New Zealand seabed mining company’s Chinese investor was caught up in 2010 bribery scandal

Rock Check Steel Group is based in Tianjin, China, and headed by president Rhonghua Zhang.

Jeremy Wilkinson | Stuff NZ | October 10 2016

A Chinese company once caught up in a multi-million dollar bribery scandal is a key investor in a New Zealand company proposing to mine iron ore off the South Taranaki coast. 

The Tianjin Rock Check Steel Group is a Chinese company with a 6.6 per cent share and a place on the board of directors at mining company Trans Tasman Resources, TTR.

TTR has applied to mine iron ore in a 66 square kilometre area of seabed off the South Taranaki coast. It is the company’s second application after being denied in 2014 because not enough was known about the potential environmental impacts of the mining on the area.  

In 2010 its Chinese investor Rock Check was embroiled in a bribery scandal that involved millions in bribes being paid to employees of Rio Tinto, one of the world’s largest mining companies.

Rock Check was one of 20 Chinese companies implicated in bribing four Rio Tinto employees to obtain iron ore pricings that allowed the companies to gain a bidding advantage over their competitors. 

Rock Check purchased shares in Trans Tasman Resources in 2011.

Rock Check’s then-president Xiangqing Zhang was named in court documents reported on by the Sydney Morning Herald and China Daily as being one of the biggest benefactors of the espionage. 

Court details revealed by Melbourne newspaper The Age and reported in the Sydney Morning Herald stated the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court verdict detailed how Xiangqing was one of two Chinese steel billionaires who both gave bribes to Rio Tinto salesman Wang Yong and credited him for helping to build their steel empires.

Investigators found RMB99m (NZ$20m) in Yong’s bank accounts.

It was reported  Xiangqing  suffered no consequences from the case.  

Before his death in 2014, Xiangqing was well known in China as a tycoon with a “tender heart and steel spirit”. It was reported in China Dailythat in 2008 he donated RMB100m (NZ$20m) for the rescue and rehabilitation of victims of the Sichuan earthquake in May that year.

Rock Check is headed now by Xiangqing’s wife Ronghua Zhang. 

Trans Tasman Resources formed in 2011, one year after the Rio Tinto scandal, and launched a bid in late 2013 to mine a 66 square kilometres patch of seabed off the South Taranaki coastline of 50 million tonnes of iron ore laden sand per year.

Their bid was rejected in 2014 by government’s Environmental Protection Agency on the grounds not enough was known about the environmental impact of the proposed mining activities. 

TTR would not answer questions about whether they knew of Rock Check’s involvement in the 2010 bribery scandal. 

A spokesperson for the company said Rock Check had acquired their shares in TTR by investing in the company when it was formed in 2011, the same as any other investor. 

” They initially acquired a board position and a conditional offtake agreement to purchase iron ore, which was subsequently terminated several years ago,” the spokesperson said. 

“TTR has no commercial arrangements or contracts with Rock Check.

“They remain a shareholder and entitled to a board seat but do not participate in, or control, the management or operations of TTR.”

The spokesperson said Rock Check still had interests in New Zealand as “a significant customer” of NZ Steel’s Taharoa operation.

Several attempts were made to contact the Tianjin Rock Check Steel Group through their website and via phone over the course of several days. They were unsuccessful.  

PNG, Bougainville and Rio Tinto – recapping some forgotten facts

Momis on O’Neill: ‘I have explained to the PM several times why it is vital the ABG holds the Rio shares in BCL. He has rejected my advice. He is interfering in Bougainville. He acts in the same high-handed manner as the colonial administration and BCL when the mine began. That caused the Bougainville crisis’

Tensions between the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) and the O’Neill Government continue, after the Prime Minister agreed to give its recently acquired 17.4% stake in BCL to landowners (this shareholder in BCL was ‘gifted’ by Rio Tinto, a multinational company accused of involvement in serious crimes on Bougainville). President Momis has condemned the decision to hand over equity to Panguna landowners, arguing it should be transferred to the ABG.

As these confusing turn of events continue to unfold, it is worth recapping some facts, that have been excluded from recent coverage and media releases, which provide context to the recent tensions:

– The Auditor General, Public Accounts Committee and national judiciary have found both the Papua New Guinea and Autonomous Bougainville Government are populated by politicians and officials, using levers of public power, for private gain.

– There is little prospect either government possesses the desire or capacity to use mineral extraction projects to achieve long-term development objectives. Their primary motivation is to generate revenue flows that will feed elite business interests and corrupt transactions.

– Only two minority factions in the mine impacted area have supported reopening Panguna.

– The first faction headed by Philip Miriori has met secretly with Prime Minister O’Neill, in addition to being in negotiations with backdoor Australian miners to reopen Panguna and other mines across Bougainville. 

– The ABG, through the Office of Panguna Negotiations, established a government sanctioned landowner faction for relaunching the Panguna mine. However, it has been paralysed by internal divisions, allegations of corruption, and a lack of wider community support.

