Comments

You write about workers facing high costs of sending money from Australia through banks. Are Oz banks charging higher fees than those in other countries and ripping off the workers? If so, this should be taken to the Royal Commission into Banking.

Thank you Paul for your generous comments. Answering the question ‘why so long?’ required that the SMLIS issues be discussed in some detail and outlining the role and place of customary law in the PNG jurisdiction. It is certainly true, as you suggest, that there is much that also needs to be said about the related issues of payment of beneficiaries and transaction costs when considering the impact of the LNG Project on landowners. How payment is made and to whom has a considerable impact on equity issues and the welfare of women and children. It is heartening to note that GoPNG proposes now to move rapidly to revise the O&G Act and improve the regulation of the petroleum industry. The EITI Board has announced its reporting intentions and has bravely set about the task by describing landowner beneficiary recipients as beneficial owners (BOs) of the LNG Project and taken on the task of compiling the lists. The PNG Supreme Court has indicated that it may find that a fiduciary relationship obtains between the LNG Project Joint Venture parties and the landowners. It’s possible that the continuing participation of some landowners in the LNG Project will, after small-field depletion, be resolved by landowner equity participation. Perhaps the Hela Provincial Government, as the recipient of substantial project benefits may, in addition to making infrastructural investments, also make direct cash payments to non-BO Hela persons. The LNG Project does now stand in need of a political economy analysis and assessment. Thank you Sam and Stephen for asking the question ‘why so long?’ Vailala

This is a good reality check. The 'new poor' have to face challenges regarding clean and safe drinking water, sanitation, pollution of both psyche and physic (education) resulting in poor health and rundown educational infrastructures.

Fiji's scenario needs further explanation. This article appears to put Fiji on a pedestal, when in essence, the gap widens between haves & have noughts by hook or by crook post 2006 to 2018. Graphs are fanciful. Figures given from home country like Fiji, is questionable. Prefer to see such reports matched with time-line & credit level.

Thanks Rod ACIAR has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support and we are working hard on increasing awareness of our work to ensure that this continues to be the case.

My favorite part of this article is when you mentioned that all it takes to improve the quality of education is political action. Seeing children suffer from poor quality of education is all over the news so it is imperative to keep yourself updated on what's happening in the political landscape. After all, knowledge is power, right? If you are an active participant, it will be easier for you to effect a positive change. Thanks for the good read!

Excellent article and logical comments. Well done!

Thanks Andrew, for a good reminder of the importance of agricultural research in the aid program. And, congratulations on the 10-year strategy. A 10-year planning horizon is responsible - and it would be great to see more of this in the aid program. Having bipartisan support would be even better.

Thank you Matthew for an interesting article. The SWP research in Timor-Leste presented some of the same dilemmas for workers, between the need to access the financial benefits that seasonal work offers and the need to establish economic sustainability for their family at home. I fully support your view that more needs to be done to enable returning workers to contribute their skills and financial resources into farming and businesses at home. By doing so there will be increased opportunities for other workers to join the program. Incentivising and empowering workers to expand their options at home rather than imposing constraints and limits on seasonal work will support workers to make plans about their future work according to their own capability, aspirations and timeframes.

