CONTROVERSIAL BILL COULD PUSH FINSCHHAFEN TO BE SOLD TO FOREIGN COMPANY, ATLAS LEDGER
Finschhafen MP, Hon Renbo Paita is expected to push a bill through
parliament next week to create a Special Economic Zone in Finschhafen
for the BLOCKCHAIN AND BITCOIN TECH
The bill
did not follow democratic process of consultation with the locals, the
landowners, concern government agencies like BoPNG, Lands, Immigration
etc...
Attached is the copy of the Bill and the
Petition raised ... and a video showing Tim Draper, the billionaire
investor making the announcement in Silicon Valley of an Agreement
already signed between him and PNG government without any consultation
with the people of Finschhafen
People and entity of interest in this controversy...
Jack Saba, Atlas Ledger, Tim Draper, PM O'Neil, Charles Able,
Sam Basil, James Marape (An agreement was made with the National Leaders
with the Atlas Ledger without any consultation with the people and
concerned government agencies)
Following the leakage
and revelation of the details of a proposed law titled, "Finschhafen
Special
Economic Zone Bill 2018" purportedly sponsored
by the Member for Finschhafen and given notice to
Parliament on 27th July 2018, we the undersigned people ofFinschhafen through this forum now seek
extended support from the Opposition caucus and all responsible Members of Parliament to
address this sensitive and suspicious Bill concerning our District which
has been developed and processed without consultation with
or contribution from the most important stakeholders
-the constituents/population of Finschhafen, Moro
be Province. It is also our firm belief that the proponents of
this idea and Bill led by our MP Hon Renbo Paita have not consulted adequately with
the Government and other relevant state agencies on the many serious
broader constitutional and legal implications that are
evident within the sections of this proposed law. Hence we urge
all Members of Parliament to read every
word of this petition and make a decision
in the best interest of not only the people of Finschhafen District
but of Papua New Guinea as a whole TO VOTE AGAINST THIS
BILL. We will attempt to point out the relevant
provisions of the Bill that is of concern to us which
we have identified and gathered from our findings
and from reliable professional
interpretations through the numerous awareness conducted through our own initiative in
this letter of petition.
POINT 1-NO
CONSULTATION WITH CONTITUENTS ON THE BILL
The
process followed by the MP for Finschhafen so far in tabling this Bill
in Parliament without consultation with constituents
back in the District is highly undemocratic and questionable for the following
reasons. ·
1. 1 The
Bill was never deliberated nor debated before all
five (5) Finschhafen District Development Authority (FDDA) Board
meetings since the current Member for Finschhafen took office last
year.
1.2 There
were no awareness programs carried out on the said Bill in consultation With
the land owners and the constituents of
Finschhafen by way of explanation on each section of the
Bill and how it will affect the interests of not only landowners and the
people of Finschhafen District but of
Papua New Guinea as a whole.
...
1.3 The Bill was designed
without consultation and knowledge of the constituents
of Finschhafen and we demand to be informed of who the author of the Bill was and what
the Bill entails for us given that our land will be taken from us.
1.4 The Bill secretly
made its way into Parliament without our knowledge
until it was "leaked"
on the 28th July 2018, news of the Bill was received
in Finschhafen.
1.5 Following
the leakage of the Bill the MP and his DDA team were
petitioned to address the
constituents on the 17th of August 2018, in Finschhafen but they Failed to do so. A
copy of the Petition handed to the MP for Finschhafen
Hon Renbo Paita on Tuesday
14 August in Finschhafen is at Attachment 1.
POINT
2 - SERIOUS CONCERNS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL
2.1 Several
provisions of the Bill mentioned below appear
to be unconstitutional on the face of it and we the
undersigned appeal for your careful examination of these provision as WE
BELIEVE these do have serious implications for riot only the people of Finschhafen
electorate but Papua New Guinea
as a whole. The provisions are:
2.2 Section
3 - Purposes of the Act
This Section seeks to
establish an independent framework for the establishment, development, regulation
and operation of the FSEZ in the Finschhafen
District of PNG in
accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement
Specified in Section 4 (NOT in accordance
with the laws of PNG).
