Arguments against amendments to the Environment Act

By SAM BASIL

Bulolo MP

 

The government of the day representing the people of Papua New Guinea has gone on the defense against increasing concerns from the public regarding the infamous Environment Act amendment, and sadly has not come out clearly to explain some of its actions.

It seems this National Alliance-led coalition government has not learnt its lesson from the unpopular rushed decision making, which saw the nation stood up in peaceful democratic fashion to denounce the Maladina bill amendment a couple of months ago.

There is increasing public pressure, especially from different groups of resource owners around the nation, through the media regarding the recent amendment to the Environment Act which was voted for by 73 MPs and against 10 MPs on May 28th in the last parliament sitting.

According to the initial explanation by Environment and Conservation Minister Benny Allan, these changes to the nation’s laws regarding its vast natural environment outlaws third party lawsuits against resource developers.

Third party groups in the government’s view are special interest groups who are not direct stakeholders in developments on resources around the nation.

It is true that third party groups are involved; however it is interesting to note that the minister forgot that apart from NGOs and special interest groups campaigning against the amendment, the genuine resources owners and landowners have from day one made their stance known that they will suffer from environmental damages.

Nine days after the passage of this act, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare reportedly expressed that the public, especially the resource owners, were confused and have misinterpreted the changes in this law, which he claimed have not lowered the standards of environment protection.

The public’s opinion that the government is protecting the interest of the foreign investors was confirmed by the PM where he was quoted in The National (June 8 2010) that ‘it would be irresponsible for the government not to protect the interest of the developers that have complied with our environment regulations and have been issued permits.’

The following day Sir Michael met with the media in Port Moresby and blasted them, NGOs and the judiciary, for misinforming the public, being an illegal representative body representing no one and the latter for prolonged court decisions.

This time he admitted that the rushed amendment was executed on the floor of parliament because of the delay in the courts regarding Ramu Nickel, and that time was running out as the stakeholders (government and developer) have their targets to meet.

 He feared that the nation would lose a lot if the investors were not happy, especially the Chinese developer who were convinced by him four years ago to engage in PNG under a massive US$800m investment.

When time is mentioned, it is fair that changes to national laws on the floor of parliament should be given enough time to be studied, enough time to consult the people, and enough time to be debated before any amendment.

According to Sir Michael, deep sea tailing is the best option available according to advice from the ‘three best brains’ who are the two secretaries and the Scottish Association of Marine Science.

However apart from the latter, how genuine and respectable are the two senior government bureaucrats when it comes to scientific research matters?

Genuine resource owners from the concerned areas have made known in the three forms of media that not all options of waste disposal methods have been exhausted, however it is sad to note that Rai Coast MP James Gau, the newly-elected leader of the very people who are calling out for help against damages to their land and sea, has called on his people to focus on the ‘development aspect of the project’.

It is very dangerous to imply that we should continue ahead and see developments, and then deal with damages to the people and the natural environment later.

It is also frightening to know that the department concern does not have the capacity to assess environmental plans by companies but can still give out permits, according to Tiffany Nongorr, the environment lawyer representing the Basamuk landowners in the current court battle.

The politicians who voted for and supported the amendment including Sir Michael Somare, Benny Allen and James Gau have forgotten that the local communities are the rightful landowners and have the right to decide on their land, without being influenced, controlled or bullied politically.

This string of events on the floor of parliament is not a good precedence, and will increasingly pave way for foreign giant corporate investors to side with this government to exploit and profit in corrupt manner while the already suppressed people suffer at their expense.

I stood to debate this bill but the speaker was very selective to only allow Luther Wenge and John Luke, with both governors speaking in support of the bill.

 If I would have been given the chance to speak representing my affected communities, then I was ready to remind MPs who represents resource-rich electorates that we all have a duty as representatives of those land owners and affected communities to protect their rights from such an unpopular bill.

If I would have supported the bill then I would have done injustice to my people who are currently being affected in the Watut river communities.

On behalf of my people in Bulolo, I now call on the MPs representing resource project areas from both the government and the opposition to come together and to support a private members bill to repeal this law for the good of our resource owners