“STATE OWNERSHIP OF MINERALS IS VITAL to the development of PNG as a nation. State control of resources allows them to be developed for the benefits of all citizens as required by the Constitution”. Bear in mind here that this is an argument that is coming from no one other than the President of the Papua New Guinea Chamber of Mines and Petroleum, Mr Greg Anderson (Post Courier 25th of August 2009).
Mr Anderson is concerned about proposed ammendments to the Mining Act which will divest the state of its ownership over mining and petroleum resources and transfer it to private ownership. It is not clear from the Post Courier article which category of people who shall be entitled to ”private ownership” of resources but my hunch is that it would be landowners. If this assumption is in fact correct then, Mr Anderson is gravely concerned that
Again it is critical that the Post Courier should have specified who represents the class of private owners. But for the sake of argument, if these were landowners, then the argument Mr Anderson advocates is already in the interest of some private interest. In this regard the State should maintain its hold over such resources so that it could facilitate the exploitation and we know enough from Karl Marx about how the State institutions and bureaucrats serve in that regard.
If it were the landowners, why should we slavishly abide to a common law principle (the State ownership of resources) that doesnt comply with how Melanesians think and relate to land and questions of ownership? What are the philosophical assumptions that should now inform such an ammendment?
Mr Anderson makes a valid argument about the guarantee that a State should provide in such a scale of resource extraction. He also associates the State with orderliness, regulation redistribution of wealth and benefits. Is it not time enough to try out out alternative legislative frameworks that could achieve similar or better results than our present paradigm of State ownership. This is not the first time that this question has been debate. Two prominent Papua New Guinean legal thinkers, Bernard Narokobi and Peter Donigi, have wrestled with these questions in two separate books. It seems the question about State ownership versus a nation of landowners will never be resolved, and if paradigms are meant to be superceded then we live in an epochal moment where the possibility of initiating such a resolve begins with question of landownership in Melanesia
He said an exploration tenement gave the holder the right to explore for minerals or oil and gas which is an expensive and high risk activity.
The explorer’s only security is the tenement and the guarantee provided by the State that the explorer will have the right to develop any discoveries made on the tenement in accordance with requirements and obligations set by the State, Mr Anderson said.
“If any potential explorer believes that the State will not, or cannot, provide this guarantee with an acceptable risk profile then the explorer will not invest exploration dollars.”
You are right Andrew.
I read the Post Courier article too and it seems, the claims by Mr Anderson that “there will be no benifits to anyone” and “only a few lucky individuals will benifit at the expense of the rest” is completely out of place.
Firstly as it stands, there is currently very little benifit to the land owners and more benifit to the foreigners from how I percieve things. So the proposed change will seek to address that by causing the land owners to benifit more.
Secondly the “few lucky individuals” he talks about are in fact the rightful landowners who have owned that land for generations. What in the world was Mr Anderson thinking when he made that statement. They have the birth right over that land. They have been sitting on that land for millenia. You either talk and negotiate through them properly, or find another country to abuse. But we are having none of the same old thing about mines coming in, to steal our resources and leave us with a big hole in the ground, dirty rivers and nothing financially whatsoever to show for it.
Mr Anderson should learn our melanesian customs first before he opens up his mouth and speaks non sense on behalf of the foreingers that he seems to represent. We Papua New Guineans have had enough of all these Westernized mindset way of thinking, about analysing how we should control our own resources. If those big companies are not happy with the propsed changes, please leave now. The Indians and chinese are knocking, and do not waste out opputunity to get a better deal when we want it.
The rightful land owners must get more equity than what is now seen. For far too long, the people have just been left on the side and their resources extracted without compensation that is commensurate with the untold damage that it leaves behind to the future generations.
If any mining developer does not like the proposed mining ammendments than they can leave the country, because it shows that they are not genuine with the people, they are only here to take our resources.
If a mine does not benifit the local people than it should not exist. In our country, all foreign companies wanting to make a buck out of our resources must serve us first, we do not serve them. The proposed changes are good for the land owners.
We Papua New Guineans have to be strict with our resources. The world will still come back to us to for our minerals because they are running out of places else where to mine and drill for it.
Where else can you get the array of mineral wealth that we have. Only in Papua New Guinea.
The Melanesian » Blog Archive » State against a nation of landowners great article thank you.
Thanks for this article. My people are affected greatly as my tribe own a land that is full of gold and forest. Logging companies have been nagging my people for a while now. You can check out what I wrote on my blog on August 27th 2009.
Keep it up!!
Just playing the Devils advocate here, but do we run the risk of creating controversial mining billionaires like in Russia. For example could non-landowners with allot of money get into partnerships with landowners?
Just like what Ruth is saying about logging companies nagging landowners.
Please allow me to an important thing that we people believed that is ok, but I am sorry to say that, we been blind folded, by foreigners for the last 34 years by allowing them to withdraw the power of gold out of the Banking system on 01st November 1972.
Without your knowledge PNG is loosing more than K5M kina every day without your knowledge, because the power of gold that supposed to backed the local kina moni has been replaced by FIAT PAPER MONEY without a value, meaning if their is nor foreign money in the reserve of BPNG, the kina will loose it more value thats what happen not long ago when it shrink down to 0.19
Please ask around why PNG is number ninth gold producing country and has no gold reserve in BPNG vault to physically backed the Kina moni?
My fellow PNGn, we are sitting on time bomb, if there will be no more export and no dollars in the reserve, the kina will be shrink down like throwing stone in the river…… please give this a serious thought… and please surf this website to learn more what Im saying here: http://www.globalallianceassnnew.org
Tenk yu tru