Friday, March 30, 2012

Oil Palm workers exploited “New Black Birding Style”


[This post contains comments from people on Facebook in response to the photo below posted by someone on Facebook]


Ramu Oil Palm Palm workers must dig and plant 70 to 80 seedlings per person per day. Hard working labourer expects Sixty Toea for the job done for one seedling. An oil palm worker who has to harvest 400 oil palm bunches in order to make K40.

If a labourer's day start at 7am and finishes at5pm with an hour for belo, thats 9hrs work/day hence, take 70seedling transplant to work out; 70/9 = 7.77 seedlings per day or 72 seedlings planted per day. That would give K43.20/day. If he works 10 days a a FN, he would earn K432.00. This is better and far above MinWage than a labourer would in any other commodities like Coffee or Cocoa Industry. The only questions are; Can a labourer plant 8seedlings per hour daily and are they paid that amount on their FN day? Lets hope Ramu Oil Palm (NBOP) does pay them their due.

Ramu oil palm workers Definitely earn K176 per fortnight. I am with workers right now.

If you say they get K176/FN then either the labourers are planting less (my estimate based on earlier cal = 4/hr and 8hr/day ops) this would give K162 +-K14. OR, the company is simply not paying them right... over to the Labour Dept and Minimum Wage Office.

This Oil Palm work does NOT compare well with growing and selling peanuts, buai, daka, melons, brus, cucumber, etc.

Surveys showed that women roadside sellers (Madang. EHP, Morobe, ENB) earn on average Kina 280-560 per fortnight

Every Papua New Guinean worker should be paid 'living wage' not just a minimum wage. Just because a minimum wage is legal doesn't make it morally right if the worker can't eat well and sleep well. I say this after having met an Engan oil palm worker who is paid 10 toea (5 Australian cents) for every bunch he harvests. This is slavery on our own land.



Wage slavery is the same as Chattel slavery [PEOPLE BOUGHT AS SLAVES]

Here is Papua New Guinea they promise that so called foreign investment will bring jobs. What they don't tell you is that BLACK PEOPLE will become slaves. What they don't tell you is that "BLACK BIRDERS" still exist.

When they take away your land for so called developmental purposes they don’t tell you they’re removing your independence and social security. They don’t tell you that they’re turning you into a WAGE SLAVE.

"Man was born free yet everywhere he walks in Chains" ~ Jean-Jacque Rouseau, French Philosopher


DECOLONIZE your mind by reading




Its not about Personalities or current affairs... it's not about the Political Impasse

Nou Fredrick Vada*

There are serious allegations levelled against a number of Judges by the Government and by some folks in the public domain. Everyone in the legal community knows something is not quite right with some of the Judgements. I'll give you an Exa...mple I've heard about, did you know that the National Court interpreted the Bible in the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church case and declared the excommunication of the Bishop by the Synod was unlawful... Makes you wonder where the seperation of Church and State lie.. Did you know that in that Judgement, a restraining order was placed against the 200 hundred pastors of the synod, preventing them from preaching, baptizing, handing out communion, going within the vicinity of churches, church schools and church clinics until and unless they recognised the Bishop they excommunicated. The decision was by Graham Ellis J but it was widely speculated that it wasnt really his decision.

Im not a regular church goer but I believe there is a spiritual dimension to this political impasse triggered by that rubbish and to this day elusive decision where the Independent State of Papua New Guinea undertook to challenge God and punish God in a Court of Law.
Yes there may be mischievious members of the Judiciary, but a Law that takes away the purpose of Law is not the way to deal with humbugging Judges.

This law is wrong. You cant expect Parliamentarians to be the Judge of Character over members of the Judiciary. If you let Parliament decide who is a fit and proper person to be Judge then you politicise the judiciary - now the accusations in the public domain is that the Judiciary is already politicised. But does that mean we make a law that confirms it?
I'd rather join my uncles back in Hanuabada and be a fisherman than earn this Law Degree and swear to uphold a Judiciary that through this Act will be compromised to a permanent effect.

It is like in the movie "The Legend of the Drunken Master" Jackie Chan asks the Master why they have to fight so hard to protect a small artifact, to which the Master says something to the effect of "Today we let them get this, Tomorrow the Great wall will be gone... and what of our children?"
As young adults in Waigani Campus, that is what keeps us going.

Nou Vada is the Bill Review Committee Chairman at UPNG #OccupyWaigani 2012

10 reasons why the Judicial Conduct Act 2012 should be repealed #OccupyWaigani

An Overview by Nou Vada, The Bill Review Committee Chairman at UPNG


1. There is great ambiguity – key words like “Impropriety” are not defined.

2. It is not clear whether the Bill extends to the administrative conduct of members of Judiciary

3. The Bill lets Parliamentarians become the Judge of Character for members of the Judiciary. Parliamentarians? Judge of Character?? Really???

4. Individual Parliamentarians can use this Bill to evade criminal prosecution by removing any Judge that he feels will not judge him favourably.

5. Parliament itself can use this law to tamper with Supreme Court References in the future by deciding the composition of any Supreme Court Bench presiding over a constitutional reference.

6. While this law is an attempt to clean up perceived Judicial Corruption currently in existence, the fact of the matter is that politicians will come and go, and Judges too will come and go, but this law will be permanent and perpetual in nature.

7. Countries like Canada and Australia do not give Parliament the power to remove Judges from active duty.

8. Judges are already subject to the Leadership Code. The Ombudsman Commission has the power to investigate Judges.

9. The bill is retrospective in nature. Is this the true purpose of law-making? Is this law a witch-hunt against one or two Judges? If so, as it appears to be, then is this law really in the National Interest? Should the removal of one or two Judges currently serving be of so much importance that it warrants the creation of a law that is permanent in nature?

10. To what extent can does this Bill restrict the right of Privacy? The restriction of the Right of Privacy in conjunction with a Tribunal that no-one knows who appoints and how and that has the power to inform itself and do away with legal formalities and rules of evidence. So one may ask, is this Tribunal sanctioned to carry out espionage. Will this Tribunal in the course of informing itself with the disregard of the Right to Privacy, end up spying on Judges?

These are questions and sentiments that arise when no consultation takes place and when important and highly sensitive pieces of legislation are passed on the floor of Parliament in 15 minutes. This are the ambiguities, discrepancies and gray areas that arise when such a critical and sensitive law is only two A4 pages

These are the views of the University of Papua New Guinea students of the Academic Year 2012. We fight a law that defeats law. If Today we allow them to make this law, tomorrow they throw us out into the streets and out into the Darkness of Neon Lights and the confusion and disillusionment… and what of our children. We fight this law because we feel this law will mark the dawn of an aggressive Police State where the Judiciary will fear a Legislature already dominated by the whims of the Executive. We fight this law because we see it as the first fateful step into a guided democracy. Mr. O’Neill must repeal this Bill.

“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse”
- Section 23 Criminal Code

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

PICTURES OF #OccupyWaigani. Marat yu clicks????






