 Alan, what do you think Papua New Guinea's major achievements have been since independence? I think we've progressed quite a bit, maybe not so much in terms of human development, but individually there's been a lot of achievements I think that are notable. The fact that we've gone kind of like from Stone Age 40 years ago, you know, you now have pilots, Papua New Guinea pilots flying all over the world, engineers, doctors, I mean, you get a lot of them here in Australia as well. So in terms of that, being able to adapt to the modern world and being able to move forward, I think we've done well there. In terms of being able to keep up with our rapidly expanding population, I think we've struggled a little bit simply because I don't think we've seen that as an issue. I think it's only hit us in the last few years that, hey, maybe one of the reasons why, you know, because if you look at our infrastructure for hospitals and schools and a lot of those sorts of things, we've got the same infrastructure that's been there since independence, and we haven't expanded the infrastructure to cater for the growth in terms of an expanding population. In terms of, you know, other things, you know, maybe to do with like the economy, it's expanded greatly. I am not convinced that in terms of that expansion with a lot of that value has filtered down to the majority of Papua New Guineans in terms of them being able to participate in the prosperity. I think in terms of, you know, literacy and all those kinds of things, we've progressed quite a bit. In terms of the stats, if you look at them, but largely if you balance it against things like general human development and empowerment, I don't think we've done so well. And what do you think the biggest challenges for PNG are going forward? I think the biggest challenge in my mind is engaging that large segment of our population, that young segment. And that's about two to three million people that I think that don't have jobs, that don't have an opportunity for doing something positive with their lives, whether it be in terms of their own natural talent or whether it be in making money so that they can have choices. I think that's a huge challenge. Everything else, if you were to break it down and look at what's the lowest common denominator, to me it's that. Do you think that there are opportunities for young people in the agriculture sector? Absolutely. I mean, if you were to take a smart business approach and you sat down and looked at Papua New Guinean, you asked yourself, if I was to invest a certain sum of money here and you asked yourself, where could I invest it so that it would do the most good? It might not work for everybody, but it would work for a large chunk of the population and where it would solve or at least provide solutions to the majority of your challenges. To me, that would be agriculture. I think in the absence of other tools, we can talk about education, but that's long term. And we haven't really answered the question of, okay, once we keep these young people in school for 15 to 20 years and when they come out, what do we do with them then? We haven't, I think, sufficiently thought about that and how we're going to solve that. So to me, in the absence of that, if you want an easy entry point into resolving this issue of engagement for this large segment of the population, to me it's in agriculture, why do I say that? Well, there are several reasons. First and foremost, 97% of the land in Papua New Guinea is not owned by the government. It's owned by members of this community, I'm speaking, of the 3 million-odd young people. They could have easy access to this land, maybe not all of them, but most of them would. If you can then find a way to gainfully engage them, so that they're doing something useful that is benefiting themselves. They're not sitting around idly under some coconut tree, reminiscing about, there's no way I can have a TV set or a fancy mobile phone, maybe I need to steal some money or steal a phone or sell myself to get money in order to have access to those sorts of goods. So to me, you can't go past agriculture because the land is there, it's available. Only 2% of our land, both state land and traditional land is currently used for agriculture, so there's a vast potential there. Secondly, the level of our type of agriculture is not highly intensive and complicated like you have in Western countries with mechanized farming and so on and so forth. It's done on a small scale. The inputs are quite low, you don't need complicated tools, knowledge, some upskilling in terms of work practices and so on and so forth may be required. The investment would not be too big. You could have a program where you're supplying seeds, supplying tools, skills and then having them produce something that could be marketed somewhere else and having a method of encouraging them and not just focusing on a short term program. Five years I don't think is enough if you're going to change culture and if you're going to shift people away from where they're currently comfortable into an area that could potentially be of value to them and a potential future pathway. So I would say a 10 to 15 year program of investment into that sector would be useful and I'm not talking large scale farms. You could be employing some of the more proven concepts, things like having nucleus estates with small holders around them who are then, you know, the issue of scale is resolved by having the large estate and it doesn't have to be government run. I mean initially to provide the enabling environment you may need to invest government money but as you begin to build up scale and production numbers increase you might be able to attract a large commercial entity to come in and take advantage of the opportunities. I mean you look at cocoa for instance, Papua New Guinea produces less than 40,000 tons of cocoa annually. Most of our cocoa farms produce about 300 kilos per hectare of land used just by improving agronomic practices that's the same trees that are there now on the same block of land you can be able to increase production up to 3 tons a hectare. That's possible but that sort of work is not being done at all and once you're able to increase productivity of course the farmer makes a lot more money and they become interested to stay in there and to do stuff. They then become empowered if they choose to better their kids education, pay for better health services or anything else you know change their homestead from one that's built from touched materials to permanent materials they will then have access to the cash they need to do all of those sorts of things.