Section 3(b) provides
that the FSEZ is exempted from the "existing government Framework" In other
words, the Bill purports to vests legal
powers to a private entity (The FSEZ Authority) that
will operate its business with
other foreign entities through a highly
sophisticated system without Government regulation
and scrutiny and outside
of the laws of PNG. God forbid that the Government
of the day should be "selling" Finschhafen District
to"white collar" exploitation without fully understanding the implications of
this bizarre law.
2.3 Section
4 - Memorandum of Agreement to have the Force of Law
Section 4 seeks to confer
legal status for the MOA. This is VERY CONCERNING as the Memorandum
of Agreement is not attached to the Bill and we the constituents
have not seen it and do not know what has been agreed to hence we urge you
to scrutinise it on our behalf as we
believe it seeks to serve the interest of the
company, Ledger Atlas Inc. at the expense of the
constituents
and resource
owners of Finschhafen. By conferring legal status
on an MOA that propagates private interests and arrangements, the
Bill clearly offends the Constitution of PNG which has
a clearly defined
process of law-making. Subsection 2 is also
outright unconstitutional as it goes further
to state under subsection 2
that any provision of any Act of Parliament
that is inconsistent with provisions of the MOA is
deemed to be superseded by the MOA. Subsection 3 is
also unconstitutional as it subjects the State to
the terms of the MOA by requiring the
National, Provincial, Local-level government and all instrumentalities of
the State to ensure compliance with the MOA. We the people of
Finschhafen have hot been consulted on the MOA
and are very alarmed
by this proposed law.
2.4
Section 5 - This Act Binds the State
As provided in SS ( 1) and
(2) this Bill is binding on the State and seeks a "special status"
to ensure that its purposes as set out under Section 3 are fulfilled. What are the purposes of
the Bill? The Blockchain Technology that
is being proposed through this
Bill advocates an unregulated market system
operated by a foreign company that
backs the crypto currency called the Bitcoin.
Much of
this operation is involves
highly technical knowledge and involves technology that is beyond
the reach and understanding of most Papua
New Guineans. Obviously the
company will gain at our expense.
2.5
Sections 7 - 13: The FSEZ Authority
This is the "new government"
that is being created by this proposed law that seeks legal
recognition through this proposed law to put itself above the laws of this country by
binding the State in its private dealings (Section 5) and making itself NOT answerable
to the laws and institutions of the State (Section 7
(2)(b )). We, the undersigned
people of Finschhafen refuse to recognise and be subjected to this "new
government" that seeks to
take over the legal authority of the Government of PNG and
rule over our land and our natural resources without our consent. We
will be SOLD if the government passes this Bill
as we have no voice and.no choice in this
arrangement. Our legal and constitutional safeguards are being
denied by this proposed law.
2.6 Section
11 - The FSEZ Authority is Autonomous
The intent of this Bill
is nowhere as clear as
this provision which states:· "The Authority shall
manage and administer the FSEZ independently and without aii.y
direction or control from any person or body
except as provided in this section. The
only exception here is "general policy direction" from
the Minister which must
NOT be inconsistent with the objectives of this Act.
As we can see here,
any reference to oversight authority by Government is only lip service as Ledger
Atlas Inc. will not be subjected to direction and control
by any person or any law
in PNG where such direction and control seeks
to enforce government regulations
or enforce the rights of individuals affected by the operations of this
foreign entity. This is
unconstitutional and cannot be justified by a foreign entity.
2.7
Sections 14-17 and 26-The
FSEZ Authority is the 'new
government' of Finschhafen
District?
We urge you to
take a closure look at these Sections to check out who
is going to be vested
with all powers concerning the territorial area of Finschhafen. As it appears, the
new "Ruler" of Finschhafen
is the Chairman of the Board of the FSEZ.
Neither the MP for Finschhafen Open, nor
the Finschhafen District Development Authority
nor the collective traditional resource owners of Finschhafen, not even
the laws of PNG will have any say at all in what goes on in the FSEZ. A foreigner described
under Section 17 (1) of the proposed law as the "Director and Regional
President Pacific of Ledger Atlas Inc" is the new king
of the territorial are
of Finschhafen (. The same person is also the CEO of the FSEZ Authority under Section
26. See also Section 12 (Legal personality and representation of the Authority). We the undersigned
people of Finschhafen do NOT know
who this person is and where
he comes from. But we understand that
by the authority conferred under Section
17 of this proposed law, once it
is passed, this person will be vested with all the
powers to do his good pleasure according to the objectives of the Ledger Atlas Inc.
