Comments

I have been fortunate to know Sean for a decent part of my life. He was a couple of years behind me at school and our paths have crossed often since. A person of great integrity and sincerity and it was an honour for me to make a small contribution to The Embarrassed Colonialist.

Stephen, you are right in that the State and Exxon Mobil reached an agreement and they signed the gas Agreement on the basis that Social Mapping landowner Identification Studies was done as per Section E(15)of the PNGLNG GAs Agreement. What I am saying now is that the national Decision OS No.546 of 2010 nullified that particular Section as Exxon Mobil as the Licensee did not comply with Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil & Gas Act. Exxon Mobil and the State did not appealed the National Court Decision and the ADR mediation is progressing in Angore PRL 11/PDL 08 as we have this discussion. Therefore, pending the completion of the ADR/mediation Exxon Mobil as the licensee is yet to comply with Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil & Gas Act. That is why I insist that Exxon Mobil is operating with out legal license. DPE also agrees that Exxon is yet to comply with Section 47(5) requirement and copy of the news paper article by the current secretary was sent to you via your email/gmail. it is an issue Exxon Mobil need to sit down with genuine landowners and talk social license as legal license is too costly and may not be easy to reach. As social engineer, I can assist in this regard if Exxon Mobil can agree on working through the social licensing process. regards john

Vailala, Thank you - this is the case of 'the truth and the honour don't always win' scenario. The fact of the matter is the customary landowners, the State and the project developers are not above the relevant laws contained therein the Oil & Gas Act, especially Section 47 (5) which states clearly that the Licensee (Exxon Mobil) shall complete the full Scale Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies (FSSMLIS) and submit that together with the application for Petroleum Development License (PDL). Has Exxon done the FSSMLIS? The fact is that it has not. It only did Preliminary Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies at the time when the PNG LNG Gas Agreement was signed on 22 May 2008. That is why on the cover of the agreement, Hides 4, Angore and Juha gas fields where under Petroleum Retention License (PRL) when the agreement was signed. In 2009 the UBSA and LBBSA was signed but some landowner took the matter to court, yet PDL was somehow granted and in 2010 under OS No.546 of 2010 the National Court Order ADR/Mediation. Today as I comment, the State and ADR mediation team a preparing for logistic arrangement to continue the ADR mediation program which was suspended in 2015 due to funding problem. Therefore, technically and legally pending the completion of the ADR/mediation Exxon Mobil is operating without legal license as it is, as the license is yet to comply with Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil & Gas Act and if it continues to ignore this truth it is only inviting jungle justice and this is dangerous in a place like the Hela region. regards

Thank you Stephen and Sachini. Really informative summary of the status quo. Helpful to see where and who needs further assistance. Gender balance an ongoing issue but much more in the spotlight now which is good. Yes you're right that after many years of trial there is now significant broad based experience for growers to be far more confident in taking that leap of faith.

I'm glad that this article continues to generate interest, but I continue to beg to differ. Exxon prepared the required studies. The government didn't only receive them; the government accepted them. So I don't think you can blame Exxon for not doing the studies or not doing the right type of studies. Where I think all parties are at fault is in proceeding with construction without a determination as to who the relevant landowners are. That's against the law, and I think that should be the focus rather than the studies, which, however, inadequate you might think they are, were completed and accepted by the government.

A great piece. Sean Dorney is a legend. I was fortunate to meet and converse with him last december in Port Moresby. For a young Papua New Guinean I would say that he is a all round Papua New Guinean guy who loves this country! I wish you all the best Sean.

Thanks for another good post Tess, and for capturing Sean Dorney's incredible legacy for the Pacific, PNG and Australia. I had the good fortune to first meet the 'man behind the Radio Australia voice' a decade ago in Vanuatu, and Sean's uncanny nose for public interest stories and journalistic integrity has been both an inspiration and reminder of what our Pacific media can strive for. Wish Sean all the best.

Hi Bianca, I'm not saying that Kiribati shouldn't be included. Indeed, as one of the 20 poorest countries in the world, it certainly should be. But the truth is that its serious health problems, as well as its weak education system, will limit the number of workers it can send to Australia. Hence the need for other countries to be added to the pilot. Regards, Stephen.

Hi Timothy, I am so happy you are one of the lucky ones to participate in the SWP. Many approved employers would welcome an extension of the six months visa to 9 which would cover most of our harvest season. Yes the program is still evolving and I have great faith that in the next few years this program will expand more than we ever hoped for. Becoming better and better for all. Keep up the good work.

I worry that separation from family for 3years is too much. I would personally want extra leave to return home to the village at least every 6months for my workers. On the other hand there would be options if a) auto approved visitors visas for families to come during that period (visitors visas are more often denied as I have had experience with) or b) as Shailendra has touched on - wouldn't this be a great opportunity for the family to come to Australia and access the health and education standards that many of us Australians take for granted. The Australian govt injects a large $ input into our Pacific neighbours budgets to improve their health and education standards at home already so how easy would it be to bring that family out for the period and allow them to access these services here. Common sense would indicate that the idea of the current SWP is for workers to earn and return home to improve their families futures without having a long absence from their village community. We need to be careful that the PLS does not fracture these ideals. In regards to Tuvula, Nauru and Kiribati having priority access to the first 2000places I have no issue with this as I believe they will not have the workforce to fill these places then other pacific neighbours (like the Sols) will be welcomed to join the program whilst it is still in its infancy. The PLS is a long overdue important opportunity for our pacific neighbours as well as Aussie businesses, even if it does still require tweaking we need to make it work for the benefit of all. I too agree that visa free travel for the pacific would be wonderful!!

I agree that offering the pilot to countries that seem to have existing alternative labour markets could be inappropriate, but I'm not sure how being deemed to be one of the "least healthy" within the Pacific Region, detracts from a country's inclusion in the pilot?

We workers under the SWP wanted to see an extension on working visas. In our experience, six months is not sufficient, as we do not make enough money during this period. After we pay our expenses on three and a half months, we only have had two and half months to recover. We want flexible working visas that allow us to work for other farmers, and we should be allowed to move around Australia to work for other farmers. However, the SWP is improving. Thanks to the Australia government and Australian farmers. God bless you all. ta