Eighty years after the end of World War II, Australians have paused to reflect on the sacrifices made for peace. Commemorations for Victory in the Pacific (VP) Day were held across the nation on Friday, honoring those who served and fell.
In Melbourne, Maureen Bell proudly wore her father Bert Jones’s war medals at the Shrine of Remembrance. She recalled her dad, who served in New Guinea, often telling funny stories to ease the pain of his experiences.
“He said he was called Screamer because they would play AFL football in New Guinea,” she reminisced, later learning the nickname was due to his loud personality.
Despite her pride, Ms. Bell expressed a somber view on the state of the world today.
“It’s important to honor those that have gone before us and made incredible sacrifices,” she said.
“But we don’t seem to learn from it. We keep doing it unfortunately.”
At the Sydney service, Phil Ward honored his father, a survivor of internment and the Burma railway. He described the commemorations as a moment of “enduring gratitude” for those who defended freedom.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese paid tribute to the nearly one million Australians who served, 40,000 of whom never returned. He called the war a “nightmare made real” by human beings.
RSL Victoria President Mark Schroffel noted the sorrow that accompanies the victory, remembering the “unsung heroes who never returned home.”
He emphasized the importance of preserving their memory, stating, “Nobody really wins.”
Australia played a vital role in the Pacific theater, initially fighting in Malaya and Singapore before focusing on the defense of the mainland after the bombing of Darwin in 1942.
Federal Veterans’ Affairs Minister Matt Keogh described VP Day as marking the end of “the most devastating global conflict in human history.”
Australians are consuming record amounts of meth, cocaine, and heroin, according to the latest wastewater analysis. The findings, released by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, reveal that nicotine use is also on the rise.
This insatiable demand for illicit drugs is a boon for international crime groups and dealers who are profiting from Australia’s lucrative market. The commission’s analysis, which began in 2016, detected a surge in the consumption of major illicit drugs nationwide.
In the year leading up to August 2024, Australians consumed more than 22 tonnes of meth, cocaine, heroin, and MDMA (ecstasy). This drug consumption has fueled the illicit drug trade, with an estimated $11.5 billion spent on these substances.
Methamphetamine (ice) consumption rose to an estimated 12.8 tonnes. Use of other drugs also saw significant increases: cocaine was up almost 70%, MDMA nearly 50%, and heroin almost 15%.
According to Shane Neilson, a drug specialist with the commission, the market is rebounding after a drop in consumption due to tighter border controls and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The high prices Australians are willing and able to pay compared to other global markets are driving the business.
Mr. Neilson explained that drug traffickers will send tonnes of product to Australia’s borders, knowing that whatever gets through will generate enough profit to outweigh any losses from seizures.
“It’s just a relentless determination of transnational and domestic serious and organized crime groups to continue to supply the Australian market,” he said.
Organised crime groups are also believed to be behind a rise in illicit tobacco, though it’s impossible to determine how much of the nicotine consumed was obtained on the black market. Ketamine use is also increasing, with forensic analysts believing most of the drug being consumed is illicit rather than for medical or veterinary purposes.
A similar situation exists with cannabis. While thousands of people are medically prescribed the drug.
“Although the number of users of medicinal cannabis is increasing, it’s small relative to the overall use of cannabis,” Mr. Neilson noted.
The crime commission stated that the multi-billion-dollar expenditure on illicit drugs sends profits solely to organized criminals.
“There is no taxation on these profits, and economically it does have an impact,” Mr. Neilson said.
The latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that nearly one in two Australians aged 14 and over (10.2 million people) have used an illicit drug in their lifetime. An estimated one in five (3.9 million) have used one in the past 12 months.
SOLOMON Islands Prime Minister, Jeremiah Manele’s recent decision to exclude global powers from the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ meeting has sparked considerable debate in Western media.
While some outlets have framed it as a snub or a sign of growing Chinese influence, a closer look at Manele’s background as a seasoned diplomat suggests a more strategic motivation.