Member of #Annonymous calls on Hacktivists to join #OccupyWaigani as support GROWS


A member of the internet Hactivist Group #Annonymous has called on its Global network to join the opposition against the Judicial Conduct Act 2012 that was recently passed by the Parliament of Papua New Guinea. Annoymous is a network of independent computer

This adds to the growing opposition against the O’Neil-Namah regime led by students of the University of Papua New Guinea who initiated #OccupyWaigani.

A UPNG student has described recent comments by Chairman of the Constitutional Law Reform Committee Gabriel Kapris as merely a PETTY DECOY. Mr Kapris is reported to have said that there would be public consultations prior to the Act being put into force.

Of course our DUMB friends at Transparency International said they were “relieved” by Gabriel Kapris’s PETTY DECOY.

However the other Kapris, William Kapris called from his prison cell to Karai National Radio’s Current Events program and told the nation that there would be a mass break out from prisons, in protest of the “SHUT UP THE JUDGES ACT”.

However former President of the University of Goroka Student Representative Council, Mr Jamie Namorong  tweeted this from Daru:

Jamie Namorong@JNamorong

Maprik MP Gabriel Kapris, says the Judicial Conduct Bill will be delayed until after public consultations. WHY DIDN'T YOU CONSULT FIRST?

4:24 PM - 28 Mar 12

Labour Unions have called on Parliament to repeal the Bill and have also demanded that the Chief Justice and the Chief Ombudsman step aside.

Meanwhile students from the University of Technology are boycotting classes tomorrow.

Trupla Papua New Guineans: ino long maus tasol olsem ol politisen… Ol UPNG ol OBLAT!!!!!!


The UPNG Students on their march to Morauta Haus to present their Analysis of the Judiciary Conduct Act and their Petition for the Government to Repeal the Act. Here, just past Admin College, Police pointed guns and cocked guns at the students..they had no hesitation to shoot them all. Students kneeling saying that they would die for the rights of the Nation.

It would have moved you to tears.


Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Did Prime Minister O’Neil lie to the nation regarding Judges Bill?

Janethie Tinga

ladyjusticeI want to comment on the following quote (by parliament-elected Prime Minister Peter O’Neill):

“The Law is not draconian and does not erode the impartiality of the judges as voiced by critics, including the usual two or three publicity-seeking members of the PNG Law Society. It must be pointed out that countries such as Australia, India, Canada and other Commonwealth nations have similar legislations or ethical standards to scrutinize judicial conduct and behavior. We are not alone here".

This is entirely incorrect for Canada. I am currently doing my LLM in international business law via the University of British Colombia and have visited with judiciary, the ministry of Justice, particularly with deputy director of prosecutions, deputy director of attorney general’s office for civil affairs and with a bencher of the British Columbia Law Society i.e. a board member of the law society and what they have all emphasized in common is the independence of each of their institutions.

They all function independently of the legislature or the executive branch of the government and even from each other and are all regulated by separate laws and the constitution. That is the essence of their constitution. Even the police are independent of the prosecution and do not answer to the prosecution at all. The deputy head of prosecution informed me that the police conduct its investigation independent of the prosecution and the prosecution only brings the matter into court when the police hands them the investigative files. They do not conduct investigations etc. They only act on an advisory role to the police when legal questions are asked of them. Similarly, as a federal state made up of provinces, each province's judiciary acts independent of the legislature. A committee is set up who selects the judges pursuant to a quota as stipulated by the law. A similar method is undertaken for the Supreme Court of Canada.

The separation of powers in Canada is extremely blatant and is not clouded by legislature overshadowing the judiciary. Accusations of misconduct of a member of the judiciary are dealt with by a committee pursuant to the judiciary law and not by the legislature at all. The British Columbia Law Society functions in a similar manner, whereby lawyers are governed by law enabling them to regulate themselves. They have benchers who form numerous committees who deal with a number of matters. For instance, there are committees solely for lawyer misconduct, who deal with misconduct issues and also provide assistance to lawyers to remedy such conducts; there are benchers in committees who provide further legal learning for members of the law society and others. The police force also functions in a like manner, i.e. the police work independent of the legislature or the judiciary or the prosecution. They have the police union which houses all police matters and deals with them. Should there be an issue of misconduct, an investigative committee is set up which looks into it. The legislature does not have authoritative control of the police force.

Anyhow, bottom line is, having been exposed to Canada's legal system, particularly, that of the province of British Colombia, I regret to say that the Prime Minister should not have used Canada as a “like” example with his government's attempt to BLATANTLY CRASH the wall of SEPARATION of POWERS. Canada's legislature does not overlook or even overshadow the functions of the judiciary. Each arms' independence are the backbone of democracy. The PM may give any excuse under the sun as he may wish but this ACT HAS TO GO!

Should PNG lack a body to oversee the function of the judiciary then an independent and impartial committee must be set up outside and as far away as possible to the legislature... IT CANNOT BE THE LEGISLATURE. THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT AND MUST NOT TAKE ON THAT ROLE.

To conclude, my challenge to whoever wrote or advised the PM on writing that speech and using Canada as an example of having similar legislation which gives the legislature the power to scrutinize behaviors of judges, is to write the name of the precise law here in Canada that they are referring to that purportedly has the same powers and I will follow up.

To fellow Papua New Guineans, please you all must stand up and have this piece of legislation amended to have an independent committee set up or have this law removed.


  • Janethie Tinga is currently studying for an LLM in International Business Law at the British Columbia University in Canada.

Commentary on Judicial Conduct Act

BY Gabriel Sionny

ladyjusticeI have spent a couple of days going through Codes for Judicial Conducts of countries Peter O'Neal alluded to in his speech.

It appears that Canada, different states of Australia, the USA, NZ and England have not regulated theirs by virtue of Acts of Parliament. Rather, issues pertaining to impartiality and other conducts of Judges have been commonly examined/debated at great length and efforts have been made to strengthen.

For instance, the Canadian Judicial Council and Court of the Judiciary are bodies which comprise judges who investigate and judge the conduct of their own peers, report to government which may then remove him/her and this arrangement is done with the view of keeping the judiciary, executive and legislature independent.

The executive arm does not directly deal with this. We have a serious and persistent problem of corruption, misconduct etc in our political system, with over half of the national leaders incompetent in many aspects of politics and leadership, yet acted as if they know best.

Most countries of the commonwealth have debated the same issue and it has been a controversial subject since. It is still a thorny issue in India today after the passage of a similar bill.


We Are United in UPNGWe the students of the University of Papua New Guinea condemn the statements made by the Justice Minister Dr. Allan Marat to Radio New Zealand International.

Dr. Marat's claim that the protest march mounted by UPNG students against the Judicial Conduct Act 2012 on Friday the 23rd of March 2012 was the workings of the students of Enga Province, who are biased towards the Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia who is himself an Engan.

What Dr. Marat needs to understand is that the protest March to occupy Waigani that took place on Friday was the direct result of a resolution passed by the Student Body at the General Forum Meeting of Thursday 22nd March 2012. In this meeting representatives from all 22 Provinces, after close consultation with their Student provincial groups, aired their official stance to the Student Body.