Paul/Vailala, People in my village that was discovered in 1960s are now using computers and communication is very easy. one can speak to a villages in a hamlet from anywhere in the world, which was not the case in early days where cargo cult mentality was built in to get into the villagers world. Today, many of the villagers children are pilots, engineers and social engineers like myself. People now know what it development, what is cargo cult , what is batter system what is politics and so forth. They know their rights through the law but applying and accepting the law is the problem. Our constitution and number of laws including the Oil & Gas Act and the ILG Act was developed by Papua New Guineans for our people and for everyone living in Papua New Guinea and in the interest of the State. Many village people know how to following customary law and respect for each other and their rights. For development purpose people will follow and a re following modern laws and in this case is the ILG Act and the Oil & Gas Act. The problem is the government with its want capacity and apt skills and experience. The company has what it needs to develop huge project and know very well the weakness of the government and the villagers. In the circumstance our constitution and the laws protect our people and it is the common ground where we all can agree to do the right thing even when the other party is weak. They discretion is now on the government, company and the landowners to follow law as any disputes will earn up in the Court and the court will rule based on law. In this instance, the law we have in PNG for developing Oil & Gas (petroleum) is the Oil & Gas Act and in mining the Mining Act. However, there is only one ILG Act which both industries utilize for their purposes. Here Exxon Mobil, DPE (State) and landowners are important in developing a project. However, the PNG LNG Gas Agreement was signed on 22 May 2008 without the Landowners and in Section E (15) they claim that Social Mapping & Landowner Identification studies was done in compliance with Section 47 of the Oil & Gas Act. The landowners disputed Section E(15) of the PNG LNG Gas Agreement and took matter to Court. The national Court un OS 546 of 2010 ruled in favour of the landowners and it orders ADR/Mediation. The ADR/mediation started in 2015 but due to lack of funding its pending completion. Really it is Exxon Mobil's role to under law to comply with Section 47(5) of the Oil & Gas Act, but its failure to comply with that is causing two things: 1) Landowners benefit has been delayed 2) Exxon Mobil does not have legal license as Social Mapping and landowner identification is the pre-requisite to granting of the PDL to any company, including Exxon Mobil. In sum, Exxon Mobil can blame itself for any mobilize community resistance and jungle justice for continuously causing so much pain and insulting the villagers intelligence but not complying with the law of this land. Exxon Mobil needs a social engineers from the village (I can provide that) if this is very difficult to understand. Right now, Exxon is operating under all the confusion it caused with so much money floating around. When all that money run dry and people who benefited from that arrangement are no longer there, gaps are created/opening up Exxon Mobil is seen the real people it must dealt with for project security and social licensing until the project closes voluntarily and ADR/Mediation process is identifying people Exxon Mobil must work with. Below is a ruling on similar case between a landowner Rimbunan Hijau:- PAPUA NEW GUINEA [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE] SCA 126 OF 2011 BETWEEN: RIMBUNAN HIJAU (PNG) LIMITED Appellant AND: INA ENEI on his behalf and on behalf of Moga clan of Loupom Island, Abau District, Central Province First Respondent AND: PUBLIC CURATOR OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF IBI ENEI (Deceased) Second Respondent Waigani: Salika DCJ, Kandakasi & Toliken JJ. 30. Kandakasi J., in his decision in the P’Nyang and Kanga Kawira cases correctly calls them “fraudsters and thieves.”[27] As was noted by his honour in his judgments, the PNG LNG project presents a clear case on point. In this project, despite s. 47 of the Oil and Gas Act, both the State and the developers have failed to properly identify the true and correct landowners, properly organising them into ILGs, enable the landowners to fairly and meaningfully enter into negotiations with the developers and the State and for the developers and the State to seek and secure from the true and correct landowners through their duly elected or appointed leaders the landowners free and informed consent and approval and ultimately, their social license to operate. The contracts or agreements and the deals the State and developers enter into with persons not properly identified and appointed by the landowning clans, or groups, remain null and void ab initio or void and of no effect from the very beginning. Given that, when the true and correct owners eventually assert their ownership rights and exercise their rights, challenging the contracts or deals with the fraudsters and or thieves, they must give way. Such contracts do not bind the true and correct landowners. If need be, the State and or the developer concerned need to enter into completely new contracts with the true and correct landowners on terms that are fair and reasonable with reasonable compensation being paid for the earlier illegal entry, occupation and conduct of their businesses. …………………… The above supreme Court ruling makes reference to Section 47 of the Oil & Gas Act and the PNG LNG case ADR/Mediation is leading toward above ruling. It is never too late to discuss the social licensing aspect of project operation than the legal licensing process as the law is very clear and Exxon Mobil and the State failed from the onset. regards

Thank you 'Vailala' for such an erodite summary of some of the complex legal elements involved, including the longer-term responsibilities for maintaining the social license and the political economy around transaction costs. The chosen pseudonym was most apt, presumably referencing the Vailala Madness cargo cult which operated in Papua between 1919 and 1922. There does indeed seem to be a cargo cult madness in this experience by ExxonMobil and Oil Search, where "DPE “acceptance” of the developer submitted SMLIS reports a DPE endorsement' was assumed dispositive (thanks for new Scrabble word) and enough to extract the cargo of LNG riches. The cargo has started to flow for these companies, but it may be madness to assume this will continue without a just settlement for landowners. With respect Paul Flanagan

Thank you Mr. Owen for your invaluable dedication and commitment and personal vocation to the development of Papua New Guinea.