Having served in various diplomatic roles prior to becoming Prime Minister, Manele is known for his measured approach and deep understanding of international relations.
His comments regarding the PIF decision, therefore, should not be dismissed as mere oversight or the result of external pressure.
Diplomatic Background drives Strategic Move
Prime Minister Manele’s decision is deeply rooted in his extensive background as a career diplomat. For decades, he has worked to advance the Solomon Islands’ interests on the international stage, giving him a unique perspective on managing relationships with powerful nations whilst prioritizing regional unity.
Manele’s experience includes serving as a counselor and later Chargé d’Affaires at the Solomon Islands Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York from 1997 to 2002.
He also held senior roles within the government, including Permanent Secretary of the MFAET and Secretary to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. These positions have given him a comprehensive understanding of the domestic and international considerations that shape his nation’s foreign policy.
In explaining the rationale behind the move, Manele explicitly referenced the 2023 Rarotonga Leaders’ Communique.
“It is a sovereign decision for Solomon Islands as the host. We are deferring the dialogue partners meeting because the process for the review and reform of the Post-Forum Dialogue is ongoing,” Manele says.
This emphasis on regional ownership and the need for a strengthened internal approach to engaging with external partners emphasizes a strategic objective.
Manele is seemingly prioritizing the unity and autonomy of the Pacific Islands Forum, while allowing member states the space to define their own terms of engagement before being potentially pulled in different directions by competing global interests.
“The deferral aims to give the region time to strengthen our collective approach to engaging with our partners,” he further elaborated.
While the potential participation of Taiwan and China’s strong opposition are widely speculated to be a contributing factor, Manele’s public statements have consistently focused on the procedural aspects and the need to reinforce the Forum’s internal processes.
This diplomatic manoeuvring could be interpreted as an attempt to prevent a divisive issue from overshadowing the core agenda of the PIF, which traditionally centers on pressing regional concerns like climate change, the protection of the Pacific Ocean, and sustainable development.
The decision has elicited varied reactions from both within, and outside the Pacific.
While some leaders have voiced concerns, others appear to understand the strategic rationale.
President of Palau, Surangel Whipps Jr, whose nation maintains ties with Taiwan, has publicly supported the deferral, suggesting a degree of regional understanding for Manele’s approach.
Ultimately, Jeremiah Manele’s diplomatic background lends assurance to the interpretation that the decision to defer dialogue partners is a calculated move, prioritizing regional solidarity and a more unified approach to external engagement.
Whether this strategic gambit will serve the long-term interests of the Blue Pacific remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly reflects a deliberate and well-meaning effort to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape with the region’s best interests at heart.
Two emerging investigative newsrooms in the Pacific – In-depth Solomons and Inside PNG – have launched a new collaboration designed to strengthen cross-border investigative journalism in the region.
As part of the partnership, two Inside PNG journalists are currently in Honiara on a two-week attachment with In-depth Solomons.
The initiative aims to strengthen collaboration between the two newsrooms, both member centres of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), the world’s leading network of investigative journalists.
In-depth Solomons co-founder and editor Ofani Eremae said the initiative is about more than just newsroom exchange.
“It’s about building lasting professional ties and working together on stories that transcend national borders,” Eremae said.
“Our vision is to strengthen collaboration between investigative journalists in the Pacific,” he added..
“By working side by side, sharing skills, and tackling stories together, we can better expose issues that affect our countries and the region as a whole.”
New Zealand’s Deputy High Commissioner to Solomon Islands, Her Excellency Rebecca Williams (third from right) with staff from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), Inside PNG and In-depth Solomons during a lunch meeting this week, at Mendana Hotel, Honiara. The New Zealand Government is also a proud partner supporting both independent newsrooms in their mission to strengthen investigative journalism across the Pacific.
Inside PNG Managing Director, Kila Wani, who is part of the visiting team alongside colleague Helen Sea, said the partnership offers a unique opportunity for Pacific journalists to share experiences and perspectives.