Students from all 22 Provinces motioned to march the following day - and we did. The Organizing Commtittee consisted of students from various Provinces and not just Enga. In fact students from Dr. Marat's own Niugini Islands region were some of the most vocal and active members of the March and the Committees behind the March.

Now we do not deny that of UPNG's 5 SRC executives, 3 are Engan. The other two are from the Mamose Region.

But in organising this march, young Papua New Guineans from all the different Provinces played important roles in key aspects of the March and the Petition. The Petition was drawn up by a Committee chaired by a student from Sepik. The Committee that prepared the Opinion on the Bill was chaired by a Papuan. We did not see along regional lines when we stood together for each other and for Papua New Guinea, organising our successful March to Parliament.

We find the Justice Minister's statements most unhelpful and is the kind of thinking that would tear up unity in the Campus right now.

Even the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea acknowledged the UPNG Petition in his address to the nation on Sunday night as being "in the public interest". Therefore, this kind of hate speech designed to break student morale here in UPNG must be condemned with the strongest of terms. Prime Minister O'Neill's Government is one made up of Members of Parliament from all 4 regions of Papua New Guinea and all 22 Provinces, including Enga and East New Britain.

We therefore seek an apology from Dr. Allan Marat for these most reckless statements made on air to Radio New Zealand International as we are of the view that such statements are deliberate attempts to dishearten and break up the common resolve of the student body to have the Judicial Conduct Act 2012 repealed.

We are asking the Prime Minister to speak with his Justice Minister and make sure such dangerous statements are not made ever again. Such statements may cause public unrest and unnecessary violence which we must all condemn no matter what side of the argument we take in this issue of the Judicial Conduct Act.

Monday, March 26, 2012




PNG is not a united country after 39 years of self-government & Independence because it inherited a flawed political model.

The two-tier (national/provincial governments) and three-tier government (national/provincial/local-level governments) have not effectively functioned due to an ineffective delivery system of government goods and services to all provinces since the mid-1970s when the decentralization (later renamed provincial government) system was first introduced.

The current political model is not working and there is uneven wealth distribution. PNG needs major political and social reforms and good political leaders.
The beauracracy needs to be totally overhauled with a new professional national workforce.
PNG must be now governed under a federalism political model so the whole country and its beauracracy to work to deliver services to all provinces.

The country needs to have regional state governments to properly manage and control their own administration, budget, resources and movement of their own people to other provinces.

The state governments of these regions: Papua, Highlands, Momase, New Guinea Island and the Autonomous Region of Bougainville will in effect manage their own regions with their own budget to develop their own regions.

This will also ensure a good level of autonomy is practiced by each region to see the country's resources properly managed and not squandered as is at the present case since Independence.

The unauthorized guide to #OccupyWaigani


imageHello sheeple, it seems the Members of Parliament, all of whom claim to represent all you sheep by calling themselves the “People’s Parliament,” don’t mind threatening justice in Papua New Guinea.

It seems the “People’s Parliament” as O’Neil likes to refer to this House of Chaos, is becoming like the “People’s Republic of China” and as democratic as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” [as North Korea is officially known]. We perhaps now get a clearer picture of what the “People’s Parliament” is about; and its not for you sheeple, otherwise they would have called it the “Sheeple’s Parliament”.

So what is Occupy all about? Its like waking up in the morning and walking out of the fence of your house at Waigani and all your neighbours are starring at you with placards that say “WE HATE YOU”. The police cannot arrest your neighbours because they haven’t been physically violent towards you. But the psychological violence you suffer of such a humiliating experience is immense. Your neighbours are being violent towards you in a non-violent way.

In the same way, O’Neil’s “People’s Parliament” is being violent towards the Judiciary. This so called Judicial Conduct Act is like a BIG Poster hung on the fence of Parliament and threatening Judges on the other side. The BIG Poster reads “Hey Judge, Oi be... yu faul faul stap mipla ol Memba bai packim scrum na kam kisim laif blo yu.”

So basically everyone needs to put up reminders to the Members of Parliament and let them know that “bats yu wokim pekek long Hausman, yu bai skinim long election.”

University Students are very influential. You are the Pride of your family and Tribe. All you have to do his constantly remind all your folks back home that they should not vote for any candidate of the Political Parties that voted for the “SHUT UP THE JUDGES BILL.”

Once we lose the Rule of Law, the country is fucked. Can you trust politicians to be just and objective enough to decide whether or not to remove a Judge? Do you trust any of these politicians?

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Travesty of justice: Judicial Conduct Bill bad for separation of powers but ‘good’ for landowners

By Oala Moi*

Friday 23 March 2012 – Port Moresby Papua New Guinea: Landowners from Rai Coast District in the country’s Madang Province may be silently grinning amidst the frenzy created by Parliament’s passage of the Judicial Conduct Bill.

This Bill and the judge that ruled against them in a previous Supreme Court appeal may be the keys to them re-opening a case which was until December 2011 as good as dead and buried. He is Justice Derek Hartshorn, a member of the Papua New Guinea judiciary. Justice Hartshorn had earlier presided over landowner court action to stop dumping of mine waste in the Basamuk Bay in Madang Province and as a member of the Supreme Court in related appeals.

A decision by Justice Hartshorn in December 2011 had rejected the appeal against mine waste dumping at Basamuk Bay in the Madang Province and is one in which he had accepted a cross-appeal from the mining companies in the Ramu Nickel Project that their dumping would not cause a public or private nuisance. This court case is covered by the Bill as the Bill has retrospective effect to 1 November 2011.

At the time, lawyers acting for the landowners had unsuccessfully taken issue with Justice Hartshorn arguing that prior to his becoming a judge his previous job had been as Managing Partner of law firm Blake Dawson Waldron. It was also argued there and then that this law firm had acted for Highlands Pacific Limited, which is a partner in the Ramu Nickel Project.

Section 5(1)(d) of the Judicial Conduct Bill 2012 would bring Justice Hartshorn within grounds of disqualification. This section reads:

“A judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding or shall not influence a proceeding in which the Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where –

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) The judge has previously acted in the case in question as a Lawyer for a party, or participated in some other capacity ...

(e) ...

(f) ...

(g) ...

(h) ...

(i) ....”

If in this case such a judge were to refuse to disqualify himself, Section 5(2) says that:

“If it appears to Parliament that a Judge has failed to disqualify himself pursuant to Subsection (1) or has influenced a proceeding contrary to Subsection (1), Parliament by way of a motion may refer the Judge concerned to the Head of State to appoint a Tribunal to investigate the breach of Subsection (1) and provide a report to Parliament or may refer the matter to another authority for an appropriate course of action.”

The Head of State upon the advice of the Speaker would then appoint the Tribunal pursuant to Section 5(3).