– Both groups are described as minority factions, because they represent a standpoint that is deeply unpopular in the former mine lease area. 

– Those opposing large-scale mining do not have a representative body at present, because their preferred position – the permanent closure of Panguna – is currently in place. Any serious change to this position would trigger mass action in the mine area. 

 – There is widespread hunger within the ABG to see a range of mines opened across Bougainville. The only legal barrier to this ambition, has been the mining moratorium, that prohibited any mining outside of Panguna.   

– The first attempt to lift the moratorium against mining on Bougainville was initiated by President Momis in 1988-1989, when he was a Minister in the PNG government. Chinese investors and a company in which he had significant shareholdings was earmarked to obtain a monopoly over all minerals resources outside Panguna. This effort failed. However, the moratorium was lifted this year by the Bougainville parliament. 

– There is a strong chance that despite Rio Tinto’s retreat, the ABG will attempt to reopen the Panguna mine with the support of minority factions. It is also likely senior political figures will be looking to obtain a direct stake in the mining venture.

– Under the mining law written for the ABG by UK company Adam Smith International, landowners face severe custodial sentences and fines for resisting mining on their land. Increasing the risk of arrests and prison, under the law consent for mining can be given by the type of minority landowner factions mentioned above.

– Since 2000 an international campaign has been waged to bring Rio Tinto to justice for its actions on Bougainville.  

– The Autonomous Bougainville Government up until 2016 strongly opposed litigation against Rio Tinto, including the US Class Action. President Momis stated in 2013, ‘I think it can be negotiated outside of court. In fact, I believe if our people are prepared to allow negotiation with Rio Tinto we would get a much better deal’. 

– The strongest grounds for bringing Rio Tinto to justice center on well evidenced allegations of involvement in security force atrocities. They have been absent from recent ABG press releases. 

– The current Bougainville President was a Minister in the PNG government when these atrocities occurred, which could make this basis for action more sensitive and unlikely. 

Momis’ Panguna sequel will end as badly as the first

 Buka insider

‘Even if Rio Tinto walks away the Bougainville Copper could go ahead with the Bel Kol (custom reconciliation) and we can have the mine re-open’, President Momis recently told RNZI.

His statement casts doubt over the true source of the President’s anger, vented over past weeks, against Rio Tinto. Was it about justice? Or was the President simply aggrieved his plans to reopen the Panguna mine had gone off course?

Momis now will almost certainly look to China. He did back in 1989, when a company the President part owned with other North Solomons heavyweights attempted to obtain a hastily organised monopoly of the entire province’s mineral deposits, then the subject of a moratorium.

Before they had a chance to realise this potentially lucrative opportunity, the war took hold. Momis read about the butchery in Port Moresby, as he sat in Cabinet with men wielding the cleaver.

As things heat up with O’Neill, ABG power-brokers will likely not settle for anything less than a majority stake in BCL – they will leverage historical grievances to get what they want. The O’Neill government may give in, if their cut is sizeable enough.

It has to be remembered we are in robber-baron territory. With no oversight and no accountability, the big-men of Buka want steady streams of revenue coming in, ASAP. All they have to do then is stand there with a bag outstretched and watch it fill with gold pouring in from the treasury.

This can happen many ways, contracts for wives, fudged expense reports, one-off back payments, bribes from business – take your pick. Without a spotlight, things may even get cruder, misappropriation in its most base forms take place and will continue too.

Graft and theft is big business inside the ABG – but it is a business without much future, unless a viable income stream can be found large enough to satisfy big appetites.

The robber-barons know if a mine opens, they will be the chief beneficiaries. Who is going to stop the theft? The Ombudsman Commission, which barely raises a peep on the mainland, let along venturing out to the provinces? The Auditor General can issue its concern, and has, repeatedly, but who takes notice? Will the police investigate – unlikely, as they seek ABG’s favor, to keep their skeletal operation afloat. The parliament has its own public accounts committee, but infants taking their first step, don’t confront steaming bulls.

At the moment for any big-man walking into the ABG its like entering a bank, with no guard, no phone, and no sheriff. The only thing is, the gold bars are few and far between.

Panguna must reopen for this reason, quickly. The pit is like an exposed vault – it just needs someone with the technology to extract the gold, and pay taxes/royalties into the treasury, which politicians and officials can plunder, while trying to barter away local discontent with the odd infrastructure morsel, tossed from the table.

This is the Port Moresby model of rule.

Will the Chinese come in and save the day? They will probably stomach more risk than the Europeans or Americans. But they will want a bigger cut. Don’t be surprised, if any deal, also contains other big strings, like mandatory imported labour requirements.

Of course, it may not be profitable enough to even lure the Chinese.

Assuming it is, the biggest threat then becomes the landowners. The ABG has had minor success in pulling together a rag-tag representative body, which is more of a glorified business association, with little democratic mandate.

Even then it tares itself apart with infighting and disagreement. Assuming they can somehow create a palatable landowner shopfront for the ABG to sell from to the Chinese, inside the store is very different.