“This attachment is not just about learning – it’s about collaborating on real stories and strengthening the ties between our newsrooms,” Wani said.
“We’re excited to work with the In-depth Solomons team and explore ways to tell stories that matter to our people.”
Both newsrooms have been recognised for their fearless reporting on corruption, governance, and environmental issues.
This partnership, Eremae says, will help amplify their impact and contribute to a stronger, more connected investigative journalism community in the Pacific.
The exchange is expected to include joint story projects, newsroom training, and ongoing collaboration beyond the attachment period.
It marks the first of its kind in the Pacific, setting a precedent for regional media cooperation on investigative reporting. It also lays the groundwork for future joint investigations into pressing issues like transnational crimes and political accountability within the region.
“We share a common mission,” Eremae said. “And together, we can make our stories – and our voices – even stronger.”
This article is a joint collaboration by Inside PNG and In-depth Solomons.
New Zealand has become the first country to withdraw from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA), a global group of governments dedicated to transitioning to cleaner energy. This decision, announced by Climate Minister Simon Watts, confirms the current New Zealand coalition government’s pivot towards embracing fossil fuels.
Since coming into power in November 2023, Prime Minister Chris Luxon’s government has rolled back previous environmental policies. This includes overturning a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, originally put in place by the Jacinda Ardern government, and fast-tracking mining projects, even for coal.
Mr. Watts explained that these actions made New Zealand’s continued membership in BOGA inappropriate.
“The New Zealand government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June, 2025,” he stated.
New Zealand initially joined BOGA in late 2021 at COP26, the UN climate conference in Glasgow, after being invited by co-founders Costa Rica and Denmark. Internal government documents at the time suggested that joining would be a “useful vehicle for advancing effective global climate action” and noted that it “does not involve binding legal commitments.”
The move has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups.
Amanda Larson, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Aotearoa (New Zealand), condemned the government’s support for both mining and “intensive livestock” agriculture, which she said were “two of the world’s most polluting industries.”
Ms. Larson also highlighted recent international scrutiny, pointing out that New Zealand’s government was criticized by the Financial Times in May for accounting practices that downplay the impact of methane emissions from agriculture.
“It is the first time in Luxon’s political or business career that he has made the front page of the Financial Times, and it was humiliating. He should expect more international criticism to come,” Ms. Larson added.
New Zealand held an associate membership in BOGA, alongside California and Belize, but has now been removed from the alliance’s website.
Resources Minister Shane Jones dismissed BOGA as “an indulgent, vanity-belief community.”
A woman with ties to Papua New Guinea is facing serious charges in Australia, accused of luring young Papua New Guineans with promises of education scholarships and then forcing them to work on farms. She has been charged with human trafficking and debt bondage offences.
The woman, who holds dual Australian and Nigerian citizenship and is based in PNG, was arrested at Brisbane Airport in Australia on Wednesday after arriving from Papua New Guinea.
Australian federal police allege that between 2021 and 2023, fifteen PNG nationals who travelled to Australia for study were instead forced to work against their will. Some were allegedly made to work seven days a week and up to ten hours a day.
The 56-year-old woman is accused of enticing these young people, aged between 19 and their mid-30s, to Queensland, Australia, with the false promise of education scholarships.
It’s alleged that these students were forced to sign legal documents and agree to repay costs for tuition, airfares, visa applications, insurance, and legal fees.
There are also allegations that she threatened their family members back here in Papua New Guinea.
Police claim the woman made the students work on farms across Queensland, which is against their visa conditions, and that she received their wages directly as repayment for their supposed debts.
The Australian Federal Police have described these allegations as deeply troubling.
“These are individuals who are young, that’s a point of vulnerability,” AFP Detective Superintendent Adrian Telfer said.
“They’re extremely isolated. They are pursuing an education, a dream to come here to Australia, opportunities that they don’t get in their own country, and they’re placed into a position that they weren’t prepared for and didn’t know how to get out of.”