When Parliament has referred the Judge concerned to a Tribunal for investigation subject to Sections 5(2) and 5(3), the next question is: what would be the likely outcome for His Honour and the case in question? Section 5(8) deals with this. It says:

“Where Parliament has made a referral of a Judge to the Head of State pursuant to subsection (3) any Order or Judgment in that proceeding made by that Judge shall be stayed pending the provision of the report from the Tribunal to Parliament.”

If this is a correct reading and application of the Judicial Conduct Bill 2012, Tiffany Twivey, as lawyer for landowners from the Rai Coast area of Madang Province, would be pleased in a sense that it opens a legal window of opportunity for the landowners she represents. What a travesty of justice!


*Editor’s note:

Oala Moi is from Boera village in the West Hiri area of Central Province. He is a landowner plaintiff in a judicial review case reviewing a 2009 decision by the Secretary for Lands and Physical Planning in declaring over 1,200 hectares of traditional sea and seabed area not to be customary land. Apparently this declaration led to its portioning into Portions 2457C and 2458C, and which have been used to construct the PNG LNG causeway and jetty. Portions 2457C and 2458C are situated next to Portion 2456C where the gas plant is being built. Portion 2456C was portioned out of the former Portion 152 located in the West Hiri area of the Central Province. The balance of former Portion 152 became Portion 2459C. Portions 2456C, 2457C, and 2458C were granted as state leases to Esso Highlands Ltd in 2009.

Friday, March 23, 2012





BY Reginald Renagi

526853_408223272527390_100000191626032_1753038_987294627_nThe UPNG students and their supporters were initially stopped by police in the morning when they were to march enmasse out of their campus to go to the PM's Office in Waigani.

After some tense moments, the police relented and allowed them to march to Waigani under escort. The protesters marched to the PM's Department and office to present their petition to/was accepted by the Chief Secretary; who reassured the students/public that their concerns will be addressed by the PM and government.

They gave the Prime Minister and his government until next Tuesday to address their concerns regarding its recent decision on the judicial conduct law this week.

Failure to take action will again prompt the UPNG students from taking other appropriate action as required.

The PM Peter O’Neil later made a statement today that he will be giving his 'Address to the Nation' on the media on Sunday evening.

My overall assessment is that this peaceful protest march by the UPNG students/public was a success without any real drama. The crowd behaved well and the message was relayed to the PM and government for appropriate action.

Well done all...

