by Angelina Lanna Chams
Migration is often viewed from a macro lens, reducing people to mere statistics. Whilst this lens can provide overall insights on migration patterns, it is through a micro perspective that a nuanced transformation in the lives of migrants can be revealed. These short- and long-term transformations are largely dependent on the rights and statuses of migrants as determined by their host countries. Within this framework, it can be said that gender plays a defining role in shaping their lives. This can be attributed to two main factors: gender-specific rights and the influence of traditional gender roles.
These dynamics can be better understood through the experiences of migrant workers. In consequence of traditional gender roles, men are seen to be the breadwinners of the family. Subsequently, this has also resulted in the common depiction of migrant workers as male. Yet, in recent years, there has been a growing acknowledgment of the feminisation of migration as women have become increasingly prevalent in labour migration. This is predominantly evident in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, which provides workers from Timor-Leste and nine Pacific island countries temporary visas to work in Australia. With women making up 25% of the scheme’s participants in January 2026, it signals a departure from traditional gender roles. However, this departure, although giving more opportunities to women, has resulted in the question of whether female participation in migration schemes is positively transforming their lives.
Even with a greater participation in migration schemes, the rights of female migrant workers fail to align with their needs. Being faced with minimal reproductive rights, one question comes to mind: is it the fault of the employer or the scheme’s infrastructure? The answer is both. Whilst the scheme does provide migrant workers with a mandatory private health insurance, its infrastructure has led to a lack of awareness of such. This has resulted in employers being reluctant to hire women — especially those who are or able to become pregnant — as they are unable to provide necessary support to female migrant workers. In consequence, female participants are often required to go through testing to ensure they aren’t pregnant before acceptance into the scheme. Discrimination thus becomes a featured part of the scheme.
But, this does not hinder their participation as female migrant workers retain a positive outlook towards pregnancy. Although their knowledge on the accessible healthcare through the scheme is limited, it is the overall image of Australia that can make the scheme even more appealing to prospective mothers. Pacific island countries are often characterised as places with poor healthcare provisions due to their inability to provide specialised care. This can be evidenced by ProMedica — a paramedic service in Vanuatu which evacuates patients with serious medical conditions and/ or injuries to Australia and New Zealand. Noting further how Vanuatu and other Pacific island countries struggle to handle neonatal and maternal challenges, it has led to the islands’ citizens viewing Australia as a better place to give birth in. However, this comes with one limitation: female migrant workers who become pregnant have a greater tendency to disengage from the scheme. This is due to the limited support they receive throughout their pregnancy from their employers and the scheme as a whole.
Reflecting further upon this lack of support, many women have also described their struggles with finding a safe environment to raise their children in. As migrant workers, female participants do not have access to paid maternity leave, nor is their pregnancy looked fondly upon by their employers. The situation of new mothers is exacerbated through their inability to access government schemes for child support. In severe cases, they may have their children taken away by child protection services. This possibility of separation, which is caused by the institutionalised structure of the scheme, raises the question of whether it can be justified, either on human rights or on ethical grounds.
Yet, the experiences of female migrant workers extend beyond reproductive rights, with gender-based violence (GBV) playing a central role in shaping the transformation they experience. Notably, the discussion of GBV appears as a taboo subject among the scheme’s participants despite its prevalence. This is because of how female migrant workers have more to lose than gain by reporting instances of GBV. The scheme’s structure restricts participants to a single employer — creating a dependency from migrant workers on their employers. Workers are thus compelled to remain productive and compliant, with any concerns hampering this image that they wish to project. Infrequent reports of GBV consequently reflect the workers’ fear of becoming a cause for concern, which increases their risk of layoff.
As layoff could lead to workers losing their visas, reporting cases of GBV appears to be counterproductive to these individuals. This is because the limited support provided to victims of GBV would not sufficiently improve their wellbeing. This signifies the precarious situation of female migrant workers due to the legal and economic insecurities associated with protecting themselves from vulnerabilities.
Overall, this treatment of women has led to concerns surrounding whether the PALM scheme in particular is inherently discriminatory. With employers’ reluctance to hire pregnant women and new mothers, the discrimination seen can be said to go against the Australian Sex Discrimination Act (1984), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and family responsibilities. This signifies the inconsistencies in Australia’s push towards gender equality.
Globally, women in developing countries are able to gain new opportunities to support both themselves and their families through the feminisation of migration. But, the impacts of these opportunities are twofold. On the one hand, women’s lives may be transformed for the better as they have better access to healthcare provisions in Australia. On the other hand, their vulnerability to GBV and their restricted ability to raise their children makes this transformation also deteriorating. If gender equality is a true priority of a host country, there needs to be further policies guaranteeing the rights of migrant women. After all, the benefits of a migration scheme will only be able to outweigh the burden placed on the shoulders of female migrant workers when they are respected as people, and not just seen as units of labour.