He added that some of the victims are still in Australia and are receiving support from the Red Cross.
The woman appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Wednesday and was charged with 31 offences.
These include four counts of trafficking in persons, which can lead to a maximum of 12 years in prison, and 13 counts of debt bondage, which is a form of modern slavery. She was granted bail and is expected to return to court on September 19.
Between Australia and New Zealand sits a chain of underwater volcanoes that are home to an abundance of fish, ancient corals and other marine life.
Known as Lord Howe Rise, the vast underwater landscape largely exists outside state maritime boundaries, beneath the high seas.
That makes the ecologically-rich habitat fair game for industrial fishing, including long-lining and bottom-trawling techniques in the spotlight following the latest instalment from acclaimed nature documentarian David Attenborough.
Footage in Ocean powerfully reveals to viewers for the first time, trawlers dragging heavy nets across the sea bed in an indiscriminate search for just a few prized species.
🚨 Sir David Attenborough's film OCEAN provides unprecedented visual documentation of bottom trawling devastation.
Join us for a breathtaking journey and conversation on ocean recovery at one of the screenings of the film we will host in different countries around the globe! 🐋 pic.twitter.com/skFUDJ4RR6
— High Seas Alliance (@HighSeasAllianc) May 23, 2025
As well as scooping up vast volumes of bycatch, such trawling has been found to churn up carbon that would have otherwise stayed locked in place on the sea floor, some of which ends up in the atmosphere to fuel climate change.
The documentary lands ahead of a major United Nations ocean conference in France in June.
Conservation groups are hopeful the film will help garner support for a landmark treaty to better protect the roughly two-thirds of marine habitat outside the boundaries of individual countries.
The high seas biodiversity agreement would lay the foundations to safeguard 30 per cent of the world’s oceans by 2030 in marine sanctuaries, helping preserve threatened species and support fish stocks for communities reliant on the food source.
According to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Australia, a founding signatory to the agreement in 2023, and the re-elected Albanese government have promised to ratify its commitment “as quickly as possible”.
“Australia is one of a small number of countries that requires implementing legislation to be in place before the treaty can be ratified,” a spokesperson says.
A multi-agency government delegation still being finalised is set to attend to conference in France.
To bring the treaty into force, 60 countries need to enshrine the treaty in national law via ratification.
So far, about 40 have either done so or signalled that they will.
WWF-Australia head of oceans and sustainable development Richard Leck is confident the treaty will come into force.
“But it means countries like Australia, who have indicated they support the treaty, really need to step up to their parliamentary processes and make sure that that actually gets through their systems,” he says.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific senior oceans campaigner Georgia Whittaker says marine animals are being “pushed closer to the brink of extinction” every day that passes without stronger protections.
Fresh analysis of fisheries data from the environmental campaigners reveals damage caused by industrial longline fishing – long stretches of baited hooks – to shark populations.
Almost half a million near-threatened blue sharks were taken as bycatch in the the central and western Pacific in 2023, the highest number ever recorded and double 2015 numbers.
Greenpeace has been angling for a marine sanctuary in the Lord Howe Rise and Tasman Sea region in anticipation of the oceans treaty going ahead.
Marine scientist and Research Connect Blue director Rachel Przeslawski says there is still much to learn about the diverse underwater tracts off Australia’s east coast.
The mighty chain of seamounts – underwater mountains – experience an inverse relationship to biodiversity to that of their on-land cousins.
Life is most abundant higher on the peaks, where there’s more sunlight and nutrients, with visiting humpback whales and other migratory species among the creatures found in their midst.
The deeper waters of the surrounding abyssal plains tend to host sparser populations of “weird critters” that have adapted to dark, nutrient-poor and hostile conditions.
Some seamounts are as shallow as 200m and a few breach the surface, Lord Howe Island and Middleton and Elizabeth reefs among them.