Congratulations UPNG students for upholding Democracy








Thursday, March 22, 2012

A Review of the Judicial Conduct Bill 2012

Compiled by the Bill Committee in front of the UPNG Student Body on this night – 9:10 pm 22.03.12 [edited version]
We, the students of the University of Papua New Guinea have met today in light of the actions of our National Parliament in regard to the passing of the Judicial Conduct Bill, which virtually gives Parliament the power to suspend Honourable Justices of the National and Supreme Courts.
While we honour the pledge we made to support the O’Neill/Namah Government back in the Prime Minister’s September 2011 visit to THE Waigani Campus, WE IN THE STRONGEST OF TERMS DENOUNCE THE PASSING OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT BILL 2012.
As educated Papua New Guineans we have discussed the Bill and its implications at length in forums sanctioned by the UPNG SRC. We have had our Law Students, Politics students, Public Policy Students and students from all schools of thought read into the Bill and offer their learned views on what this law will effectively mean for the future of Governance in Papua New Guinea.
And we have, in One Voice concluded that the Judicial Conduct Bill is dangerous and abusive of established Constitutional and legislative processes and Offices already in operation and force.
In this brief paper we will discuss the Bill’s substantive provisions and our concerns regarding to each.
The Bill claims in its preamble as “Being an Act to implement Section 157 of the Constitution, to safeguard, protect or promote the integrity of our legal system based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary…” This statement, while it sounds noble, is very problematic. Here we have an Act of Parliament that is seeking to regulate the Judiciary. As we will discuss later, it is an Act that allows one arm of Government to interfere directly into the affairs of another arm of Government, and one that is traditionally kept outside of the whims of Parliamentary politics.
As we note, the Act is retroactive and retrospective in nature as stated at the concluding paragraph of the Preamble, “MADE by the National Parliament to be deemed to have come into operation on 1 November, 2011.”
Section 1 is a standard form in all pieces of legislation that will act to restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights of Citizens. Section 1 basically states that the right to privacy may be breached in the enforcement of the Judicial Conduct Bill. The Right of Privacy is set out pursuant to s 49 of the Constitution of Papua New Guinea.
Every person has the right to reasonable privacy in respect of his private and family life, his communications with other persons and his personal papers and effects, except to the extent that the exercise of that right is regulated or restricted by a law that complies with Section 38 (general qualifications on qualified rights).
While it is perfectly normal for an Act of Parliament to restrict rights and Freedoms, this deprivation of the Right to Privacy runs in connexion with s 5 of the Judicial Conduct Bill, and as we discuss s 5, you will see that the connection is a very dangerous one indeed.
Section 2 of the Judicial Conduct Bill is a glossary of words used in the Act.
Section 3 prescribes what the Judiciary has observed since time immemorial:
Section 4 is again a very noble statement of law but there is an issue of ambiguity that arises. What is impropriety according to the Act? Impropriety is not defined under Section 2. This is important. Who decides which actions of a Judge qualify as having impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? Is it the Parliament? If so, how can we be sure that this Act will not be abused to evade justice on actions of Parliament that are unconstitutional? And how can we be sure that this Act will not be abused by Parliamentarians and members of Cabinet trying to evade Criminal Prosecution or civil action?
Section 5 is the most controversial provision in the Judicial Conduct Bill. S 5(1) is a duplication of*
(1) A Judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding or shall not influence a proceeding in which the Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where -
(a) the Judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within the third degree of relationship; or
(b) the Judge is a party; or
(c) the Judge is a material witness; or
(d )the Judge has previously acted in the case in question as a Lawyer for a party, or participated in some other capacity; or
(e) the Judge prepared any legal instrument whose validity or construction is at issue; and
(f) the Appellate Judge previously handled case as a trial Judge; or
(g) the Judge has a personal, financial or any interest in the outcome; or
(h) the Judge determines he or she cannot act impartially; or
(i) the Judge has made statements orally or in writing which indicate he has pre-determined any or all of the issues of fact or of law in a proceeding.
Subsection 2 is the most controversial provision in the Judicial Conduct Bill. The provision empowers Parliament to remove a Judge from active duty by way of a Parliamentary motion. The actual provision states that Parliament “refers” the Judge to the Head of State – the Governor-General. It is a fact of law that the Governor is a rubber stamp – the Governor-General’s role is purely ceremonial. However as per the current amendments the Governor General has been vested the powers to appoint a tribunal to prosecute Judges for allege misconduct.
In reality, Section 5 Subsection 2 gives Parliament the Power to suspend a Judge. This is dangerous. This means that there can never be a guarantee that the conduct of the Judiciary will be free of interference from Parliament, which in PNG politics, is almost always dominated by the whims of the National Executive.
(2) If it appears to Parliament that a Judge has failed to disqualify himself pursuant to Subsection (1) or has influenced a proceeding contrary to Subsection (1), Parliament by way of a motion may refer the Judge concerned to the Head of State to appoint a Tribunal to investigate the breach of Subsection (1) and provide a report to Parliament or may refer the matter to another authority for an appropriate course of action.
Section 178 and 179 of the Constitution provides specifically for the removal of the Chief Justice.
The new legislative enactment uses the wording “Judges” which must therefore come under Section 180 of the Constitution which provides for the removal of Judges .
Section 180 empowers the Judicial and Legal Services Commission as that institution with the powers to refer any Judges to any tribunal. By the operation of Section 5(2) of the new act, the parliament has in itself put itself in the place of the Legal Services Commission as that institution which refers Judges to a tribunal.
Section 180 is already conclusive and exhaustive of the institutions and processes in which any Judge is referred to any tribunal or removed from his/her position. It is a constitutional provision any act of parliament cannot empower the parliament itself to perform any function which is already stated in the Constitution.
The new law is already in effect and now Parliament possesses that right under such a legislation which undermines what is provided for under the Constitution. Should it be said that the separation of powers as provided under Section 99(2) and (3) is no longer in application? In principle Parliament has the power to intimidate, manipulate and control the judiciary through the operation of Section 5(2) of the Judicial Conduct Bill.
(3) In the event that the Parliament has referred to Head of State a breach of Subsection (1), the Head of State shall on receipt of the notification from the Speaker of the referral from Parliament, appoint a tribunal consisting of a Chairman and two members, each of whom must be -
(a) a Judge or former Judge of the Supreme or of the National Court; or
(b) a Judge or former Judge of a court of unlimited jurisdiction of a country with a legal system similar to that of Papua New Guinea.
The above provision is a duplicate of Section 181(2) of the Constitution. The provisions in the new bill that make reference to the removal of Judges are already provided for under Subdivision H of the Constitution.
The Judges actions at all times should appear impartial, thus their conduct and behaviour should be of a high standard according to the law and if they do not conform to these provisions, the other provisions will come in to give the parliament power to step in and refer them.
(4) The Tribunal shall make due enquiry into any matter referred to it without regard to legal formalities or the rules of evidence and shall inform itself in such manner as it thinks proper, subject to compliance with the principles of natural justice.
(5) If the Tribunal reports to Parliament that Subsection (1) has been breached, then Parliament shall take whatever action necessary including a referral to the National Executive Council or the Judicial and Legal Services Commission for their consideration of the commencement of a process to remove the Judge in accordance with Section 197, 180 and 182 of the Constitution.
Section 5 of the Judicial Conduct Bill provides that the parliament appoints the tribunal. However in the Constitution, the tribunal is to report to the NEC but the new act requires the tribunal to report to the Parliament and this is contrary to the Constitution Section 157 which this act purports to implement.
Section 6 is contrary to s99 of the Constitution as it does not clearly specify how the separation of powers as provided for by s99 of the Constitution may promote transparent flow of separation of powers. It is clearly biased that only the NEC and not the Parliament or the legislative arm or the judiciary in their separate powers may admit justice especially on the judicial arm of the government meaning the NEC clearly infringes on the judicial arm of the government. It also goes beyond s178, 179 &180 of the Constitution which clearly versifies the creed of distinct separate powers in which Judges may be dealt with.
The effect of Section 5 & 6 is that both the NEC and the Parliament has the power to refer any Judge including the Chief Justice to the tribunal.
The Judicial Conduct Bill is rife with ambiguity. In reference to the definition of ‘Judge’ the Judicial Conduct Bill does not specify whether the term refers to Chief Justice also. While the Chief Justice presides over any matter, his Judgement is equal to that of any other Judge. Therefore this act can apply only when it concerns a matter that he presided over in his capacity as a Judge. This is because the title of the Chief Justice is administrative in nature. Subject to Section 4 states:
“Judges are to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in ALL of the Judges activities.”
As to the term “all” used above, it is not clear whether it refers to the Judge’s actions in the courtroom or concerning administrative matters. The administrative function of the Chief Justice is constitutionally mandated; therefore no act can contradict this mandate. Thus there is ambiguity between the act and the Constitution, however in all matters the Constitution must prevail.
In conclusion, it is our collective view as People who invoked our Constitution’s Preamble everyday in Government schools around the nation as enshrined in our National Pledge. We believe in the spirit of the Constitution of Papua New Guinea.
We believe in Integral Human Development and Papua New Guinean Ways, and the Rule of Law.
We believe this Act of Parliament is wrong. It is wrong!
It is laws like these that paint a bad picture of our country, and as the Ambassadors of this great nation, we the Students of the University of Papua New Guinea are absolutely against the Judicial Conduct Bill 2012.
We stand together on this night, from the Highlands and the mountains and the islands and valleys and coasts, we are the future of Papua New Guinea and tonight we stand together as One People, One Nation, One Country.








“MPs conduct Bill” ???????



SAM_2833We, the Students of the University of Papua New Guinea have boycotted Classes today. We had a lengthy forum which will be concluded tonight. The majority wants to take to the streets. We will consider our options tonight. I have spent the latter half of my preparing a Brief on the Act.
If anyone can put me in touch with Hon. Dame Carol Kidu and Hon. Samuel Abal, please do assist me. This is a reckless piece of legislation that must be shot down.
And we need the Media too. My number is 72335260.


Comrade Nou Vada






Read how the Department of Environment and Conservation bent over backwards so that MMJV could fuck the Watut and Markham Rivers with Cynanide... The Labu People cannot claim for compensation because MMJV will argue in court that their was "STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION" by DEC for them [MMJV] to fuck the Labu people.



Wage slavery: Renting yourself to an owner. Wage slavery is the same as chattel slavery. There is no difference between renting yourself and selling yourself. Even your time doesn't belong to you anymore and you're wondering why you're "free" and still cant make ends meet.

And while your pay is taxed and everything you buy is taxed the Corporations get tax breaks not just on their profits but even on the things they buy.

The Corporations promise jobs for Papua New Guineans and then when they begin operations they say we are unskilled. Therefore Papua New Guineans on jobs and other opportunities to equally participate in the formal economy.


The Preamble of the Constitution contains Papua New Guinea’s Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence are the National Goals and Directive Principles – basically the Papua New Guinean model of development.


Section 25 of the Constitution makes this declaration of Independence rather useless.


(1) Except to the extent provided in Subsections (3) and (4), the National Goals and Directive Principles are non-justiciable.


Well if you read the rest of the Constitution it pretty much legalizes the institutions of colonisation. So colonisation is legalized and Our PNG Ways are just words on a paper.



The writers of the Constitution recognized this Failed Model of Development. Colonisation now has a BLACK face that tramples its own people. Below are quotes from the Constitutional Planning Committee Report taken from Chapter 2 on their deliberation of National Goal and Directive Principle, Goal Number 5:  Papua New Guinean Ways.



