Morobe bush pilot Richard Leahy out of hospital

Pilot Richard Leahy in Lae.-Picture courtesy of JUSTIN TYLAN of PACIFIC WRECKS

The remains of the Kiunga Aviation Cessna 185 after the fatal crash last Dec 30.-Picture by BUSTIN ANZU

By MALUM NALU

Bush pilot Richard Leahy says the death of six of his passengers on the ill-fated Cessna 185 flight in the Finisterre mountains of Morobe province last Dec 30 is something that he will live with until he dies.
Leahy, who was recently released from hospital in Brisbane after suffering a broken back and severe burns to more than 60% of his body, said on Sunday that he was awaiting the outcome of a Civil Aviation Agency investigation into why the engine failed that fateful day.
“I was released from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) on March 26, 2010,” he said from Brisbane.
“I was admitted after having been evacuated from Lae by jet on the day of the accident, Dec 30.
“I remain an outpatient at RBWH and visit for treatment four mornings per week.
“This will last until March 2011.”
Leahy also described comments made by Morobe Governor Luther Wenge against him as “unwarranted”.
Wenge stirred up a hornet’s nest when he threatened to have the renowned and respected pilot charged with manslaughter and deported from the country.
“I felt as soon as I became aware that he (Wenge) had made them (comments) that they were unwarranted,” Leahy said.
“I have conducted commercial flying operations in PNG but mainly in the Morobe Province since 1964.
“During that time I have carried, whilst single pilot in command, over 50,000 passengers - the overwhelming majority of whom were PNG citizens.
“Up until Dec 30, 2009, the day of my accident, I had never caused any injury to any of my 50,000 passengers.
“The fact that six died on that day will weigh heavily with me for the rest of my life.”
Leahy said although this was an accident that he could not have prevented, he was awaiting the CAA findings on why the engine failed on that flight.
“If an aircraft is properly maintained and the pilot carries out his duties in accordance with the set down procedures, aircraft engines simply should not fail,” he said.
“Normally, there is some warning if an engine is developing serious problems and remedial maintenance can be carried out prior to further flight.
“With this particular failure, there was absolutely no warning.
“During the 24,000 hours I have spent flying light aircraft around PNG, I had had only one previous engine failure.
“I landed the aircraft in a lake and my two passengers and myself escaped unscathed.
“The engine failure was due to bad maintenance and I recovered monetary damages from the people that I had contracted with to carry out my maintenance at that time.
“Needless to repeat, my thoughts have gone out to the next of kin of those six souls lost on that day and will always remain with them and those that were lost.”
Leahy said about seven minutes into the flight, he noticed the oil pressure dropping off rapidly.
“I immediately turned back towards Nadzab airport, but the engine stopped soon after,” he said.
“I broadcast a mayday (distress call) to CAA at Nadzab and tried to carry out a landing on rough country.
“I do not remember the impact, but clearly recall finding myself on my back outside the aircraft with my legs in the fire.
“I managed to use my hands and arms to pull myself clear.
“My memory from that point on for 28 days is not clear.”
Leahy said he wished to return to PNG after his rehabilitation was completed next March.
“I am and will continue to wear a head-to-foot burns suit until March next year,” he said.
“This suit does not go well in tropical heat.
“At the moment my voice is not good and because of this I would not be able to renew my flying licence.
“If this problem is rectified, I will resume flying.”

More effort needed to fight cocoa pod borer

DAL senior officers Francis Daink (dark glasses) and Mika Andrew (right) chat with a cocoa farmer at the Pasi resource centre near Vanimo where the provincial administration is distributing cocoa seedlings to farmers
DAL and provincial administration officials inspect a cocoa nursery block at Pasi farming station near Vanimo