Australian trawlers are no longer active in the area but vessels from other countries are causing damage, Dr Przeslawski tells AAP, with sea beds taking years or even decades to recover.
She says any marine sanctuaries devised under a high seas agreement would ideally be completely no-take.
Many existing marine parks are only partially protected, with permitted sections to be fished or mined.
“Is it going to be toothless?” Dr Przeslawski asks.
“Or will it actually have some bite and the ability to affect some of these really ecologically damaging activities?”
With the withdrawal of much of USAID’s presence from the Pacific, I quietly hoped that the region could absorb it — maybe even take it as the jolt needed to “go all in on betting on ourselves”. We are building resilience to this donor merry-go-round and, if history is any guide, it will likely cycle back at some point.
What stands to have lasting long-term impact is US President Trump’s Executive Order 14285, aimed at fast-tracking deep-sea mineral (DSM) exploration in the Pacific, outside the oversight of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). It potentially opens the door to a “critical minerals race” fuelled by geopolitics, with the Pacific Ocean at its centre, sidelining Pacific nations who have registered through the ISA. Beyond the clear subversion of international law, the implications for the Blue Pacific’s marine biodiversity and future generations are profound.
If DSM ventures proceed outside ISA oversight, it provides yet another example of why it is so important for the Pacific nations to begin framing a rules-based order to protect the Blue Pacific Continent.
But this urgency raises a more uncomfortable truth — one that continues to undercut Pacific efforts — that, at its core, the problem is not external actors. It’s not the US. It’s us.
At its source, Pacific regionalism is about enabling Pacific nations to work better together. While it is important to acknowledge the many challenges that confront regionalism, we must also recognize that we are not immune from ourselves.
Despite our aspiration of what Pacific regionalism “ought” to be, we remain embedded in a Euro-centric model — one in which we are shaped, not by what we choose to be, but what we are paid to become.
Our region has, for decades, been carried by a vision of solidarity and collective action. Epeli Hau’ofa gave us the metaphor — our sea of islands — and we speak often of the Blue Pacific Continent and the 2050 Strategy for it as an expression of agency and collective sovereignty.
And yet, without solidarity, these narratives ring hollow. When it comes to some of the most pressing challenges of today — ocean governance, regional security, human rights — we are divided, hesitant or silent enablers.
A Pacific High-Level Talanoa (dialogue) on Deep Sea Mining was convened in February, with officials tasked to develop options for a regional approach for Forum Leaders; consideration in Honiara later this year. But DSM is not merely a regional or legal issue. It exposes deeper political, structural and cognitive fractures within the region, revealing the fragility of consensus-building, dollar-diplomacy and internalised dependencies. In this respect, regionalism is not failing because of external pressure; it is eroding under the weight of our reluctance to make hard, collective choices.
This is not about attributing blame. Rather, it’s an opportunity to reflect.
Having spent most of my career working in and around national governments, I’ve been part of the very machinery that enables these dynamics. At the moment, it feels like we’re advancing national interests, responding to pressing needs or navigating political realities. It feels like we’re working together. But are we truly collaborating or are we simply managing each other?
When you step back — and especially from a distance — the picture sharpens. There’s a certain perspective that comes when you step outside the system as I have. A part of you has never really left yet you’re removed from the grind. That’s where reflection lives, I think — somewhere between hope and cynicism, believing in the idea of Pacific-led regionalism in a reality ripe with the limitations of process, power and political motivations.
In 2019, Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders endorsed a comprehensive review of the regional architecture in Tuvalu, aligning it with the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. The regional architecture here refers to the Pacific nations, external partners, regional institutions, processes — and most importantly — Pacific people who give life to Pacific regionalism. It was an important moment — an attempt to take stock and reimagine — but, six years on, the review is ongoing.
A new High-Level Panel established by PIF Troika Leaders has begun its consultations across the region on the regional architecture. The now-former Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa of Samoa recently said that the consultations seeks to answer three questions: Is Pacific unity still there? Do we still want it? If we do, what do we want it to look like?