97. In Chapter 4 of our Second Interim Report dealing with Provincial Government, we said-

"When Europeans settled in Papua New Guinea, they did not find a political vacuum on the shores and plains, and in the mountains of our islands. Our ancestors had well organised, self-sufficient communities or wanples, clans and

tribes, to meet the needs of their times. The price of the impact of Western colonisation has been the sapping of the initiative of our people."

98. The process of colonisation has been like a huge tidal wave. It has covered our land, submerging the natural life of our people. It leaves much dirt and some useful soil, as it subsides. The time of independence is our time of freedom and liberation. We must rebuild our society, not on the scattered good soil the tidal wave of colonisation has deposited, but on the solid foundations of our ancestral land. We must take the opportunity of digging up that which has been buried. We must not be afraid to rediscover our art, our culture and our political and social organizations. Wherever possible, we must make full use of our ways to achieve our national goals. We insist on this, despite the popular belief that the only viable means of dealing with the challenges of lack of economic development is through the efficiency of Western techniques and institutions.

99. We should use the good that there is in the debris and deposits of colonisation, to improve, uplift and enhance the solid foundations of our own social, political and economic systems. The undesirable aspects of Western ways and institutions should be left aside. We recognise that some of our own institutions impose constraints on our vision of freedom, liberation and fulfilment. These should be left buried if they cannot be reshaped for our betterment.



Wednesday, March 21, 2012



Above: Commissioner Nicholas Mirou, inspecting a logging camp with the Turubu SPABL in East Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea.

There are strong indications that several Land Grab Leases will be declared void by the Commission of Inquiry into Special Purpose Agriculture Business Leases, due to discreptencies in the process of land acquisition. Several reliable sources have hinted that the Commission has found that these leases were acquired with proper prior informed consent and many of the key landowner figures had received inducements from foreign companies.

It is understood that the Commission of Inquiry into the Special Purpose Agriculture Business Leases (SPABLs) is currently in the process of finalizing its report. The Commission may also be seeking an extension in order to thoroughly address all matters in its report. Given the workload of the SPABL Inquiry more funding may be needed and an extension sought to adequately address all matters in the Commission’s Report to Parliament.

The Commissioners are expected to finalise key recommendations to the Government soon. One of the recommendations that is expected to come out of the Inquiry is a review of the process related to land acquisition. Of particular concern is the manner in which landowner consent is acquired and the manner by which foreign investors have provided inducements to certain leaders in order for the land to be acquired.

Meanwhile, although the work of the Commission is currently proceeding well, staff are being paid “in dribs and drabs” as one source put it. The Commission of Inquiry was given K6 million for six months compared to the recent Rabaul Queen Inquiry that has received K12 million for 3 months.

Monday, March 19, 2012


This poster is dedicated to the people of Bougainville who’ve made us very proud over the weekend. There has to be a point when Papua New Guineans begin to deliver justice for the violence perpetrated against them.

The First National Goal and Directive Principle, as written in the Constitution of Papua New Guinea calls

“for every person to be dynamically involved in the process of freeing himself or herself from every form of domination or oppression so that each man or woman will have the opportunity to develop as a whole person in relationship with others”



Saturday, March 17, 2012

Recovering the State of West Papua, Sentenced to Three Years in Jail

Source: West Papua Media Alerts
by John Pakage

419954_335629229817835_100001122821780_907468_10134292_nForkorus Yoboisembut, Edison Gladius Waromi, Agustinus M. Sananay Kraar, Selpius Bobii and Dominikus Sorabut were sentenced to three years in prison, Friday (16/3). They were charged with founding the independent state of West Papua.

However according to the accused, the Third Papuan Congress simply affirmed the Papuan independence that was in place before Indonesia entered Papua.

“The Congress merely renewed the independence of Papua that was previously in place before Indonesia came to Papua” stated Forkorus to Cermin Papua in Jayapura (16/3).

Therefore, according to Forkorus, it is Indonesia that should be accused of subversion, given how it used military force to enter Papua.

The public knows that the Third Congress took place with official Indonesian government permit, from both Jakarta and regional police, authorizing the holding of the Congress in Jayapura.

Even though this official permit was granted, Indonesian police and military still attacked and captured Congress participants that were present at the time, without first issuing any warrant as required by the law.

Before the conviction and sentencing, the Papuan Customary Council (Dewan Adat Papua) asked the government to liberate the five accused in accordance with the UN’s Human Rights regulation of 2007 which affirms the right to self-determination of indigenous nations, including the West Papuan nation.

Representing the accused, attorney Gustaf Kawer stated that since the Third Congress until today, Papua has yet to exit Indonesia, such that the Congress must be considered as an expression of the democratic right to free speech.

“Until now Papua is still part of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia; therefore though the accused are convicted of subversion, these accusations are unfounded” said Kawer.

Reacting to the three year prison sentencing, the accused rejected the decision and stated their intention to continue to seek justice.

Bougainvilleans dispense justice on Rabaul Shipping scum




Reports from Buka say that the Mv Solomon Queen has been set on fire and two other two Rabaul Shipping copra vessels have been cut loose and are now drifting out into the open sea.

The three vessels had been held under guard by local groups since the sinking of the Rabaul Queen on February 2nd. The groups said the ships would not be released until Rabaul Shipping owner Peter Sharp settled for the lives of the many Bougainvillians lost in the disaster and the recommendations of an official inquiry were published.

The PNG government is still stalling over the funding for the promised Commission of Inquiry.


Dysfunctional-Blob Carr-bam, Foreign Minister of Australia


Last year Australian Officials were quoted as calling Papua New Guinea a “Dysfunctional Blob”. They didn’t know that this year their foreign minister would turn out to be one. In PNG there is a tok pisin expression, “faul-faul stap kar bai bamim u” which means IDIOT BE CAREFUL. And so by virtue of the powers vested in us by our ancestors and masalais [spirits] WE “christen” Senator Bob Carr the Foreign Minister of Australia: DYSFUNCTIONAL BLOB CARR-BAM

[Last year Australian Officials were quoted as calling Papua New Guinea a “Dysfunctional Blob”. They didn’t know that this year their foreign minister would turn out to be one. In PNG there is a tok pisin expression, “faul-faul stap kar bai bamim u” which means IDIOT BE CAREFUL. And so by virtue of the powers vested in us by our ancestors and masalais [spirits] WE “christen” Senator Bob Carr the Foreign Minister of Australia: DYSFUNCTIONAL BLOB CARR-BAM]

Bai yumi tok wanem, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr is a dysfunctional blob. Next taim em kam long PNG ol mas rausim su blong em long Jacksons Airport because he’s a threat to PNG’s National Security. It seems Australia is also playing good cop bad cop wantaim PNG coz when Bob Carr laik Carr-bam wantaim PNG; Bishop blong Australia said she is coming to understand PNG.

So dysfunctional blob I mean Bob, has basically hinted as to who may win the elections this year.

You see folks Australia would not have threatened PNG because it is afraid of PNG getting too close to the Chinese. They basically made a huge miscalculation in Fiji and they aint doin the same here.

So what are the implications of dysfunctional-Blob’s Carr-bam statements.

