Comments

This schematic policy of Constituency Development Funds [CDF] must not be controlled by prime minister. In that way prime minister is taking advantage over MPs to keep them in his side. The MPs must appoint a minister to administer this.

Hi Stephen, I am interested to know if you have found out more information regarding "adequate funds". Thank you

I'm interested for this program and really appreciated for the top pacific country which sending the applicants.

This is so well captured and presented. In addition to climate projections and local knowledge of climate impact for WASH, what I feel is missing in the above piece to consider while doing climate-resilient WASH planning is referring to the already documented best practices for dealing with similar local WASH conditions/challenges and contextualization to dealing with exact local needs.

Mauri Nei Rosa, ko rabwa for your comments. As the PEV is an annual ballot, I am hoping the government considers joining the 2025 round. Thank you for the marvellous work you do for our fellow I-Kiribati here in Australia. Tekeraoi te beku.

Hi Dan Thanks for your comprehensive comments on both schemes. I agree, different work types and rules on hours of work mean the picture around earnings in NZ vs Australia is much more nuanced. However, the announcements about the RSE policy changes took a lot of people, especially the Pacific participants at this year’s RSE conference, by surprise. There was genuine concern from Pacific delegates that there had been no consultation with them about the changes and whether they could be phased in to avoid confusion about the reality of lower earnings for RSE workers in the coming season. As the Vanuatu High Commissioner to NZ said in his presentation, it’s important to keep all stakeholders in the loop and on board with proposed policy changes. Thanks again for your very useful reflections. Charlotte

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.