Comments

HI Tess, We're not talking about removing the regulations, but making them less onerous, in sensible ways. See <a href="https://devpolicy.org/reforming-the-seasonal-worker-program-suggestions-from-an-employer-20150310/">this blog</a> for some very practical suggestions towards that end.

Thanks Nicole. Fair points in your first para. On the second, I understand that the government is not abolishing super for backpackers but basically confiscating it via tax. On the third, I don't think the Australian government prefers backpackers because of the cultural aspects, but because (a) employers prefer their flexibility and (b) they spend what they earn in Australia. But it is slowly changing, and the SWP is growing over time.

Very important message : Diabetes is still a major health challenge in the Pacific with social and economic implication. Diabetes is the "face of NCD" in the Pacific. We must look after it as we look after our faces.

SWP is no longer referred to as Pacific Seasonal Worker Program. Additionally, referring to participants solely as 'Pacific Islanders' with the inclusion of Timor-Leste, which doesn't self-identify as a PiC neither in terms of culture nor geographically speaking. Other than this, I agree and support your proposed goal of "Reducing the number of backpackers and increasing the number of Pacific seasonal workers should be a central policy goal for migration in Australia". I think broad reforms are due for both labour migration schemes. There are at present calls from the horticultural sector for parity in tax rates between the two schemes, I would meet this suggestion with a request for the government to remove the labour market testing requirement from the SWP as an effort toward achieving a parity in administrative burden between the two schemes. It would also be a shame to see the removal of superannuation from one scheme and not the other. If the government removes the requirement to pay super to backpackers, this only increases their relative attractiveness further reducing potential employer's motivation to pursue approval to employ seasonal workers. If the government removes superannuation from both programs, the seasonal workers, who are often living in very poor conditions in their home country, will lose vital funds which assist them to improve their quality of life toward an acceptable level. I think reforms which support a shift from reliance on unregulated backpacker labour to the SWP is unlikely to occur because for the most part, the Australian people and the present government preference the cultural exchange objectives espoused by the WHM visa over the development objectives inherent with the SWP.

I think it's really important to maintain a discussion about the inter relationship between how Australia deals with backpackers and how the SWP operates. Not least because it is deficiencies in 'whole of government' approaches that is one of the reasons that SWP lags behind RSE. However if the premise is that SWP is preferable because it is regulated and therefore exploitation is reduced it appears incongruous to then argue that the way to make SWP more attractive (e.g. To people who have been exploiting backpackers) is by removing the regulation that apparently provides protection to Pacific island workers.

Pleased you are flagging up this issue, and particularly that you are including communication devices on this list, which so often are ignored in terms of assistive devices. Great blog!

When Camilla and I were Googling for this post we also found some miscellaneous Wonder Woman facts and analysis that others might find interesting. We didn't want to go on a tangent so I'm just sharing some of them here in the comments. <a href="http://bigthink.com/Picture-This/wonder-woman-feminist-icon-feminist-failure-or-both" rel="nofollow">Wonder Woman: Feminist Icon, Feminist Failure, or Both?</a> - this is an interesting article with some of the history and different perspectives, particularly on the worldview of Wonder Woman's creator <em>"[Comic book historian] Hanley’s curiosity over Wonder Woman’s curious career begins with her curious creator, writer and psychologist William Moulton Marston. Marston “wanted to impart to his readers a specific message about female superiority,” Hanley writes. Marston’s feminism didn’t hold that men and women were equal. Instead, he believed that women were superior and could bring about a more just and peaceful society than what men had achieved so far, especially in the midst of World War II. Wonder Woman’s women-only homeland of Themyscira thus became a utopian ideal. In the context of wartime America, Wonder Woman became “a superpowered Rosie the Riveter, constantly encouraging women to join the auxiliary forces or get a wartime job,” Hanley argues. While Wonder Woman inspired women to realize their full potential, she also prepared young boys reading the comics for the coming matriarchy, which Marston was devoutly believed would come after the war."</em> But... <em>"Marston’s worldview came with complications, particularly a connoisseur’s eye for bondage, which went far beyond just the heroine’s “golden lasso of truth.” “For Marston,” Hanley defends, “bondage was about submission, not just sexually but in every aspect of life.” For the female utopia to happen, men must submit control, but everyone must submit individual desires to the greater goals of society."</em> Also, if you like vintage comic book artwork, there's some selected feminist panels from Wonder Woman cartoons in these posts <a href="http://comicsalliance.com/wonder-woman-feminism-meredith-finch-david-finch-dc/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://veleda-k.tumblr.com/post/91379284953/wonder-woman-is-a-feminist" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and some arguments backing up her feminist status. And it's interesting how the UN has glossed over her being a LGBTI icon, in typical UN style. There's a lot online about that as well.

