Stepping Stones or Shackles?

By Mijica Lus | South Pacific Fellow

Image sourced from Vijesh Datt via Unsplash.

For generations, migration has been both a lifeline and a gamble for Pacific families. The Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV) promises something rare: permanent security in Australia for those who qualify. But this stepping stone on paper is only meaningful if the path it provides is solid. Too often, mobility is celebrated as the answer to challenges that are far deeper, from climate vulnerability to underinvestment in local systems and limited opportunities for young people.

If the PEV is to succeed, it must be more than a migration pathway. It must be paired with meaningful investment in local development, shaped by the voices of Pacific youth and communities, and aligned with broader regional approaches across Australia and New Zealand. Without this, mobility risks becoming not a choice, but a necessity.

The PEV is a significant opportunity, but it should not distract from the deeper challenge facing the Pacific: ensuring people can move by choice, not by necessity.

Pacific migration is shaped by climate vulnerability, economic precarity, and chronic underinvestment. Rising seas and limited opportunities make mobility feel necessary rather than optional. The PEV offers opportunity and dignity, but only as part of a broader response. Without investment in climate resilience and local development, migration risks becoming a substitute for meaningful action, allowing structural challenges to persist while responsibility shifts onto individuals to relocate. True empowerment lies not just in migrating, but in choosing to leave, stay, or move between home and host countries.

The PEV must also be understood regionally, as Pacific mobility is shaped by interconnected labour schemes and partnerships across Australia and New Zealand. Across the Tasman, New Zealand has long positioned labour mobility as central to Pacific partnership, through the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and its “Next Generation Approach to Labour Mobility.” Australia’s influence is strongest in Melanesian countries like Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, while New Zealand’s approach reflects deeper historical and community ties across Polynesia. Together, these models frame mobility as development, raising a critical question: are migration pathways pursued alongside action on climate and inequality, or quietly in place of it?

Mobility, Agency, and Climate: Beyond a Single Solution

For Pacific communities, migration is often framed as opportunity, yet it sits uneasily between choice and necessity. Pathways like the PEV expand access, but decisions to move are shaped by structural pressures, including limited local development and climate vulnerability. At the centre is a question of agency: do people move by choice, or because conditions leave little alternative?

Agency, the capacity to make self-directed decisions, is rarely exercised in isolation. In the Pacific, it is constrained by social, economic, and environmental realities, where climate risks, economic precarity, and uneven development complicate the idea that mobility is purely voluntary. These constraints are particularly visible for Pacific youth, who must weigh migration opportunities against responsibilities to home. In this context, empowerment is better understood not as movement alone, but as the ability to make meaningful choices about whether to leave, stay, or maintain connections across home and host countries.

These pressures are further intensified by climate change. Rising seas, extreme weather, and threats to food and water security are already shaping movement patterns across the region. On 15 March 2026, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported cracks in Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands, highlighting how environmental risks are tied to histories of external intervention.

The history of Marshallese migration to the United States in the 1980s illustrates this blurred line between choice and necessity: while some sought opportunity, many were compelled by circumstance. Today, mobility remains a survival strategy, but treating it as a “solution” risks masking the urgent need for local development and climate resilience. Without sustained action, pathways like the PEV may expand opportunity for some while making staying increasingly difficult for others.

Implications for the Future: Designing Agency-Driven Pathways

The PEV highlights the potential for migration programs to support individual opportunity and regional development but also exposes gaps in coordination and long-term investment. While the PEV offers stability and a pathway to permanent settlement, its broader impact will remain limited without sustained support for Pacific communities. To ensure mobility expands choice rather than masks structural challenges, three priorities are critical.

First, investment in local development must accompany mobility pathways. Linking the PEV to targeted investments in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, as well as reintegration and skills transfer initiatives, can help ensure that staying is as viable as moving, strengthening agency and reducing the risk of long-term skills loss.

Second, youth and cultural voices must be embedded in program design. Pacific youth are already shaping conversations on mobility and development through initiatives such as the Pacific-Australia Youth Association (PAYA), Micronesia Climate Change Alliance, Pacific Climate Warriors and Senisim PNG. Co-designing policies with these groups ensures migration pathways reflect lived realities and support informed, self-determined choices.

Finally, stronger regional coordination is needed. Greater alignment between Australia and New Zealand would allow mobility programs to better support shared goals, including economic development and climate resilience, while improving efficiency by reducing duplication and maximising regional impact. Without these linkages, the PEV risks remaining an isolated intervention rather than contributing to sustainable, agency-driven development across the Pacific.

A Stepping Stone, not a Substitute

The PEV may be a stepping stone for many Pacific families, offering permanence, dignity, and opportunity. But if mobility becomes the region’s most visible response to inequality and climate vulnerability, it risks becoming a partial fix rather than a solution. Genuine partnership means supporting Pacific peoples both to move and to flourish where they are, ensuring migration pathways enhance choice rather than mask deeper structural challenges.

Born on Ngunnawal–Ngambri Country and raised in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, Mijica Lus is a young Pacific-Australian advocate passionate about storytelling, regional diplomacy, and elevating the voices of the Pasifika diaspora. She is the Founder of the Aurosokwo Project, an initiative creating digital storytelling pathways for young people across PNG and the Pacific to share their experiences, shape narratives, and influence decision-making.

Mijica’s work focuses on youth empowerment, climate justice, gender equality, and strengthening people-to-people connections between Australia and the Pacific. She has collaborated with community organisations, youth networks, and policy stakeholders, and has represented diaspora communities in national dialogues, including engagements at Parliament House. She is a council member with the Australian Red Cross and President of the United Nationals Young Professionals, ACT Chapter.

With a commitment to bridging cultures and amplifying Pacific perspectives, Mijica hopes to contribute thoughtful analysis and lived-experience storytelling to YAIA’s South Pacific portfolio. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.