Counting the cost of a bad decision

IS the Great Gold Debate over?
Who has won – the State, the private promoter or the people?
As it stands, there are no outright winners or losers.
The matter is held in abeyance, suspended for the time being by the withdrawal of the two proposed laws supporting the National Gold Corporation Project and Shareholders Agreement.
The laws have been withdrawn from Parliament’s Notice Paper but that just means they are not available for consideration by the National Parliament.
They can, however, be introduced at some future date at the discretion of the Government.
What must concern the State now is the project and shareholders’ agreement which, for all intent and purpose, remains in force.
That agreement was signed by Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae for the State and proponents of the project, Refinery Holdings, on Oct 29, 2021.
By its own terms, the Agreement became life at the point of the signing. That means that all the terms and conditions set in the agreement was binding upon both parties at that point.
It was only to have been executed at the point when the two laws were published in the National Gazette.
The point of the agreement being life was the cause for the rushed nature of all that transpired after the signing. No sooner after the agreement was signed, it was discovered that the State needed a Gold Bullion Policy and supporting laws and regulations for the entire project to rest on. Both policy and laws were to be passed in 2022.
A National Gold Bullion Policy was force-marched through the Department of Commerce and Industry in early 2022 but that did not materialise in that year because of stiff resistance from all industry players who wanted more time for consultation.
The same reason also delayed the presentation and possible passage of the National Gold Corporation Bill 2022 and the National Gold Corporation (Project & Shareholders) Bill 2022.
The policy was eventually launched in May 2023 and the two bills were presented to Parliament and placed on the Notice Paper in February 2024.
Until the laws were presented, the contents of the agreement were not disclosed. Although pirated copies have made their reluctant way into the public domain, the State and its private partner have not officially published the contents of the agreement.
But now, the laws have been delayed further and its chief political proponent in Rainbo Paita not occupying a seat in Cabinet, it is likely Refinery Holdings might be closely reading relevant parts of the agreement pertaining to unfair termination of agreement and compensatory clauses.
The State and its lawyers should likewise be reading the same clauses closely as well as those pertaining to actions not in the national interest, actions taken or planned that are deemed to be illegal or that will cause serious damage to the country’s reputation and economic interests.
Since the Agreement is life, what aspects or parts of it are actionable if at all? If both policy and legislation were conditions in the Agreement for the State to meet, the failure to arrive at the laws within a reasonable time might be claimed against the State by Refinery Holdings.
The other question to ask is what are the upfront financial commitments made by the Refinery Holdings? All we have seen are State commitments of K10 million each in two national budgets towards the project.
However, it is each passing day is a cost against the State unless it moves quickly to stay the effect of the agreement.
This newspaper has held all along that the agreement and the consequential actions taken by the State have not been carefully considered, that they were rushed, and that in the final analysis the contents of both the agreement, certain aspects of the policy and much of the parts of the proposed laws were not in the best interest of PNG.
We have had support in this.