2.8
Section 45 - Acquisition of Land
by the Authority
Section 45(1)
proposes that land will be acquired under the Land Act. Noting that most
of the land that is eyed for this project
is customary land, it cannot be disposed of legally
according to the procedure proposed under
Subsection 2. Sadly, if this
Bill is passed, we will have no recourse to justice
as laws in place that provide
protection for us as resource owners will be null and
void as far as the operation
of the FSEZ is concerned. Section 45(3)
is outright draconian in its intentions to "deprive customary landowners of their
birthright" by denying us the right to deal with
our customary lands
as we deem best for our people. This section requires the Authority to
not only be involved in all dealings with FSEZ lands but that any dealings must
be APPROVED by the authority (See Section 45(3)(a) and
(b)). Who is this creature
Ledger Atlas Inc. to have absolute control over our
customary land? Where
is our legal right to protection of our property and how do we enforce
this right if the laws and the legal jurisdiction of PNG does not apply
to this foreign company? The Finschhafen
people have not been consulted on this sensitive issue that touches our
livelihood and our very lives and we do not sanction it under
any circumstances. This
is not a joke and must not be treated as one!
2.9 Other
Provisions that MUST be of serious
concern to you as responsible leaders
of our people and
should cause you to VOTE
AGAINST this UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Bill are as follows:
2.10
Sections 65, 66 and 67 - Application of Customs
Laws
There will
be no tax liability for goods
imported or exported through the FSEZ by Ledger
Atlas Inc.
Has PNG Customs
or Department of Justice and Attorney General
provided a commentary or advice
on this critical revenue generating function and the practical and or
potential implications associated with this proposal?
2.11
Sections 68, 69, 70 - FSEZ
Environment, Employment and Immigration
The FSEZ
can make its own environmental regulations
or develop an MOU with the responsible Department
on environmental matters under Section
68. Has the Department
of Environment and Conservation been consulted on this? Section 69 proposes
coordination with the Department of Labour and
Industrial Relations on
employment rights, permits, safety conditions and standards etc.
Also provides
for certain restrictions on foreign nationals to be waivered. Section 70 provides
for the Authority to issue Special Purpose FSEZ Passports or laissez
passers to foreign nationals. Provisions of Section
70 is clearly contrary to various
provisions of the current Migration Act. E-residency for
instance is a concept
that does not exist at present and would require careful consideration to ensure
that PNG's border security is not compromised. PNG Immigration must
be consulted on the potential implications and risks with respect to border
security, transnational crimes and more importantly
consultation with other
national security agencies on the
emerging critical issues of national
security implications. What is the
safeguard for PNG if the FSEZ is not subjected to the laws of this
country? ·
2.12
Section 71-72 -SEZ Investor Rights and Guarantees
These provisions seek
more incentives for those doing business in the FSEZ. So much guarantees
and rights for people who may
never be physically in PNG let alone
Finschhafen. What is the community
and social obligations of these invisible people we are trying to give
special privileges to and how can we enforce our rights?
2.13
Section 74 - Administration of Disputes
Under this
section the Criminal Code Act 1974 shall apply
to Criminal Offences however all
administrative, civil or commercial disputes between the Government of PNG and
the FSEZ operator Ledger Atlas Inc. shall be settled in international
courts of arbitration. This provision
undermines the Authority of the National Judicial
System and makes it redundant as
far as the FSEZ and Ledger Atlas Inc. is concerned. Does it make sense
for the Independent State of Papua New Guinea to
be seeking international
arbitration for a dispute with a foreign company which
it has by its wisdom granted
immunity from the authority of the
laws and the Courts of this country. Will
not PNG look like a complete fool? This provision
is absurd and outright unconstitutional and the Bill
should not be
supported by any
right thinking politician.
2.14
Section 77 - Offences
Section 77
appears to be an incomplete provision as it makes no mention of the penalties nor the legal
jurisdiction for these created offences.