By SOLDIER BURUKA of DAL

Secretary for Agriculture and Livestock Anton Benjamin has called on stakeholders to make a more concerted effort in the fight against cocoa pod borer (CPB).
Benjamin said the stakeholders including government agencies, the private sector and the provinces needed to work closely in developing appropriate strategies to deal with the CPB infestation.
Cocoa is the third largest export commodity generating over K300 million annually, however, if CPB is left unchecked has the potential to reduce production by 90%.
The invasive pest has now spread to all seven major cocoa-growing provinces since it was first detected in 2006 in East New Britain.
Benjamin expressed concern that every effort including funding by government towards eradicating and containing CPB had not proved successful and it was important now that the mode of controlling it had to change from eradication to management.
This is a major concern to the government and the industry and immediate action needs to be taken.
Benjamin made the comments during a meeting with representatives from the Cocoa Board, Cocoa Coconut Institute, National Agriculture Research Institute, National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority, Rural Industries Council, East New Britain, Madang and Autonomous Region of Bougainville.
The stakeholders met in Port Moresby last week to discuss the setting up of a national CPB steering committee, national CPB strategy and programme and to effectively utilise the K20 million allocated for CPB in the 2010 budget.
Benjamin stressed that a collaborative approach was needed and an action plan for both medium to long-term had be developed and considered with appropriate interventions such as the World Bank.
He said that active promotion, facilitation and the adoption of CPB management practices including the integrated pest disease management (IPDM) technology should be considered as a priority, together with improved training and awareness on CPB management, provision of appropriate equipment, and provision of high yielding cocoa planting material.
“The approach to manage CPB infestation is basically the adoption of good farming practices including, but not restricted to the technology currently available,” Benjamin said.
“We should now deal with CPB in a more-concerted way and ensure CPB infestation is reduced to less than 10% of the production.”
Benjamin informed stakeholders that despite the CPB threat, cocoa exports reached a record high for the 2008/9 cocoa year.
This was attributed to the high cocoa prices on the world market, support by the European Union to supply 12 million cocoa seedlings to Bougainville and significant investment by MPs to fund cocoa development in their electorates.
There is also high demand for PNG cocoa for its fine flavor status.
Cocoa Board acting CEO Lauatu Tautea said amidst the CPB threat, the board had identified development programmes aimed at taking the industry forward and to maintain cocoa quality, increase production and income of farmers and address extension issues.
The vision of the industry is to ensure an internationally-competitive and viable cocoa industry that supports the national government in its efforts to promote economic and social development and thus improve the standard of living.
Other key programmes include cocoa quality improvement, pest and disease control, farmer training and farm rehabilitation and co-operative marketing.
Provincial representatives said the national government must inject more funding and resources to tackle the CPB infestation otherwise it would continue to spread to other cocoa-growing areas not already affected.
They also called for more awareness on CPB.
The meeting resolved to establish a CPB strategic plan task force comprised of representatives from DAL, Cocoa Board, CCI, NAQIA, NARI and two provincial representatives.
The task force has the specific purpose of developing a strategic plan to deal with the CPB on a national basis and will cover awareness, rehabilitation, redevelopment, research, monitoring and evaluation and finance.

Changes to the Papua New Guinea Environment Bill

From PAUL OATES

Can someone please direct Mr Benny Allan, Papua New Guinea's Minister for Environment and Conservation to how many other countries are successfully able to develop their natural resources and still protect their environment.
 It doesn't take much to learn from others if you are able and willing to understand what the issues are.
Could someone please take Gov Luther Wenge aside and point out what he said in Parliament will be his political epitaph when people realise what he has actively supported this law with statements like:
"I urge the people and leaders alike to put our personal and political interests aside. " and,
"As I speak I am very mindful of the Rai Coast people where a lot of them are going to be affected." and finally,
"I hope the Government, in the coming days will make sure that the interest of the landowners will be catered for."
Will someone explain to Mr John Luke about such 'mundane' things as his people's own food chain when he says, "I know, maybe, down at the bottom of the sea a few worms will suffer but compare that with the damage that they will do on the land, if they have to dispose the tailings there. "
Finally, could some kind soul explain to the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Jeffery Nape, the correct procedures for ensuring there is full and open debate and how to conduct a proper and impartial vote on such an important issue.
All those who are prepared to speak about a Bill should be allowed to debate it before it is read a third time and becomes law.
On the heads of these men and their government backers now lies the future of their people's health and well being.
 Clearly they have given this an immense amount of consideration before they supported this change in their country's legislation.
I wonder will PNG voters give a lot more thought to this travesty of parliamentary principles and political integrity when next they vote?