The review will consider options for the rationalisation — or amalgamation — of regional institutions, amid growing concern that there are simply too many. Yet the regional architecture is now more complex, fragmented and contested than perhaps at any other point in its history. Compared to six years ago, the region is navigating a far more strained geopolitical landscape. Pacific nations have become more vulnerable — economically, environmentally and strategically — at the very time when external engagement has become more heavy-handed. This has contributed to a deepening over-reliance on Australia, New Zealand and, increasingly, China.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Pacific’s regional security architecture. The Boe Declaration on Regional Security, endorsed in 2018, was intended to re-centre the region’s security needs squarely on climate change, human security and sustainable development.
But as external powers seek access and influence in the Blue Pacific Continent, the region has become heavily securitised and militarised — further complicating efforts to foster regional unity and cooperation. This has led some Pacific academics to call for the demilitarisation of the region.
Initiatives like AUKUS, expanded military partnerships and intelligence-sharing arrangements mask a creeping model of regionalism that appears to be preparing itself for future conflict. We are told this will keep us safe — but at what cost to our sovereignty, and to our future generations?
And this takes us back to the question that continues to plague Pacific regionalism: Who is driving regionalism, if not us?
Outside of process-oriented solutions, we tend to avoid holding heart-to-heart political talanoa on confronting and divisive issues including the influence of Australia, New Zealand and external partners, the China-Taiwan issue, DSM, regional security, and the place of territories within our shared future. It has long been argued, for example, that decolonization and regionalism are inseparable.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that regionalism lives and dies at the hands of political leaders alone. Political will does not exist in a vacuum. It grows (or withers) within an ecosystem of public expectations, institutional interest and electoral cycles.
The end-game of regionalism is not the communique delivered at the annual PIF Leaders Meeting. It is a set of practices, compromises and choices that we, collectively, either uphold or allow to erode. Without conviction — without a shared belief in the value of standing together — these gatherings risk becoming rituals of aspiration with little action.
I firmly believe that Pacific regionalism is ultimately about people and relationships. But relationships are extremely difficult to manage, especially in a region as diverse and dispersed as ours. Sub-regionalism, domestic pressures and competing priorities all take their toll. And then there are the silences — the moments when we choose not to speak, not to take a stand, not to challenge each other when the stakes are high.
There is no single fix for the problems of Pacific regionalism. But perhaps the shift we need is not just structural reform — but a relational shift as well — from fragmented interest to a sense of shared purpose — moving beyond the talk. And it begins not with external forces, donors or declarations, but with us.
That’s the hardest part. It requires sacrifice, trust, willingness to endure short-term pains for longer-term gain. Hopefully, the current review of the regional architecture can encourage us to take that leap.
If we don’t, someone else will happily do so. And we will continue to follow.
Written by: Sione Tekiteki
Joel Nilon is presenting a paper on the Blue Pacific rules-based order co-authored with Sione Tekiteki at the 2025 Pacific Update which will be held on 3-5 June at the University of the South Pacific’s Laucala Campus in Suva, Fiji. Visit the event webpage for more details on this free event and the livestream of keynote sessions.
This article appeared first on Devpolicy Blog (devpolicy.org), from the Development Policy Centre at The Australian National University.
Sione Tekiteki is a senior lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology. He previously served at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in three positions over nine years, most recently as Director, Governance and Engagement.
This month’s Australian elections brought many surprises. One of them was that Labor, once returned, decided to separate the Pacific and international development ministerial portfolios for the first time (for any government) since 2007.
Then it was Duncan Kerr for the Pacific and Bob McMullan for aid, both parliamentary secretaries. Now we have Pat Conroy as Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Anne Aly as Minister for International Development.
This might simply be a sign that Pat Conroy is overworked. After all, as Minister for Defence Industry, he is overseeing a massive and highly problematic scale-up of the defence budget.