2.15
Section 78 - General
Penalty
This Section appears
to cater for the lack in Section 77 as it provides
that; where there is no specified
penalty for an offence the penalty shall
be a fine not exceeding US$ I 00
000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding
5 years or both and a default
penalty fine not exceeding US$5,000.00 The problem
is, which legal jurisdiction or Courts will apply these penalties? Certainly not the
PNG Criminal Justice System as the penalties appear to be extraterritorial and beyond
established sentencing guidelines. Provisions of Sections
86, 87 and 88 must also be carefully considered as with
the above
provisions it is already legislating outside of the national
justice system.
2.16
Section 89 and 90 - Autonomy, extraterritoriality and
Exclusivity and Duration
of the FSEZ
Immunity, exclusivity
and extraterritorial protection by law is unconstitutional and must not be entertained.
2.17
Section 91 - Exemption from taxes
The Authority
shall be exempted from income tax and customs and excise duties under any law. This
means that they are not subjected to the tax laws of Papua New Guinea
yet are at liberty to regulate their own operations under Section 93. Is this the intent of
Government?
2.18
Section 92 - Application of Act of the National Parliament
and Provincial orLLGActs
All laws
of PNG does not apply to the FSEZ unless expressly provided in this Bill. This operator
cannot be permitted to physically enter and
interfere with our land with impunity.
This is unconstitutional.
POINT
3 OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
3.1 Finschhafen
need to know the content of the MOA inclusive of the MOU
which is not
shown thus, the MOA derives from the
MOU.
3.2 Section 4, subsection
(3) all levels of government, arms, department, agencies and instruments take all
steps to ensure compliance with the Memorandum of Agreement and with this
Act. Does the constitution allow individual and
private Acts as such
to bind the State and not be affected by other
Acts such as the Act of Parliament?
3.3 Why
is FSEZ proposed laws vying to supersede
the Traditional and Customary Land Act?
3 .4 Why would
Finschhafen District Development Authority
Board deny the Constituents the
right to know the content of the Memorandum of understanding signed including
the Memorandum of Agreement together with the Government of Papua
New Guinea and Pacific Ledger Atlas Inc?
3.5 In section
3; Purposes of this Act (d) stipulates to maximize returns
for both the State and Ledger
Atlas Inc. Why would Land owners and the constituents miss out and
not be beneficiary to the returns generated?
3.6 The Bill
does not specify a select site for establishment OFFSEZ but
only dwells on the name
Finschhafen. Could it mean within the entire political boundary
of Finschhafen?
3.7 Section 45,
subsection 2 (c) on acquisition of land, completely denies land owners their
rights to appeal, dispute, or
file court petition in respect to ownership of their
land. Land owners could have been assisted to enter into proper land
registration procedures and land lease arrangement to be effected. Why should
our land be dictated by foreign interests
such as Ledger Altas Inc?
3.8 Section
46, (1) and (2) Approval of Other Lands:- Does the constitution
nor the Traditional
and Local Land Act allow for such Authorities/ Authority to make decisions over
land other than the approved land as per section
45, 2 (a) of this proposed Act?
3.9 We see that
the Act is being drafted in the sole interest
of the purported Authority and
not in the best interest of the Land owners nor the
constituents of Finschhafen. Ledger
Atlas Inc specializes in Innovative Technology services and its intentions
stated herein is only to gain
approval from the government to take over, manipulate
and dictate its operations to suit its own desires and not
for the
benefit of the constituents. Ledger Atlas Inc.
has hidden motives to bring about the Blockchain Technology
and gradually effect crypto currency into
the PNG financial system.
3 .10 The
Bank of PNG which is an institution of the
national government continues to denounce on public
media that no citizen is to engage or trade using crypto currencies or digital
money. There is no guarantee that crypto currencies will
be accepted as a
medium of exchange. Investment in such digital currencies is considered very risky
and speculative in nature.
3 .11
If such warning must be adhered to and is of
paramount importance than how would this government
get the FSEZ Bill to be passed without careful scrutiny and debate when the bottom
line objective of the FSEZ directly is adverse
to BPNG warnings?
3 .12 We present
our petition forthwith seeking
assistance where appropriate for the good of the constituents
and the generation next by recognising our
traditional rights and the
freedom of liberty to speak for our natural rights to exist
on our land.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please free to leave comments.