Hansard of the Environment Act 2000

ENVIRONMENT ACT 2000

First Reading 

Bill presented by Mr Benny Allen and read a first time.

Second Reading 

Leave granted to move the second reading forthwith.

Mr BENNY ALLAN (Unggai-Bena – Minister for Environment and Conservation) – I move – That the Bill be now read a second time.

 

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to explain the purpose of the amendment act to the Environment Act 2002. 

Mr Speaker, the matter prescribed in the Environment (Amendment) Bill 2010 will supplement and give full effect and enable the holders of environment permits to comply with the standards and the requirements set by their permits. The proposed amendment will also mitigate the risks associated with third party litigation that resource projects are now exposed to. 

A recent Court decision against the State has exposed resource projects to the risk of that environment permit granted by the State in satisfaction of legal and scientific requirements, may not be valid and enforceable. A third party financed by a special interest groups although not a stakeholder in such projects can challenge the validity of an environment permit and frustrate work and activities that are carried out in accordance with such permits for approvals. 

The idea that this is capable of happening even though any such projects that have operated strictly within the terms of those permits gives rise to a concern of national priority. All major mining and petroleum projects including the PNG LNG Projects are particularly at risk, whether they be already operating in construction or proposed. This presents a significant threat to the Papua New Guinea economy and the investor confidence. Therefore, it is a matter of utmost national significance. 

Amendments that would need to be made to the Environment Act 2000 through the proposed (Environment Act) Bill 2010, are intended to assist the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Courts in better interpreting and applying our environmental laws in the national interest of Papua New Guinea. Therefore, it is imperative that the proposed amendment be brought into effect immediately as possible. 

Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill.

Motion – That the question be now put – agreed to.

Motion (by Mr Benny Allen) agreed to –

That the Bill be now read a second time. 

Third Reading 

Leave granted to move the third reading forthwith. 

 

Motion (by Mr Benny Allen) proposed – 

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr LUTHER WENGE (Morobe) – Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Minister in the Bill he proposes for support this morning. 

Mr Speaker, it is the citizens right when their lives and environment affected by the damages caused by big operations to raise the matter in court and challenge them. This is a constitutional right. 

This country is in a desperate need for money to provide services and the necessary infrastructure to the people of this nation. This country must move forward and develop so that it can be competitive with the global economy. 

This country should not be left trailing at the back by individuals with their rights guaranteed by the constitution to get court orders to prevent developments going ahead. In this country we have big projects coming up ahead of us like the big LNG Gas project and the subject matter which the Supreme Court has served an order against the Government regarding the Nickel Mine. 

Mr Speaker, with the developments of our natural resources and the proceeds of these operations boosts this nation’s economy and this country is on the path forward. Mr Speaker, we were sadden by the Supreme Court decision to prevent what is a big contributor to our nations economy in the Rai-Coast Electorate. As we all know the Nickel Mine is the biggest project which is going to bring billions of kina. 

Of course, the project is going to have an enormous impact on the livelihood of the people and the environment but as I say and with respect, Mr Speaker, this amendment will make sure that that restrain is vacated, so that we can allow the mining to proceed. 

I think we must put the interest of this country first. I urge the people and leaders alike to put our personal and political interests aside. 

I think the country’s interest warrants the introduction of this Bill before this Parliament. 

Mr Speaker, I fully support the Bill proposed by the Minister and I would also like to add that the human life is more important too. This must be weighed against the money and the glory. 

Mr Speaker, as stipulated in the Environmental Act, any company given the right to conduct operations of exploitations of non-renewable and renewable resources are required to submit reports to satisfy the Government that what they intend to do does not cause any harm to the livelihood of our people. As I speak I am very mindful of the Rai Coast people where a lot of them are going to be affected. 

Mr Speaker, all the feasibility studies and reports must be done in a way to advise our Government in such our way that these operations do not harm the lives of our people. 