The party or Party(ies) backed by an alliance of Sino-Australian miners may win the UPCOMING GENERAL ELECTIONS. This would be a win-win for both China and the West and dysfunctional Blob Carr-bam wouldn’t care less about making threats to PNG.

Last year a Queensland billionaire miner with strong Chinese connections attended the fundraiser of a political party in Port Moresby.


Those who regularly follow the blog, you may have noticed that I’ve pulled down one of the posts related to the Casino incident.

The post was deemed to be very homophobic by some readers.

I have therefore decided to have it removed and wish to apologize to all those people who found it offensive.




Thank you



Thursday, March 15, 2012





Australia considers sanctions on PNG. ABOUT BLOODY TIME TOO!!!!

TOTALLY RUN DOWN: BORAM GENERAL HOSPITAL, WEWAK, EAST SEPIK PROVINCEIn 2009 Vanuatu politician Ralph Ragenvanu gave a Speech at a conference in Brisbane where he essentially highlighted that the reason Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands were less impacted by the 2008 Financial Melt-down was because a vast of their population80%) of their populations were disconnected from the formal economy.

The urban dwellers were less affected because the formal economy was much more exported orientated towards China and other Asian markets. The other key factor also is that the Australian mining economy was less affected by the crisis and that translated into Australian dollars for the Pacific.

Australian Aid money is essentially what keeps the formal systems in Papua New Guinea ticking. By extension, Australian Aid money literally corrupt keeps Politicians, Public Servants and Businessmen and their families alive. Most rural Papua New Guineans don’t have access to modern amenities and government services because the corrupt people who run this country squander the country’s wealth.

And so I was extremely delighted to read the latest threat from Australia’s new foreign minister, Senator Carr has threatened to impose sanctions on PNG. An AAP report published by the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Senator Carr as saying:

“It is absolutely vital that Papua New Guinea, that the government of Prime Minister O'Neill commit unequivocally to this election," Senator Carr told Sky News.

The failure to hold elections would create a "shocking model" for the Pacific, he said.

"You've got Australia placed in a position where we'd have no alternative but to organise the world to condemn and isolate Papua New Guinea," he said.

"We'd be in a position of having to consider sanctions.”

If Australia were to go through with its threat it is highly unlikely that the rural population will feel the crunch. If Australia were to withdraw AID, the most affected people would be those in the AUSAID INDUSTRY and the elite whose lives depend on life-support provided by AUSAID to a dysfunctional government system.

It’s important for Australians to understand that the Government systems of Papua NEW Guinea DO NOT SERVE THE INTERESTS OF RURAL PAPUA NEW GUINEANS. The government systems only serve, Chinese and Australian Miners, United States Oil Companies, the indifferent Middle Class, Corrupt Politicians and Public Servants and their families.

Take for example the recent Land grabs, the cover-up of Markham Fish deaths and Tumbi Landslide, the allowing of Chinese miners to dump toxic waste into the sea, etc... None of these activities sanctioned by the Government of Papua New Guinea are in the best interest of rural Papua New Guineans.

The similar scenario highlight by Ragevanu in relation to the 2008 Financial crisis can be applied to a situation where Australia was to impose sanctions. A remote Papua New Guinea community with no access to roads, airstrips, schools, police, courts, healthcare, etc... will still survive should Australia impose any sanctions. What may happen though is that the corrupt bastards who are ruining this country will feel the pinch and fight and kill each other like dogs over the bones that remain.

The timing of Senator Carr comments are also significant especially following the recent Wikileaks Strafor emails that revealed that:

“O'Neill is not any more pro-Western than anyone else up there. As long as he makes money for himself (he has significant business investments in mobile phones, among other things), he couldn't really care less.”

This recent Wikileaks documents only reinforce views held privately by Australian officials. In September last year Wikileaks released US Embassy cables that reveled:

“Australian officials have no illusions about the state of the PNG government. After a mid-2007 discussion on political and economic developments with Australian high commission staff in Port Moresby, the US embassy reported: ''One Australian analyst described generational change as a 'false hope', while other Australian officers described the PNG public service as a 'totally dysfunctional blob' that is great at planning but appalling at implementation.''

Australia, through AusAID, now finds itself in the unenviable position of securing the livelihoods of politicians who aren’t pro-Western and a public service that is a “totally dysfunctional blob”. AusAID has very little relevance to the rural majority of Papua New Guinea.

Sir Mekere Morauta reveals this growing irrelevance of AUSAID in the Wikileaks cables. ''AusAID is out of control,'' he says. Sir Mekere then highlights how misguided Australian assistance is at work with regard to schools, roads, healthcare and other infrastructure. ''Our problem is not a need for new infrastructure. At this point, we cannot even maintain the infrastructure we have,” he adds.

I hope that Senator is referring to AUSAID when he talks about sanctions. AUSAID has been keeping a “totally dysfunctional blob” artificially alive and perpetuating the existence of vermin.

The only people who stand to lose from any sanctions imposed by Australia are those who are systematically destroying this country both by their actions and inactions. By these I mean the Vampire Capitalists and their compradors in Politics, Public Service and Business.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012


The Constitution Planning Committee raised the same question and discussed it in Chapter 2 of their Report. Here is the WORD-FOR-WORD text of the discourse.

What kind of society do we want?

The relevance of the Eight Improvement Aims

7. Over the last two years, there has been much discussion about the kind of society that our people want. There was a wide ranging debate on the socio-economic aspects of this topic in the House of Assembly last year resulting in the adoption by unanimous decision of certain fundamental guidelines for national improvement known as the "Eight Aims". These are:

§ a rapid increase in the proportion of the economy under the control of Papua New Guinean individuals and groups, and in the proportion of personal and property income that goes to Papua New Guinea;

§ more equal distribution of economic benefits, including movement toward equalisation of incomes among people and toward equalisation of services among different areas of the country;

§ decentralisation of economic activity, planning and government spending, with emphasis on agricultural development, village industry, better internal trade and more spending channelled to local and area bodies;

§ an emphasis on small-scale artisan, service and business activity, relying where possible on typically Papua New Guinean forms of economic activity;

§ a more self-reliant economy, less dependent for its needs on imported goods and services and better able to meet the needs of its people through local production;

§ an increasing capacity for meeting government spending needs from locally raised revenue;

§ a rapid increase in the active and equal participation of women in all forms of economic and social activity;

§ government control and involvement in those sectors of the economy where control is necessary to achieve the desired kind of development.

8. There are several basic principles which lie behind these aims. These have been summed up in the ideas of Equality, Self-Reliance and Rural Development. The Government has clearly stated its commitment to these aims in developing the country's human and natural resources to bring about improvement in the lives of our people, and there is general consensus on these principles all over the country.

9. In evolving the National Goals and Directive Principles of Policy which we propose should be incorporated in the Constitution, we have taken full account of the Eight Aims. The Goals and Directive Principles we recommend are broader and more comprehensive than the Aims in that they provide for the full development of our people, whereas the Aims emphasize the economic aspects of our society. The Goals and Principles are generally consistent with the Aims but are more specifically aimed at achieving a free and just society in Papua New Guinea.

