare, points to the revised Deed of Agreement and Guidelines that approved employers must sign onto before they can employ PALM workers. What Randall did not mention was the large number of staff in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations who are monitoring closely how well approved employers are complying with the complex set of requirements. If people are concerned about workers' welfare and working conditions in agriculture, they should turn their action to those working in rural and remote areas who are on the minimally regulated Working Holiday Maker visas. These workers, often with limited English, are much more vulnerable. They are left on their own to find their own accommodation. They also have to negotiate with employers on the basis of limited information about their legally required working conditions and entitlements.

Always insightful Terence. For many foreign ministers the effectiveness agenda unfortunately remains secondary to the diplomacy gains of aid. However, I am hopeful that Mahuta's inclusion of indigenous principles in NZ foreign policy, while under the new government might be short-lived, it may set a new standard of expectations by Pacific countries around the inclusion of indigenous principles in policy and practice of aid delivery - my fear though is that it might also give rise to more indigenous catch phrases as the titles of partnership agreements with the Pacific. Malo!

SOEs just want the Regulator to accept the full cost of the outsourced supply of bulk power purchased from the IPPs, by increasing the retail tariffs. While IPPs should be paid according to the volume of bulk they've delivered (plus associated investment costs as agreed under the relevant concessionaire), an equity issue arises here. Is it fair to make those legally connected pay for those who are stealing power? (Remember this simplified function, Price = Revenue from Billed Volume/ Billed Volume, and not from the Total Volume fed into the Grid). What kind of incentive is there for the SOE to reduce losses at the retail end if tariffs are adjusted upwards without putting in place loss targets, and/or strategizing an efficient debt recovery process? Aging infrastructure issues can be addressed once we get the basics right. You do not need to be a power person or a regulator to understand this. This is basic stuff that a thinking consumer can question.

Thank you for the update Prof Howes

Here's the latest on the PEV: The PEV legislation was debated today (Monday) in the Senate. You can read the Hansard <a href="https://devpolicy.org/will-the-greens-support-the-pacific-engagement-visa-20231013/" rel="ugc">here</a>. The Greens supported the PEV but (i) wanted an amendment to make it illegal for Australia’s migration regime to discriminate on the basis of disability, (ii) called for a cessation to new oil, gas and coal projects, and (iii) wanted an amendment to prevent a lottery being used to select refugees. The Coalition reiterated their opposition to the PEV on the basis of its reliance on a lottery. Jacqui Lambie was ambivalent on the lottery, but supported an annual cap of more than 3,000. The second reading debate took up much of the morning, and was then adjourned, I think to Wednesday.

Hi, we put an update up last week: <a href="https://devpolicy.org/will-the-greens-support-the-pacific-engagement-visa-20231013/" rel="ugc">here</a>. However, it is already out of date. The PEV legislation was debated today (Monday) in the Senate. You can read the Hansard <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/27132/toc_pdf/Senate_2023_10_16.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf" rel="nofollow ugc">here</a>. The Greens supported the PEV but (i) wanted an amendment to make it illegal for Australia's migration regime to discriminate on the basis of disability, (ii) called for a cessation to new oil, gas and coal projects, and (iii) wanted an amendment to prevent a lottery being used to select refugees. The Coalition reiterated their opposition to the PEV on the basis of its reliance on a lottery. Jacquie Lambert was ambivalent on the lottery, but supported an annual cap of more than 3,000. The second reading debate took up much of the morning, and was then adjourned, I think to Wednesday.

I think this is a really important initiative one that benefits our pacific neighbours which included Timor Leste and benefit fits Australia too.

The PEV is an important opportunity for those who want to exchange their experience and life. Interestingly when will it be available for Timorese to apply?

Thanks Suzanne, money and goods can move easily and faster but "not freely". There is nothing free in this world. Moving Humans(Labour) unlike other material things isn't just a matter of economics. Other dimensions such as social, cultural and political dimensions should be taken into consideration. Its complex. Pacific work schemes might not be perfect at this stage but it has potential to benefit Pacific Island countries and can be improve along the way. Markets works well when interests of both supply side and demand side are reconciled. However, strong statements such as that of our esteemed Bishop can be a source of information asymmetry (feeding wrong information to either side of the market) and could potentially lead to market not working well in the long run. Leaders in respected offices should have proper matured dialogue with appropriate stakeholders in the labour mobility space in addressing inconsistencies rather than randomly appealing to the mass; it wont do us any good.

Hi Kingtau, that in comparison to the regulation of migration and the movement of people, international finance and international trade are relatively unhindered. if as market fundamentalists argue the market delivers the best outcomes for all in the long run, why does the argument not apply to people? It is argued that Pacific work schemes protect Pacific peoples - really?

Thanks for sharing valuable content.

At least for safety it's a must to prevent us not to transmit any disease into our country and safety is better than cure.