ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT - BILLS - APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 2023-2024 - CONSIDERATION IN DETAIL

The Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme was established under the coalition government and has proven successful not only for helping Australia but also in helping Pacific countries. Through that mutual benefit, it has strengthened our ties and brought countries closer together. I'm pleased to see the government agrees this scheme is a good idea and has announced it will devote more than $370 million to expanding the scheme to build on what we began. I would like to ask the minister how he believes the scheme can expand at pace and what safeguards are in place to ensure quantity is not sacrificed for quality.

I ask this because I have grave concerns the Labor government is racing ahead on many avenues without doing due diligence. Many of the policies they've rushed through in the past 12 months across various portfolios might initially conjure up warm and fuzzy feelings and photo opportunities but in actuality are having dire consequences. The superficiality of their governing style demonstrates a breathtaking lack of depth of thought, analysis and long vision and is completely devoid of nuance and complexity.

A prime example of this is the reforms to the PALM scheme. They have taken a perfectly good scheme—which, yes, should always be improved and finessed—and they have butchered it to such an extent that farmers are now threatening to boycott the program altogether. Under Labor, farmers would have to pay Pacific workers for a minimum of 30 hours a week every week. It might sound nice to those in the inner city. It might sound like good policy, but what the government is failing to get is that ultimately these jobs are seasonal. They are weather dependent. Farmers during a harvest might work a 12-hour day and the next day be stuck inside. The PALM scheme must remain flexible to that, which is why the 30 hours averaged over eight weeks proved popular. The changes to the scheme were clearly made without adequate consultation with our stakeholders. Industry has loudly said the myriad changes to the scheme are no longer workable. My question to the minister is: will the government go back to the drawing board and re-engage with stakeholders to find a better solution? I would also like to know if each Pacific country involved with PALM has been supportive of the reforms.

On remittance, remaining on the Pacific, I do want to speak to the vital and positive impact the PALM scheme has in workers' home countries. According to the World Bank figures, 44 per cent of Tonga's gross domestic product is made up by remittance sent home by those working abroad. In Samoa it's 30 per cent, in Vanuatu it's 21 per cent and in Fiji it's nine per cent. Roughly 15 per cent of each migrant worker's pay cheque is sent back home, with Australian government figures suggesting this amount could be as high as 40 per cent. The problem is that about 10 per cent of that amount is then lost in foreign exchange, meaning that tens of millions of dollars that could be going back to the Pacific are not. Many banks will argue there are zero upfront fees charged to the individual, but what we see is a hefty slice of the pie taken through inflated exchange rates. My question to the government is: other than a box-ticking website, what is the government really doing to address the lack of transparency banks are providing to hardworking Pacific Islanders?

Finally, I come to official development assistance. In Labor's 2021 national platform it said:

Labor will, over time, achieve a funding target for the international development program of at least 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income.

In the May 2023 budget analysis by well-respected academic Stephen Howes, he said ODA/GNI:

… has now fallen to 0.19%, and with indexation and economic growth continuing at its projected 2025-26 level (2.75%), Australia's ODA/GNI ratio will fall to below 0.14% over the next decade.

Also in Labor's 2021 national platform, it said:

Labor will increase aid as a percentage of Gross National Income every year that we are in office starting with our first budget.

The Australian Council for International Development said:

While ACFID notes the Government's efforts in rebuilding the development program, there is no denying that Australia's overall performance as a donor is lagging. …

Australia's ODA to GNI percentage in 2022-23 was 0.20 percent. This coming year, it will fall to 0.19 percent—which represents a historic low.

In the May 2023 budget the government published a commitment to $8.6 billion in new and additional ODA over 10 years, starting from 2026-27. This goes well beyond the four-year forwards published by Treasury. My question to the government is: how can it actually forecast to 2036-37 when there are so many variables at play? Is this simply a ploy to make the government appear more generous than it really is? I would appreciate, respectfully, an answer to those questions from the minister.