In the final presentation, most people in Buka supported the bills whilst those in Central and South Bougainville completely rejected the bills.
During debates on the bills many members said that the bills should have been explained fully by the Mining Department before the Legislation Committee did their consultations.
The session adjourned again to tomorrow after members made their comments on the presentation by MR. OSIOCO.
And here is the follow up press release from the SMLOLA who, in factual information, represent the Panguna landowners. The leadership of this associalion were elected unanimously at the recent AGM attended by an estimated 2,000 people, landowners & their relatives.
PRESS RELEASE
12 JUNE 2019
BOUGAINVILLE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REJECTS MINING ACT AMENDMENTS
In the much anticipated report on the highly contentious and widely opposed amendments to the Bougainville Mining Act, the Bougainville Parliamentary Committee on Legislation (“the Committee”) recommended that the Amendment Bill receive further consideration from relevant Departments and redrafting to take account of the matters that the Committee's consultation has revealed with the issue to be deferred until after the Referendum.
The Committee said this 'further consideration' should involve meaningful cross-Departmental involvement, public engagement where appropriate and the involvement of legal and technical expertise including wider consultation with the people of Bougainville.
The Committee stated that any proposal to amend the Bougainville Mining Act must not be rushed. It said that there were issues with the amending Bill including proposed abolition of landowner rights; unclear benefits for landowners; monopolies being created; uncertainty if mining lease holder has to be a local company subject to local regulation; uncertainty if mining lease holder has to be a fit and proper “person” to develop a mine; uncertainty if landowners get the benefits from the use of their land; unclear application processes (are the prescribed supporting documentation like environmental reports required?); terms or conditions of licence/lease not stated; constitutional breaches and conflict with Peace Agreement .
The Committee commented that it had been unable to speak to and meet with the principal sponsor of the amending legislation, Mining Minister Masono.
The Committee also stated that it was similarly unable to speak to and meet with the drafter of the Bills (believed to be Jeffrey McGlinn’s lawyer) to fully examine the drafting in detail.
The Committee remarked it was vital when a Committee is conducting its inquiries that the right people make themselves available to assist the Committee with information and evidence.
The Committee said that Bills did not have the necessary consultation, policy or legal oversight in their formation. The Secretary of the Department of Police, Corrective Services and Justice admitted to the Committee that he did not read or was engaged with the Bills when he initially certified them, saying, “The draft was prepared and brought forward to me.”
The majority of people and organisations who made submissions expressed serious reservations about the content and timing of the Bills.
The Committee’s Report noted that it had consulted extensively and covered locations in North, Central and South Bougainville. The Committee had received submissions from Government Departments, private organisations, investors, companies, Church, interest groups, advocates and individuals.
Many submitters questioned the real intention of the ABG in introducing such Bills and asking why such an amendment was urgent and whether it was necessarily important at a time Bougainville should be focused on its Referendum. Many of them said that the public wanted to know why the Bougainville Mining Act should be changed.
Mr Okuau tendered Section 32 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People’s - the obligation of Governments to cooperate with indigenous peoples to obtain their free, prior and informed consent prior to the approval of any projects affecting their lands.
The Most Reverend Bernard Unabali of the Catholic Diocese of Bougainville said wider consultation was needed, as where clear precise explanations, and that the consultation process of law making be properly adhered, to ensure the constitutional validity of the amendments is attained.
The Committee stated the Bills were poorly drafted, were vague and imprecise, quoting numerous examples of rushed and poorly drafted Bills.
It also stated that it found the key entity (to which the mining lease would be granted) – called “Special Bougainville Entity”, a curious concept to understand.
The Committee stated the legal position of Landowners would be fundamentally altered, as the amending legislation would remove an array of landowner rights and interests, in exchange for future undefined benefits that would have to be negotiated with the ABG rather than with the Licence or Leaseholder as the current Bougainville Mining Act provides.
The Committee reinforced their support for the four principles of law making: namely clarity of the law, stability of the law, law must be just and that the law must be protective of the interest of the people.
Mr Philip Miriori, Chairman of the Panguna Landowners Association, SMLOLA said,
“We thank the Speaker of the House for having the foresight to refer these Bills to the Bougainville Parliamentary Legislative Committee and we thank the Committee for doing such a thorough and professional job. The Panguna Landowners welcome the fair, objective and well-reasoned conclusions of the Committee based on their extensive consultations.”
(20min delay)
