Comments

Thanks PNG Insight for your comment. The lesson is that the PNG government missed the opportunity to impose stronger local employment and training targets in the PNG LNG project National Content Plan. The recommendations are that 1) with negotiations on the Papua LNG project ongoing, it is not too late to impose stronger targets for the country’s next mega project; and 2) the PNG government should undertake a detailed survey of the project workforce to assess the skills that Papua New Guineans acquire while employed on the project, and their employability in future projects.

Thanks for the blog Terence. Just out of curiosity and of interest - what are your observations on the impacts of CDF generally in the Solomon Islands - what will be its future impacts in the country? And do you think CDF will have a major impact(s) on the outcome of this upcoming National General Election?

I would rather see discussion papers like this make clear recommendation/s on studies... what was learnt and how can future project developments be national skill development orientated. What are the recommendations?

Its very sad scenario but this is what is happening in PNG. No one denies this. Well, some do get their NID cards and birth registration or even passports for that matter within hours or few days. This is not a surprise, "under the table transaction" does strive and flourish well in PNG public service. So sad but reality.

Australian double standards at work once again. How arrogant of Australia to lecture PNG on corruption! And of course, Australia's Minister for Home Affairs was blissfully unaware the contract was being let. How convenient! It's no wonder the Chinese have secured a firm footing in PNG and having an enormous impact in Australia.

Papua New Guinea is rich in both renewable and non renewable resources, so why we are facing this decrease in the value of the kina?

I thank Peter Dwyer and Monica Minnegal for their blog-post. There appears to be some confusion as to the role of social mapping and landowner identification studies in the context of the Oil & Gas Act (1998). Michael Trebilcock writing on customary land ownership in 1983 summarised the views of anthropologists Roy Wagner, Andrew Strathern and Paula Brown in the following terms - 'The main principles on which land-owning groups are formed are descent, locality (or residence), and participation in such common activities as gardening or defence. ... [W]ithin groups land loans or gifts are common as part of the mutual aid between fellow clansmen, kin and affines. ... [L]ineage claims to land may peter out if not actively and continuously asserted. ... Locational presence or participation or clan activities may generate rights, at least to usage, in addition to rights possessed to other land by descent. On this view, groups rarely own property rights to land as a collectivity, but rather group membership characteristics will determine individual property rights within these group bounds.' Communal Property Rights: The Papua New Guinean Experience (pp 9-10) https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/economicsceapr_el_wp/33/ So social mapping and landowner identification studies simply map people to ground and ground to people, people identified as persons, habitations, villages and groups. Groups are formalised for beneficiary payment purposes as ILGs. The 2003/4 draft Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies (SMLIS) regulation was designed to compel the Australian-based consultant anthropologists to, at the very least, supply this most basic information in their reports to the project developers. The project developers in turn were required to supply these reports to the Department of Petroleum as a condition precedent to the issue of a project development license. Why the Australian-based consultant anthropologists vehemently opposed the making of the SMLIS regulation is a mystery known only to them. But I don’t think anybody in PNG has any interest today in inquiring into the seemingly confused and baffled mind-set of the implicated anthropologists. The project development companies and the Minister of Petroleum do NOT determine land ownership. Only the Local Land Court, the District Land Court and the Land Titles Commission have the power to determine land ownership. The Minister of Petroleum is empowered to make a determination as to the identities of the project landowner beneficiaries. In exercising this power the Minister is obliged to take into account the advice of his public servants including their views on the developer-submitted social mapping and landowner identification studies. If you wish to know more about the extent of the Minister’s discretion in these matters I strongly recommend that you engage the services of a competent lawyer who specialises in PNG administrative law. I suggest also that you further examine Justice Amet’s (as he then was) Hides Gas Project Case LTC decision and pay attention to the ‘control of access to land’ criteria (http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGLTC/1993/1.html). For more background on this and related issues please see Uriva v Maika (re Veakabu) [1969] PGSC 44 an old case, but still good law (http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGSC/1969/44.html). In regard to your concern as to the upcoming projects, Papua LNG and P’nyang, I can assure you that both GoPNG and developers have no intention of allowing the mandatory project Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies to drift into the absurdities that occurred in the PNG LNG project. The draft Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies regulation can be read into the background of Justice Kandakasi’s (as he then was) 2016 P’nyang case decision (Bernard v Duban [2016] PGNC 121 http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2016/121.html) (subsequently approved and affirmed by the Supreme Court (Rimbunan Hijau (PNG) Ltd v Enei [2017] http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGSC/2017/36.html). The draft SMLIS regulation has been used in the context of the Papua LNG project land investigations and both GoPNG and developers Total/OSL and ExxonMobil have no intention of repeating past mistakes and being led up the creek and into a swamp of anthropological consultant confusion again. The developers have every intention of being compliant with all relevant and applicable PNG law. Consideration is currently being given to formally bringing the draft SMLIS regulation into force. Vailala

Hi Michael, a very insightful piece of information any Papua New Guineans should note, especially those who dont know yet. Reading through this excellent work, I wonder if the WestMinister system is preventing better service service delivery or is it just the way the institutions are used, and in some cases abused, which is the issue? It is a very sorry state now to see citizens already loosing trust in the Government of day because they are not receiving what they are supposed to be recieving at the rural and remote communities. Thank you again for sharing your work.

Hi David, Thanks for your comment. My guess is no effect. Vote buying is already illegal, meaning the behaviour on Devil's Night is also already illegal. But illegality hasn't stopped it in the past. So it's hard to see why it would now. One reason might be that it might be easier to police the presence of campaign teams in villages buying votes, rather than actual vote buying itself. That sounds plausible. But even then it might just shift Devil's night one evening earlier. Short story: I'd be surprised if the new law had much effect in this area. Then again, I am going into this election expecting to be surprised. Terence

Thankyou for your very interesting comments and profiles. I am a intending candidate for the local level government elections ' June 2019 seeking financial assistance. Is there any organisations that you know of who assist women candidates in such situation, my address or contact is given below: Konebaru873@gmail.com

A wonderful read Terence, Just wanted to know your take on the issue of "Devil's night", the night before polling where candidates and agents have allegedly garnered more votes by giving money to voters. With the Amended NPEP Act 2018, there will be a 24 hour campaign-free period meaning there should be no devil's night or atleast that is the intention of that piece of legislation. Do you think this will have any effect on the outcome or results of the elections?

Excellent article. Australia should similarly focus on areas of expertise like agriculture, mining, renewables, engineering.