From PAUL OATES
"The director's decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law!" Is this proviso possible under the Papua New Guinea Constitution?
_______________________________________________-
PARLIAMENT PASSES BILL STOPPING LANDOWNERS INTERFERING WITH DEVELOPING PROJECT
May 28, 2010
By Scott Waide
28 MAY - NEWS FLASH! PARLIAMENT PASSES BILL STOPPING LANDOWNERS INTERFERING WITH DEVELOPING PROJECTS
This just came from scribes in Parliament: Parliament has just passed a new law stopping landowners from interfering with developing companies like Ramu Nickel and LNG. This effectively stops landowners from expressing how they
feel about developing projects.
Ten from the Opposition voted against it. Seventy three voted for it.
-S (http://www.tingtingblokantri.blogspot.com/)
_______________________________________________-
SUMMARY AND NOTES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 2000.
The first two paragraphs are explanatory notes stating why the changes to the Environment act 200 should happen. Third paragraph is part of the law while the fourth to the seventh paragraph are explanations of the law changes. Paragraph 6 & 7 are interesting.
1) The explanatory notes state that: STATE THE LAW IS BEING MADE IN LIGHT OF RECENT COURT DECISION THAT HAS EXPOSED RESOURCE PROJECTS TO THE RISK THAT ANY PERMITS GRANTED BY THE STATE IN SATISFACTION OF LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE.
2) The notes also state: A THIRD PARTY (FINANCED BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS), ALTHOUGH NOT STAKEHOLDERS CAN NOW CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF LEGAL PERMITS AND FRUSTRATE WORKS CARRIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE LAWFUL PERMITS. .ALL MAJOR MINING AND PETROLEUM RESOURCE PROJECTS (SUCH AS LNG) ARE PARTICULARLY AT RISK AFFECTING THE ECONOMY AND THEREFORE A MATTER OF NATIONAL INTEREST..
3) The original section s. 69 under the environmental act 2000 reads as follows: 69. STAY OF OPERATION OF ORIGINAL DECISION.
(1) Where an application is made for review of a decision, and the operation of the decision of the Director is not suspended in accordance with Section 68(2), the applicant may apply to the National Court for a stay of operation
of the decision.
(2) Where the Court is of the opinion that a stay of operation is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the review, the Court may order that operation of the decision be stayed.
(3) A stay has effect for the period stated by the Court and may be subject to any conditions that the Court thinks fit.
(4) The period of a stay shall not extend past the time when the Council reviews the decision and any later period the Court may allow to enable the applicant to appeal against the Council?s decision in relation to the review.
4) They have added a new section 69A authorising the Director (Wari Iamo) to authorise carrying out of specific acts,( including but not limited to those listed in section 42) and are not part of the initial conditions of the
permit, notwithstanding anything in any other law in force before or after this amendment
5) Then they add a new section 69B that merely states once this authorisation in s.69 A is given, the permit holder is entitled to carry out these activities, and such carrying out of work or activity does not constitute a civil cause of action, whether in tort or other law, and it is not an offense, and it is not unlawful..
6) They have added a new section 87A which says Wari Iamo can grant "exemption certificates" to permit holders that effectively states certain activities not included in the authorising instrument (permit )but was carried out is an "exempt operation" provided the activity was carried out in accordance with the original authorising instrument.This section further states the granting of exemption certificates, the director is NOT bound by any law requiring authority or consent or approval etc.
7) The director's decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law! They have also included in s. 87B that a holder of a authorising instrument (permit etc..) may apply for a "best practice certificate" basically stating the methodology they have used is or proposed to be used is the best standards or best practice standards available( whether engineering, environmental or otherwise).
"The director's decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law!" Is this proviso possible under the Papua New Guinea Constitution?
_______________________________________________-
PARLIAMENT PASSES BILL STOPPING LANDOWNERS INTERFERING WITH DEVELOPING PROJECT
May 28, 2010
By Scott Waide
28 MAY - NEWS FLASH! PARLIAMENT PASSES BILL STOPPING LANDOWNERS INTERFERING WITH DEVELOPING PROJECTS
This just came from scribes in Parliament: Parliament has just passed a new law stopping landowners from interfering with developing companies like Ramu Nickel and LNG. This effectively stops landowners from expressing how they
feel about developing projects.
Ten from the Opposition voted against it. Seventy three voted for it.
-S (http://www.tingtingblokantri.blogspot.com/)
_______________________________________________-
SUMMARY AND NOTES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 2000.
The first two paragraphs are explanatory notes stating why the changes to the Environment act 200 should happen. Third paragraph is part of the law while the fourth to the seventh paragraph are explanations of the law changes. Paragraph 6 & 7 are interesting.
1) The explanatory notes state that: STATE THE LAW IS BEING MADE IN LIGHT OF RECENT COURT DECISION THAT HAS EXPOSED RESOURCE PROJECTS TO THE RISK THAT ANY PERMITS GRANTED BY THE STATE IN SATISFACTION OF LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE.
2) The notes also state: A THIRD PARTY (FINANCED BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS), ALTHOUGH NOT STAKEHOLDERS CAN NOW CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF LEGAL PERMITS AND FRUSTRATE WORKS CARRIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE LAWFUL PERMITS. .ALL MAJOR MINING AND PETROLEUM RESOURCE PROJECTS (SUCH AS LNG) ARE PARTICULARLY AT RISK AFFECTING THE ECONOMY AND THEREFORE A MATTER OF NATIONAL INTEREST..
3) The original section s. 69 under the environmental act 2000 reads as follows: 69. STAY OF OPERATION OF ORIGINAL DECISION.
(1) Where an application is made for review of a decision, and the operation of the decision of the Director is not suspended in accordance with Section 68(2), the applicant may apply to the National Court for a stay of operation
of the decision.
(2) Where the Court is of the opinion that a stay of operation is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the review, the Court may order that operation of the decision be stayed.
(3) A stay has effect for the period stated by the Court and may be subject to any conditions that the Court thinks fit.
(4) The period of a stay shall not extend past the time when the Council reviews the decision and any later period the Court may allow to enable the applicant to appeal against the Council?s decision in relation to the review.
4) They have added a new section 69A authorising the Director (Wari Iamo) to authorise carrying out of specific acts,( including but not limited to those listed in section 42) and are not part of the initial conditions of the
permit, notwithstanding anything in any other law in force before or after this amendment
5) Then they add a new section 69B that merely states once this authorisation in s.69 A is given, the permit holder is entitled to carry out these activities, and such carrying out of work or activity does not constitute a civil cause of action, whether in tort or other law, and it is not an offense, and it is not unlawful..
6) They have added a new section 87A which says Wari Iamo can grant "exemption certificates" to permit holders that effectively states certain activities not included in the authorising instrument (permit )but was carried out is an "exempt operation" provided the activity was carried out in accordance with the original authorising instrument.This section further states the granting of exemption certificates, the director is NOT bound by any law requiring authority or consent or approval etc.
7) The director's decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law! They have also included in s. 87B that a holder of a authorising instrument (permit etc..) may apply for a "best practice certificate" basically stating the methodology they have used is or proposed to be used is the best standards or best practice standards available( whether engineering, environmental or otherwise).
No comments:
Post a Comment