Mr Speaker, it is my belief that everything in this world work together and they depend on each other for survival. Like the plants depend on the insects, insects depend on the humans, humans depend on fish, the fish depend on the humans, and humans depend on the birds. 

The honourable Members are laughing here and there but you must know that when you try to eliminate one kingdom such as bird kingdom or insect kingdom, the human being kingdom will cease to exist on planet earth. It is very important that we must be conscious of that. I am sure those people who took the matter to the courts and won were mindful of that. But again as I said, national interest must be paramount and in this case I think national interest requires that we must support this Bill and have it passed. 

But I am sure that the Government, in its wisdom will make something available for those who will be affected and in this case, the Rai Coast people in Madang and in the Southern Highlands including the Hela people. 

The people whose land contains the gas, when it effective and in the process of producing the gas environmental damages will occur and I am sure the Government will make available sufficient cash or kind to help these people affected.

Of course, when this is done in the mining areas I am sure the Government will again take the necessary steps to compensate those people who own the renewable and non-renewable resources. This is because this is not a foolish Government. The Government has lot of men and woman who are adequately capable to make wise decisions. 

I hope the Government, in the coming days will make sure that the interest of the landowners will be catered for. And I think the Government has done satisfactorily, particularly in the case of the LNG gas. 

And I commend the Governor for Southern Highlands, Honourable Anderson Agiru. He has done pretty well to negotiate for his people. And I am sure other people in other places where natural resources are going to be harvested will do the same. 

For instance, in Morobe, I am sure in the Wafi Mining, where there is progressing in the exploration will eventually proceed to mining thus the Government. In its wisdom will make sure that the interest of our people is taken care of. Similarly, this should be done for renewable resources as well. 

The Government is in control of making sure that the national interest is protected at the highest levels. This Government is also making sure that the interest of the people concerned are also taken care of. 

So, Mr Speaker, a I said I rose to make that point clear and ensure that nobody is ignored in terms of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of this country. 

I want to ask the village people to realize that we, this Government is doing everything possible to make sure that nation and people’s interest are taken care of. Mr Speaker, I’d like to ask the honourable Members to fully support the passage of this Bill. Thank you. 

Mr JOHN LUKE (Milne Bay) – Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill is not about the environment. It is about whether or not Papua New Guinea can control its own affairs. 

People from outside come here and tell you, ‘do what I say, not what I do’. These people become rich because their fathers and forefathers exploited their resources. I know because I was born in that society. My father worked hard, my grandfather worked even harder to exploit the resources that the country hard. 

Now, do we want people from outside coming in to tell you, ‘don’t exploit the resources because of some dangers that you have?’ My advice to this Chamber is that the answer should be no. Papua New Guinea is a sovereign country and we should be able to make our own decisions. 

Now, regarding the problems that we have in Madang, I feel that I have the right to speak on this matter because in Milne Bay we have a precedent. 

As you know in the past we have a mine called ‘Misima Mine’ and the tailings were done through deep sea tailings and that was put into the sea like they planned to do in Madang. 

I studied a lot of the problems related to that system of tailings disposal by reading a lot of environmental reports. In none of those reports do I see that the effect of that method is bad for us. I know, maybe, down at the bottom of the sea a few worms will suffer but compare that with the damage that they will do on the land, if they have to dispose the tailings there. There is no comparison. 

On the Misima Mine closure, there is nothing to do with the sea. All the beaches, the fish are okay. It is the mud that they deposit onto the surface of the sea. The water is about 150m deep; it is too deep for fishing or people to dive into. 

There are some people who are telling people to take this to court and I believe some of these people are Canadians and I can tell these people to go and tell the people of mines that that have in their country. 

They start exploiting in Canada, which is Indian land. It will be demolished and not good forever. If you see pictures and reports of the damage that has been done there it is

incredible and for those people to come here and say don’t do this because there maybe some danger. 

But in their own country they have a situation which is one hundred times worse than ours. As far as I am concerned the deep sea tailing is the safest way for us to go.