Thanks Wendy (and sorry for the delay in getting your comment up, our spam filter is sometimes a little overzealous). I'm not entirely opposed to hijacking pop culture/celebrity to help communicate a socially beneficial message, as long as it doesn't compromise the message or come at a big cost. And as long as it is done really well and effectively, which as those reports show, is often not the case. From a comms standpoint, I think the Wonder Woman appointment comes with a risk of confusing the UN's already kind of fuzzy gender equality messaging - recently it was all #HeforShe, which I always found a bit patronising and vague but I at least kind of understood what they were trying to do with it (even if the execution was off). Now it's about a woman who comes from an all woman planet and who has been both sexualised and objectified by men throughout history but on the other hand has at times espoused a very hardline feminist message that could be seen by the overly sensitive as 'anti-male'. It's all just really confusing from a messaging point of view. Who are they trying to communicate with and mobilise with this campaign? Which version of Wonder Woman is their ambassador (she's had many iterations throughout history)? Is empowerment about equality and partnership between men and women, or is it about women becoming dominant? Such messy messaging. So I oppose this one, but not all. But a big communications question for me in using celebrity/icons would be - whose pop culture do they represent? I think you are spot on about needing to look at regional and national celebrities if you are going to get messages to have traction in particular countries or regions. There is a real dominance of American/Western celebrities on the books as ambassadors and Wonder Woman is no exception. Yes, some of these celebs are truly global, but I completely agree that there is a real need to look at how they play with certain audiences. I'm not convinced of the need to call these people 'ambassadors' though. I think that's where this really sunk. Sure, if there is a good comms and messaging strategy, give some Wonder Woman related tweets a go and tie it in to the anniversary and the movie. But don't call her an 'honorary ambassador for women's empowerment' - that's going to annoy real women who are tired of living up to impossible standards and pressures, let alone fictional superhero ones. It does seem really trivial to appoint someone who has superhuman powers to be an ambassador for an issue that includes gender violence. What, are women supposed to just get superpowers and kapow bang whoosh their way out of violent situations? It's like the UN think that women just need more inspiration to be powerful, instead of actual structural change.

Of course you're right, Jay, that small states would be unlikely to get a bite of the GCF under any allocation arrangements that privileged tonnes of emissions avoided or numbers of people protected from climate-related harms, and therefore gave no weight to sovereignty. If an implementing agency (like the ADB!) were to find a clever way of sweeping them all under a single regional adaptation bid, and could get the costs low enough, maybe. Mitigation funding would certainly be beyond reach. But I don't think that's such a terrible thing given that the GCF houses and will always house only a minority of the available funds. I think too much angst has been devoted to the question of how small states might access big funds. Perhaps it's better to simplify life for the big funds, and let them try to give substance to the claim that their investments are transformative, while making separate and more local or regional arrangements for small island states.

Have a positive attitude and mind set towards the development of PNG. If we want to change our nation, the change must begin in our mind before actions are implemented. God bless PNG.

Thanks for the very informative article. One question: how do you think Pacific countries would fare if the GCF does not adopt some kind of 'inter-country equity'? My own view is that it would seem that their "numbers" - in mitigation (C02 reductions) or adaption (total # people saved) - would never really amount to an attractive proposal to the GCF. And that would discriminate against Pacific countries, who have very real and urgent climate issues to address. Your thoughts appreciated!

The suitability or otherwise of Wonder Woman is only part of the issue. International celebrity ambassadors were novel once, but not any more. Barely a day goes by without some famous person in logo cap and t-shirt weeping into their cornflakes about the cause they have just embraced. Although they are billed as having international reach, many are barely known outside the western world. Regional and national celebrities may provide a more authentic voice for their cause. <a href="http://www.unicef.org/people/people_ambassadors.html" rel="nofollow">Here's a long list</a> from UNICEF of their ambassadors in various places. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/celebrity-ambassadors-charities-debate" rel="nofollow">This article from 2011</a> looks at the wider debate about ambassadors. While <a href="https://www.unjiu.org/en/reports-notes/archive/JIU_NOTE_2006_1_English.pdf" rel="nofollow">this 2006 UN report</a> [pdf] makes recommendations about the future of use of goodwill ambassadors -- it is unclear what suggestions, if any, were acted on.