But the optimist in me hopes that it might also be a sign that the Labor government is going to take aid more seriously, and think more globally, in its second term.
Yes, other countries around that world have recently cut, if not slashed, their foreign aid. But Australia was simply ahead of the curve by slashing aid a decade ago. Those cuts have never been reversed, and Australia is as a result today one of the world’s most miserly donors. We shouldn’t be! With Labor claiming to be the guardian of the fair go, one can only hope that it will increase aid in its second term, and not just for the Pacific.
Bringing a broader perspective to aid, one that looks beyond the Pacific and strategic competition with China, would be a forward step. It is incredible that in a world of unprecedented crisis Australian aid is justified not by its provision of support to relieve global suffering but by its further concentration on what is already the most aid-dependent region in the world. I was shocked to read in the most recent aid budget that Australia justified its support for the World Bank by the fact that the Bank worked in the Pacific. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
I am a supporter of aid, but too much focus of aid on the Pacific not only distorts Australia’s priorities but is also bad for the Pacific. Australian aid has engendered a culture in the Pacific of workshops, training, much of it overseas, and t-shirts.
If aid is not the way forward for the Pacific, migration is. The first term of this Labor government was historic in its achievements for Pacific migration but, even though Labor made no new Pacific commitments going into this year’s election, there is plenty left to be done in its second term. This is especially so in a context in which the Pacific is increasingly demanding freer if not free movement within the region.
Most importantly, Labor has three years to bed down its ambitious new Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV). If the Coalition had been elected it is quite possible that they would have abolished the PEV. After all, they voted against the PEV legislation. Now Labor has three years to bed it down. The PEV represents a completely new approach to migration — it is the only visa we have that is not employer-sponsored but which has an employment requirement — and it will take some time to bed down. It is definitely facing teething problems.
The key difficulty has been for offshore PEV lottery winners to get the onshore job required for them to convert that selection by lottery into an actual visa. One possible reform would be to give those selected in the annual lottery a six- or 12-month employment visa to visit Australia and find a job. Another would be to drop the work requirement altogether.
Second, Labor in its first term introduced family accompaniment for the Pacific temporary migration program (PALM), but only on a pilot basis. Progress has been glacial on this key human rights reform, and the key priority here has to be to go from pilot to mainstream. (Labor’s 2022 commitment had no mention of any pilot.)
Third, PALM itself needs to be rescued. Multi-year (long-term) PALM visa numbers are flat over the last year, and multi-month (short-term) numbers fell by 10% over the same period.
Survey data tells us that the schemes are viewed by both participants and non-participants as highly beneficial. PNG, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands in particular all want to send a lot more workers. This simply won’t be possible if the scheme continues to be over- regulated, causing employers to continue to turn their backs on the opportunity to bring out Pacific workers to do seasonal farm work, preferring to hire from the much less regulated backpacker workforce instead.
Fourth, PALM continues to suffer from the overlapping problems of too many workers absconding and claiming asylum. Bad employers who break migration rules — most of them operating outside the tightly regulated PALM — need to be cracked down on and the time taken to process asylum applications greatly reduced.
Fifth, Labor in its first term only made a nod in the direction of the critical issue of backpacker visa reform. The unions, unable to recruit backpackers, turn a blind eye to the high levels of exploitation they suffer. In June 2024, Labor set up a review of regional visa settings, including the backpacker visa. That review never concluded. But Labor should follow through on the advice of its own migration review. As the Fair Work Ombudsman has said, the “work- for-visa” link embedded in the backpacker visa (with visa extensions granted if particular types and amounts of work can be demonstrated) is broken. All backpacker visas should be issued for three years, with no limits on or incentives to work. This would not only greatly reduce workplace exploitation; it would also reverse the PALM decline.
