'People left powerless' by new resources laws

LIAM FOX - ABC

The Papua New Guinean government has passed controversial legislation to protect resource projects from delays caused by environmental challenges. Amendments to PNG's environment act were recently rammed through parliament, with the government using its numbers to suppress debate. They give the environment department more power when it comes to granting environmental permits for resource projects like mining or logging. In many cases, decisions by the department's director are now "final and may not be challenged or reviewed in any court or tribunal".

But while mining companies may be applauding, others, including lawyer Tiffany Nonggorr, are accusing the government of betrayal. "It is the most draconian piece of legislation with regards to human rights, particularly indigenous human rights that I have ever seen. It is disgusting," she said. Ms Nonggorr says traditional landowners, who control most of the land in PNG, have been robbed of their rights. "If InterOil did what BP has done in the Gulf in the United States, had a big oil disaster because an accident happened, something happened that shouldn't have happened, whilst they were doing what they were authorised to do under a permit, the landowners could not sue for compensation," she said. "Claims for negligence, nuisance, deliberate harm have all been removed." 

'Left powerless'

The amendments were drawn up following an outcry from the mining industry when a group of landowners from Madang on PNG's north coast scored a legal victory over the Chinese-owned Ramu nickel mine. They won a temporary injunction preventing the mine from proceeding with a plan to dump tailings out at sea via an underwater pipeline. The mine had an environmental permit to carry out the work. But a judge set it aside until a substantive hearing is held into the landowners' claims the tailings pipeline would cause an environmental nuisance.

Ms Nonggorr, the landowners' lawyer, says the government is trying to put more power in the hands of the developer and themselves. "People are left powerless and people can not do anything about it. They are trying to take the people's power away from them even though it is their land and it is their sea and it is their rivers and it's their bush," she said. But environment minister Benny Allan denies the amendments rob landowners of the right to sue for environmental damage. "The amendment that we have passed basically is to try and protect the permit holders," he said. "It is in the best interests of the country to ensure that all existing permit holders who are developing resource projects in the country and any future resource projects will be safeguarded by this amendment."

Mr Allan says the changes do not give developers a licence to cause environmental harm. "The department is mandated to ensure that any development that is taking place in the country does not cause any major development damage so I don't see any problem in this amendment," he said. Ms Nonggorr says it is ridiculous to say the environment department has the capability to police the permits it hands out. "That particular claim is complete and utter rubbish," she said.
"There are numerous breaches in many different projects now, none of which are picked up by the department of environment conservation.

"Indeed, even in the Ramu nickel matter, the department of environment conservation stated they didn't have the capacity to assess the deep sea tailing scheme and got an Australian consultant to have a look at it."
She says the amendments were designed to cripple her clients' case and she will be challenging their constitutionality in court. "It is completely contrary to the national goals and directive principles, particularly goal four which provide for protection of the environment and for sustainable development of resources in the interests of future generations and not in the interests of foreign mining or oil and gas companies," she said.
But like many things in PNG, the courts move slowly and it may be some time before a constitutional challenge is heard and a decision made.