Land tailing is the worst because it has left worst damage Iran and land that people use to sustain their livelihood. That is why, Mr Speaker, I rise to support this Bill. Thank you. 

Motion (by Mr Patrick Pruaitch) – agreed to 

That the question be put 

Motion (by Mr Benny Allen) put – 

That the Bill be now read a third time. 

The Parliament Voted (the Speaker, Mr Jeffery Nape, in the Chair) – 

AYES – 73

NOES – 10

The Bill passed with a two-thirds absolute majority as required by the Constitution. 

Bill read a third time. 

 

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Paul Tiensten) agreed to – That the Parliament at its rising adjourn till Tuesday 22 June 2010 at 2.p.m.

 

Pekpek bilong Goroka

From JOHN FOWKE

The Goroka you remember is not the Goroka of 2010.
This is the town sewage-farm: completely full and blocked for two years and opened into a nearby creek.
 All who travel to the Fimito and the Goroka Golf Club must pass within a few metres of the four huge,blocked,smelly tanks full of excreta.
Mr Shit, where are you?
Here is a resource for free; mine it and produce best organic fertiliser.
 No landowner problems!

Letter from Richard Leahy

Dear Mr Nalu,

This is a belated thankyou for your press releases highly favourable to not only myself but also the Leahy family and in particular to my late father, Mick Leahy. Dad passed away at Zenag (thirty years ago) where he had lived with our family since the end of World War II. He is buried there.
Thankyou also for defending me against comments made by our governor Hon. Luther Wenge. I felt as soon as I became aware that he had made them that they were unwarrented. I have conducted commercial flying operations in PNG but mainly in the Morobe Province since 1964. During that time I have carried (whilst single pilot in command) over 50,000 passengers the overwhelming majority of whom were PNG citizens.
Up until December 30th, 2009, the day of my accident, I had never caused any injury to any of my 50,000 passengers. The fact that six died on that day will weigh heavily with me for the rest of my life.
Although this was an accident that I could not have prevented I am awaiting the CAA findings on why the engine failed on that flight. If an aircraft is propperly maintained and the pilot carries out his duties in accordance with the set down procedures, aircraft  engines simply should not fail. Normally there is some warning if an engine is developing serious problems and remedial maintenance can be carried out prior to further flight. With this particular failure, there was absolutely no warning.
During the 24,000 hours I have spent flying light aircraft around PNG, I had had only one previous engine failure. I landed the aircraft in a lake and my two passengers ( and myself ) escaped unscathed. The engine failure was due to bad maintenance and I recovered monetary damages from the people that I had contracted with to carry out my maintenance at that time.
Needless to repeat, my thoughts have gone out to the next of kin of those six souls lost on that day and will always remain with them and those that were lost.
I remain an out patient at the burns unit of the Royal Brisbane Hospital and will not be fully recovered from my sixty per cent burns until early next year.
Many thanks once again for your support and kind words that appeared in the press on January 15th, 2010.

yours sincerely,

Richard Leahy.

Environment (Amendment) Act 2010 and deceits of government lawyers

From JAMES WANJIK

Government lawyers had the audacity to deceive and lie about the real legal position on the Environment (Amendment) Act 2010 that was passed by Parliament on Friday, 28 May 2010.
Truths and perspectives of the new law are;
-law not good law to help people;
-law takes away property without compensation;
-law not for public purpose;
-people of PNG are third parties on their own land and in their own country;
-law is wide in its application;
-law is not needed for environmental permits and approvals;
-law on transition is adequate under the Environment Act 2000;
-law is to protect any statutory authority as used under s. 3(2)(b) of the Environment (Amendment) Act 2010;
-law is to protect Mineral Resources Authority that is unconstitutional and is operating illegally;
-law protects miners;
-law will place liability for environmental damage in the hands of PNG Government;
-law will take away regulatory powers from MRA and other regulators;
-law pushes landowners out of lawful protection;
-law now makes our government of the people for the miners;
-law of fear was the reason for rushing this law; and
-only truth will set PNG free.
Almighty God be praised for all praise and glory are His forever.