Comments

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

Hi I have been working with a group in Lao developing a dictionary khmua to Lao Chinese English Thai. In practical terms where can we apply to for funding $1600 USD to publish. An important step in preservation of the language. Thank you.

I concur with John I Tambiabu’s analysis which I believe is substantially correct. I would like to add some further comments on the basic issues and how this mess came about. The common law doctrine of landownership as the holding of an “estate” does not apply in PNG to customary landownership. The State, it may be said, holds bare radical title to the customary-owned lands of PNG. Customary landowners hold their land, in accordance with their customs, without encumbrances from the State. Except that the State by Oil & Gas Act asserts the ownership of petroleum. The issuance of a development licence by the State to a developer for the purpose of extracting petroleum from customary-owned land and the consequent creation of a title, or property right, to this uplifted petroleum is only made good after identifying the customary landowners, securing their agreement to the development, and granting, by statute, the benefit of royalty to the identified landowners. This is a compensation for the State’s taking which is guaranteed under the Constitution and made effective by statute. It is important to note that the legislation establishing the PNG Land Court gives it both a narrow procedural character and a wide processual ambit. There are no legal presumptions in action as to the concept of ‘property’ and ‘ownership’. Instead the Court is under a duty to elicit from the parties whatever conceptions that the parties consider relevant to an issue. For petroleum project landowners (usually those who satisfy the ‘earmarks of ownership’ test within a petroleum ‘block’) the specific issue is the joining of a statutorily conferred benefit to a customary law-based right. The PNG legislative and juridical approach to the joining of state law and customary law is, in my opinion, highly original and well-deserving of close study by legal scholars and social scientists interested in legal pluralism and customary law. In the 1990s the developers OSL and Chevron (and later ExxonMobil) decided for odd reasons to disregard the laws of PNG and not disclose the personal identity of petroleum ‘block’ customary landowners to the Department of Petroleum and Energy (DPE). Additionally, OSL and Chevron (and later ExxonMobil) continued to submit to the DPE SMLIS reports that described customary landownership in terms that were both unanchored in PNG law and adverse to PNG law. In response the DPE proposed an SMLIS regulation that was intended to rectify the obvious shortcomings of the developer submitted SMLIS reports. OSL (and the PNG Chamber of Mining and Petroleum) opposed the making of this SMLIS regulation. I believe that the Clan Vetting Process was devised by the DPE in order to overcome the obvious shortcomings caused by the developers refusal to comply with the statutory requirement for landowner identification studies in a manner consonant with and cognizant of the laws of PNG. Looking at the contemporary situation there should be no surprise that Justice Kandakasi chose scathing terms to describe the shortcomings of the SMLIS statements that were tendered to the Court in the P’nyang Case. It is also unsurprising that his Honour concluded that without the basic PNG legislative requirement for full-scale SMLISs being satisfied the developer has neither met the development licence issuance requirements nor gained a ‘social licence to operate’ by way of the ‘prior and informed consent’ of legally identified project affected landowners. Accordingly, the developer (and the Australian-based consultants who prepared the reports that were tendered in the P’nyang Case) may be described as having insufficient respect for the laws of PNG. It may also be the case that the developer is in breach of World Bank/IFC and Exim-Bank loan conditions which require compliance with the laws of PNG. The fact that the DPE received the defective SMLIS reports does not absolve the developer from all responsibility in this mess. In my opinion it would be unconscionable for ExxonMobil to now claim that they have played the game without fault on their part. I note that ExxonMobil has publicly signalled its support for the ADR process initiated by Justice Kandakasi. As it must.

Yes, totally agree that people should be able to choose to bring their families. Those on Australia Awards scholarships have the choice to bring their families and have to support them on their own, why should it be different for those doing unskilled labour? This could also make the program more accessible to women, who may be more reluctant to leave family behind, or may have more freedom to travel if they are able to bring their spouse. I reckon there's a lot of rural and regional towns that would really welcome an injection of kids into their primary schools etc as well. A former colleague of mine bought her family out with her to do Australia Award study in Armadale (not that small a place I know) and it was a very positive experience, the community was very supportive.