Comments

Dr Richard, I thank you for your highlighting the need for reforming procurement to promote skill formation in PNG. I have done some scholarly research on the nexus between migration and development and also worked with a local labour hire company (Pacific Manpower) have realized that skilled labour shortage is a grave concern for the country's development. An example I provide is specialized wielding which was needed badly during the Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) Phase of the LNG up the Highlands in 2012 which saw more than 400 wielders had to be employed from Philippines to PNG. This gap has not closed for specialized wielding however in other technical skills requirement the country still in a great need state for major infrastructure development. Your views and perspectives on the need for aid to leverage the this and the way the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank has responded is a positive step toward labour mobility and employment for impact projects and developments in PNG.

Hi Rhonda and thank you for the comment. I really value hearing this from someone who's actually sat with workers going through it. I think we might agree more than the tone of your comment might suggest. The point of the post isn't that deductions are fine and great, but rather that its mostly what people would spend anyway, except with some quality assurance over it as part of the schemes protections and deducted as source rather than paid out of pocket, and that main issues we've heard about is potential, perceived, and actual overcharging and workers sometimes not fly understanding upfront what they're agreeing to, which is consistent with what you're describing. On your specific proposals, I do have a few reactions: - On airfares, there's a real policy choice about who absorbs that cost. If it is not covered as a sort of income contingent loan as we see now, then it is either workers bearing the costs, which would affect accessibility and steer towards the wealthier, or employers, which would likely see fewer opportunities for the Pacific as they instead opt for migrant workers that find their own way here, like backpackers. I think the current situation is actually close to optimal in this regard, with employers paying some, but not all, and it not being paid for with foreign aid money which, in principle, I would prefer to see targeted towards poorer households (as participating in PALM means these households are typically non-poor). - On medicare and insurance, I do not have the data on this nor a strong view, but with PALM workers on family accompaniment and PEV visa holders now having medicare, so there is a stark inconsistency which I am not convinced is sustainable. - On housing, the same data here found that most people are satisfied with their housing arrangements (while also being an area of dissatisfaction too) and I would flag that people can and do indeed organise their own, but this sits in tension with the employers ultimately being accountable for its quality. It has come up a lot though, and I understand recent changes to the deed target these issues. On "someone in government actually looking at deductions", my understanding is that this is under very close watch at the moment but I am of course not in government and do not have such visibility. Certainly, my reading of the deed and guidelines and informal discussion suggest this is the case. Overall, I'm with you on empowering workers to choose and cover these things themselves, but this sits in tension with the employers being responsible for it and the strong worker welfare and protection policies all now in place, and do not have an ready to go solution there! Warmest wishes, Ryan

Dear Rosalie, thank you for your comment, which I think is fair and an important framing capturing something basic pay and deductions numbers simply can't. This post is really only about whether workers keep a reasonable wage, not labour mobility more broadly, which I think colleagues have covered well from both angles in past blogs. The Fiame quote is nice, though I would only add that I don't think it's necessarily an either/or. Many workers and their families do see and use PALM to build a future at home, far from abandoning it, even if the popularity of the scheme suggest that these opportunities at home may still be too thin. I am finding myself saying it a lot lately, but both things can be true. As I tried to convey above, the discomfort you're describing and the fact that many participants report the arrangement as worthwhile aren't necessarily contradictory. Your broader point on the underlying question of why people move, temporarily or permanently, is important but I hope this post isn't read too much as an answer to that. With best wishes, Ryan

I have been asked why the country allocations for this year’s PEV exceeds 3,000, since the sum as shown in the table for 2026-27 is 3,050. My understanding is as follows. The Australian government commitment is to issue up to 3,000 PEV visas a year/cohort. More than 3,000 people can be invited to apply for a visa in the knowledge that not everyone will be successful.

An excellent success story

Very interesting Emily, Kristi and Helmtrude! And that's just the financial cost - not to mention the time cost of preparing for those healthy meals which is significantly more than processed or canned foods.

This is a powerful framing of an issue that is often treated separately from climate discussions. Linking violence against women to climate stress highlights how environmental shocks don’t just damage infrastructure—they deepen existing social inequalities and increase vulnerability in very real, human ways. It’s an important reminder that climate policy has to be grounded in protection, equity, and lived experience, not just emissions targets.

I support your views Dr. Amota Ataneka Merang. Let's begin from claiming back our indigenous name for our beloved country Tungaru.

Hello Jerome, My daughter has the same problem as others. She was born in Port Moresby, now lives in Australia and desperately needs a copy of her birth certificate. She tried the PNG Consulate General in Sydney and the High Commission in Canberra and got a email for a team leader at PNGCIS but has not got any closer to getting the document. Can you help please?

The reason that negative anecdotes stick out is discomfort about the PALM scheme. Like many, I'm uncomfortable that to build their countries, Pacific Island people must leave their families, homelands and communities, and go to Australia to do work Aussies don't want to do. Even if it appears economically rational for both Australia and Pacific peoples it doesn't feel right. See the beautiful comment of Former Prime Minister of Samoa Fiamē Naomi Mata'afa: "The true measure of nationhood is not whether people can leave, but whether they can imagine a future at home without feeling left behind."

I’ve been reading your articles about PALM workers and have assisted many, deductions are always a big problem, but as soon as they say in their own country they want to come they are in debt, just to apply to a recruiter. I think someone in government should actually take a good look at the deductions, most of these deductions aren’t of the workers choice, the airfares should be paid by the employer or the agency here, but then look at the deduction for medical not viable to the worker, then the health insurance is it needed, I haven’t known one worker to get something back from health insurance, then when the companies rent the house, do they ask the worker what they want no, and those despicable dormitories, no cultural safety there. I could go on for hours, but if this scheme could work for the worker someone has to step out of the box and make a decision for a better working agreement.

This was a fascinating and thought-provoking response. I appreciated how the author challenged the assumption that migration automatically weakens Pacific economies by pointing to real-world examples such as the Cook Islands, Niue, and Palau. The argument that migration should be evaluated not only through remittances but also through the broader income and opportunity gains for migrants and their families is particularly compelling. At the same time, I think this debate highlights the need to balance both perspectives. Migration can create significant economic opportunities and improve living standards, but concerns about skills shortages, depopulation, and long-term domestic development should not be dismissed entirely. The key issue may not be whether migration is good or bad, but how Pacific governments can maximize its benefits while strengthening local institutions, education systems, and employment opportunities.