Sixth, new initiatives should be adopted. New Zealand has just announced that anyone from the Pacific with a valid Australian work, tourist or study visa will be given entry to New Zealand. New Zealand will also increase the duration of its short-term visitor visas for the Pacific from 12 to 24 months. Australia should do the same. Australia should also support the Pacific proposal for an APEC-type business card that would allow free business travel within the region.
And there is more. Superannuation for PALM workers needs a legislative fix. Regional PALM work restrictions make little sense. And the pathbreaking Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union agreement could be replicated with other interested Pacific nations.
There is a lot to be done. So much so that I hope that, at the next election if not before, whoever is in government creates a Pacific migration portfolio and assigns a dedicated minister to it.
Written by:Stephen Howes
This is the first part of the Pacific Family Matters blog series which explores priorities for there-elected Labor government’s engagement on development issues with the Pacific Islands region. The series draws on the expertise of the Pacific Research Program, a consortium led by the Department of Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University (ANU), in partnership with ANU’s Development Policy Centre and the Lowy Institute.
Disclosure: The Pacific Research Program is an independent Pacific-focused research program that supports evidence-based policy-making in the Pacific and collaborative research relationships across the region. The PRP is co-funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the consortium partners’ parent bodies. The views are those of the author only.
This article appeared first on Devpolicy Blog (devpolicy.org), from the Development Policy Centre at The Australian National University. Stephen Howes is Director of the Development Policy Centre and Professor of Economics at the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University.
Developing nations, including those in the Pacific, will pay China $A34 billion this year as Beijing comes calling for repayments on project funding.
China is now “the world’s largest single destination for developing country debt payments” and outstripping the whole of the West, says a new report shows from Australian think tank The Lowy Institute.
Under its Belt and Road Initiative, China has rapidly increased investments in infrastructure since 2013, partnering with dozens of nations primarily in the developed world.
In more recent years Beijing has changed tack, providing a heavier portion of grants – which do not need to be repaid – into its mix of development assistance.
However, with standard lending terms including the delay of payments for several years before a maturation of loans at 15-20 years, it appears crunch time has arrived for repayments.
“China’s earlier lending boom, combined with the structure of its loans, made a surge in debt servicing costs inevitable,” report author Riley Duke said.
“Because China’s Belt and Road lending spree peaked in the mid-2010s, those grace periods began expiring in the early 2020s. It was always likely to be a crunch period for developing country repayments to China.”
Mr Duke says some of the world’s poorest people are likely to bear the brunt.
“The high debt burden facing developing countries will hamper poverty reduction and slow development progress while stoking economic and political instability risks,” he said.
The analysis is incomplete, given data is only available for 54 of 120 developing countries and China does not routinely disclose funding.
Mr Duke says this means his figure of $US22 billion ($A34 billion) to be repaid in 2025 to China and its many state-controlled lending arms is likely an understatement.
It is also unclear whether China would defer debt repayments as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it joined with G20 nations to provide relief.
That move was helpful at the time, according to Mr Duke, but the effect was to mount costs into a heightening of the current repayment spike.
Several countries across the Pacific, which have benefited from Chinese investment in infrastructure, are likely to be among the countries affected.
The report comes ahead of a significant summit between China and the Pacific in Xiamen, beginning on Wednesday when Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosts representatives of 11 nations.
Kiribati Prime Minister Taneti Maamau and Niue Premier Dalton Tagelagi will join with the foreign ministers of Tonga, Nauru, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Cook Islands, and representatives from Fiji and Samoa for the two-day meeting.
“There will be an in-depth exchange of views on interactions and cooperation between China and Pacific island countries (PICs) in all aspects and international and regional issues of mutual interest,” China foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.
“China highly values its ties with PICs and hopes that this meeting will help drive the implementation of the important common understandings reached between leaders of the two sides, enhance solidarity and coordination, unite efforts for development and prosperity, and galvanize an even closer community with a shared future.”
The 11 nations attending the summit make up the entire Pacific Islands Forum membership, excepting the three countries with diplomatic ties to Taiwan, the two France-aligned nations, Australia and New Zealand.
