Almost certainly the situation was roughly the same in Samoa. For both countries the cost of sending remittances from Australia was significantly higher because of the different regulatory context and because Australian banks were not interested in remittance services (Australian Government and New Zealand Government 2010). Since remittances are a particularly significant component of incomes in relatively remote places, including Savai’i in Samoa and the Niuas in Tonga, reducing the transaction costs and ease of access would significantly boost household incomes in these places. Adding to that losses from Australian and US transactions (the latter being the source of most remittances) emphasises the substantial national loss, somewhat greater than in Samoa. Not only would reducing transaction costs remove this particular loss but it would be likely to generate some increase in the level and regularity of remittances, and ensure that almost all remittances went through formal channels.