10. We did not determine these national goals in a matter of days or weeks. We have distilled them after a great deal of thought and discussion over the twenty-two months during which our Committee has been at work. During that time, as we have mentioned in our Introduction, we held well over one hundred public meetings in all parts of the country, and we received thousands of submissions, verbally and in writing, many of which were concerned either directly or indirectly, with the type of society we should seek to build for ourselves.

11. We believe that these goals, and the principles which should guide the government and our people in order to achieve them, express the needs and aspirations of our people in meaningful terms, and that they are stated in such a manner that people will readily understand and remember them. The particular form in which they have been cast - spelling out the goals first, and then stating the goals and the principles - is intended to assist our people to fully understand and appreciate them.

12. We consider that they should be given the widest possible publicity at all levels of government; in towns and villages; in schools and tertiary institutions; in churches and other organizations so that our people will become fully aware of them, discuss them and obtain a clear sense of the direction in which our country is heading. It should give each man and woman a clear appreciation of the need for him or her to participate fully in the building of our new nation - a nation which is firmly based on equality and social justice.



13. National Goals which we recommend should be incorporated in the Constitution are:-











Allied Gold using bullying tactics to cover up toxic spill

The news on Allied Gold’s toxic waste overflow in the Simberi Gold Mine that was reported in the National and Sunday Chronicle papers last week has alerted and created a major awareness for the New Ireland people and the country. The Provincial Radio Station also aired a live talk show by concern citizens criticizing Allied Gold’s poor safety record in the mine and other breaches and non-compliance to PNG Laws and policies. The company has not come out to defend itself but it has been reported to have made counter attack actions including obtaining a restraining order through O Brien Lawyers.

The company (Allied Gold) has quietly rallied with full force and huge funding to support the ML 136 Landowners to launch an attack on Simberi Mining Area Association (SMAA), The Minister for Mining and landowner Mr Aisoli Topu who spilled the information to the public on discharge of waste by illegal means when the pump was down and did not pump the toxic waste through the normal DSTP system.

At the time the pump was down on January 24, 2012, Allied Gold diverted the toxic waste by discharging it into a pond which overflowed causing a scare and threat to lives while the company still allowed production to continue. This was not reported within 24 hours to the Department of Environment and Conservation as the Law requires. For this reason Mr. Aisoli Topu a concern Landowner and the Simberi Mining Area Association (SMAA) raised the matter for Government and the public to know and at the same time exposed the company’s lack of care and due diligence in its Simberi mine operation. This then prompted the New Ireland Provincial Government Team to do a site visit a few days ago. The Department of Environment has yet to send a team to Simberi to verify the issue.

Another Landowner Mr. Simeon Lavaso said, I am sure that when a government Team is sent to Simberi mine it will be too late to see a trace of the toxic waste spill because weeks have passed and there is nothing to see and report to Government. So I say that the company is running around scotch free and enjoying a lack of government scrutiny and enforcement of its laws because there is no one in Simberi to do this for Government on a spot on basis in this remote island. I think this is the failure of government and it is definitely signing a death warrant for the people of Simberi and Tabar if it continues to treat the matter as an issue of peculiarity and not life threatening, said Mr. Lavaso.

It is alleged that Allied Gold Plc funded the ML 136 Landowners who got a Lawyer from O Brien’s Law Firm to Tabar on 8th March 2012. The Lawyer assisted the pro company Landowners (ML 136 Landowners) to sign affidavits which the Lawyer collected and flew back with to Port Moresby on Friday 9th March 2012 to prepare restraining orders against making statement against Allied Gold Plc which contravenes one’s freedom of expression and speech as enshrined in the constitution. The company and the ML 136 Landowners are exposed now in their partnership to curtail the constitutionally guaranteed rights of people to express themselves in a democratic country as Papua New Guinea against the so called multinational corporation acting like they are above the law of this country.

In a telephone communication with the mine Manager Mr. Peter Du Plessis on Friday 10th March he confirmed that he is working closely with the ML 136 Landowners and not the Legitimate and Mandated Association – SMAA, said Mr Topu. The ML 136 Landowners, it is alleged have been in full support of Allied Gold Plc operation in Simberi in return for favours such as contracts, free office space and other incentives. Lavaso said, “the only spin off contract in the mine is operated by a single Simberi Landowner Company called Sunamait Holding. The rest of the contracts are owned by the twenty five corporations of Allied Gold based overseas. I hope the ML 136 Landowners know this and are supposed to be concerned about it and ask Allied Gold to give more contracts to them and the Tabar people”.

“Ninety nine percent of spin off contracts are owned by the twenty five corporations of Allied Gold Plc and this system of creating corporations by Allied Gold has effectively cut off participation by potential Landowner business men and women of Tabar and New Ireland and concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and perpetuating their lot while Simberi and Tabar have nothing in the K500 million worth of assets and gold reserves worth millions of kina to date”, said Lavaso.

Lavaso further stressed that “there is virtually no asset owned by a Simberian or Tabarian in this mine so I do not understand what the ML 136 Landowners stand for and why they are so much in support of Allied Gold Plc? Sometimes I think my fellow relatives and Landowners are been given patronage to an extent they cannot tell the difference between tangible and intangible development from the mine or what is right and what is wrong with Allied Gold Plc. I have to come out in the media to show that I am concerned about the majority of our people in Simberi and Tabar who are just mere spectators in the Simberi mine while extraction of gold happens and their land, river and sea environment is polluted on a daily basis leaving nothing for the future children.

Mr. Topu supported his fellow landowner saying that, “I cannot comprehend why the ML 136 Landowners’ stand firm with Allied Gold Plc given the fact all their good flowing rivers we used for washing and drinking in the past have been turned into murky, mud laden and toxically contaminated rivers including the sea our fishing grounds and yet there has not been any real compensation for this loss and so where do they stand on this issue? Further to that there is no community development taking place, there is nothing for women, there is nothing for youth, there is no informal training and there is no sponsorship for Tabar children to College and Tertiary Training and specialized training in place. There is no proper public relation in place and the rest of the Tabar Community are not informed on what is really happening in Simberi. So what do they support Allied Gold Plc for? There is more not done to expectation by Simberi Mine. Another very serious allegation is that the ML 136 have been given free thousands of shares by Allied Gold Plc in 2010 so could this be the reason why they tag along with Allied Gold Plc all this time? The company has not even invited Tabar people to buy and own shares in it. Allied Gold Plc and the ML 136 Landowners must come out and tell the truth about their special relationship and how they benefit from each other?

I want to be counted as one of our many Tabarians to stand for the majority and tell Allied Gold to perform to international standards or to ship out if it cannot because it is ruining its reputation every day it stays in Simberi. I cannot keep quite on these pressing issues because if I do I am doing injustice to my people who are not well informed on the issue at hand.

................................ ……………………………………….
Landowner/ Landowner
Approved for publicity through the media. Call us to verify the information on 72883379/72800110