Armed communities throughout the mine area, won’t take kindly to trespassers offering grease, even if they are backed by mining laws written by British economic hitmen. They know the misery mining will produce, and will die again and again to prevent it. O’Neill wont send the troops – the Chinese might pay for some mercenaries, but it seems a long shot.

One senses the farce of the past five years, as a lustful President Momis chased Rio Tinto with tongue hanging out, will give way to a Chinese romance. It will be equally futile and will end badly. Meanwhile independence looms, farmers yell for policy, businessmen demand a strategy, and entrepreneurs truck and barter without a framework.

If only they knew how many businesses owned by public officials were getting large ABG grants, with nothing to show for it!

This movie sequel is looking more and more like a Hollywood horror show.

Quest for truth, justice and reconciliation in Bougainville

Catherine Wilson | The Saturday Paper | July 16, 2016

He has suffering and fury in his bloodshot eyes, which are brimming with tears as he talks about his life in Bougainville, the eastern autonomous region in Papua New Guinea, which emerged 15 years ago from a devastating civil war, known as “the Crisis”. Since being ripped apart by violence and civil war, Bougainville’s attempts at reconciliation have barely scratched the surface. Fresh calls for more traditional ‘truth telling’ are bringing renewed hopes for peace.

Peter, in his 60s, from Keriaka village on Bougainville Island’s distant west coast, is standing in Buka, the northern capital, surrounded by market-going crowds. He is unleashing a tirade against corruption and lack of development in his remote rural area. The can of South Pacific Lager in his hand ejects an arc of spray as he gestures wildly to make a point. Curious onlookers are now intently watching our very public interview.

“We are paying taxes and in return we have nothing … and the content of the peace agreement is not being implemented as it should. How can we move toward the future while these issues of the past are not being addressed?” he says.

Visible in his face is the trauma that still grips him after he fought and suffered during the decade-long conflict. 

In 1989, civil war erupted after an armed uprising by local landowners shut down the Panguna copper mine, majority-owned by mining giant Rio Tinto and the Papua New Guinea government. The massive mine, located in the mountains of Central Bougainville, was operated from 1972 by Australian subsidiary Bougainville Copper Ltd, but within 16 years it was the centre of indigenous protests about loss of customary land, environmental destruction and local stakeholders’ negligible share of its revenue, which peaked about 1.7 billion kina ($700 million). 

Papua New Guinea blockaded Bougainville in 1990 and the conflict raged on for another eight years, as the armed forces and revolutionary groups fought to gain control of the region.

Estimates of the death toll range from 15,000 to 20,000 people, or 10 per cent of the population. But there has been no inquiry into wartime atrocities and no accurate information is available of how many people died or suffered abuses. 

Peace and reconciliation efforts since the 2001 peace agreement, supported by international donors including Australia, which plans to spend about $50 million on aid here in 2015-2016, have been rolled out in a data vacuum. 

Now, a referendum in Bougainville on independence from Papua New Guinea looms within the next four years. It is a key pillar of the peace agreement, together with disarmament and the granting of autonomous government. But people across the islands have real concerns that unaddressed wartime abuses could undermine unity. Emotions and expectations of political change run high. 

“When we talk about the Crisis-related problems, our ideas are all mangled together and we are just talking on the surface, not really uprooting what is beneath, what really happened,” Barbara Tanne of the Bougainville Women’s Federation tells me. “Unless we sort out everything, we come with the truth telling, we cannot progress to the next level.”

Later, escaping the relentless humidity under a tree at the Catholic diocese offices, I meet Alex Amon, president of Suir Youth Federation in North Bougainville, who agrees with Tanne.

“I am 100 per cent going for that,” he says. “I am supporting a truth commission to be established before the period of the referendum, because we cannot walk across the land of milk and honey when there are differences.” 

Secessionist sentiment, evident in Bougainville since the 1970s, was reflected in Bougainville president John Momis’ assertion in a speech last year that the peace agreement “provides us with an exclusive right to self-determination”.

Transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions or criminal trials, are considered important for postwar reconciliation. Victims of human rights abuses have a legal right to know the truth of events and see perpetrators brought to justice. In its absence, experts warn, there is a high risk of trauma and mistrust festering and resurfacing in further violence or unrest.

Helen Hakena, one of many women who persuaded combatants to lay down arms before the 1998 ceasefire, now strives tirelessly through the Leitana Nehan Women’s Development Agency, which she founded, for peace and development. 

“There are victims,” she tells me. “They know the perpetrators but the perpetrators are walking freely right in the communities … It is really an injustice when you, the perpetrator, are moving on with your life as though nothing has happened but I cannot move on.” 

She anticipates consequences if atrocities aren’t addressed.

“It is happening now … The elderly people are passing on their negative experiences to their sons, who have not experienced that [the Crisis] and they will continue to hate the perpetrator’s family. Some of these kids will not know why they hate these people and there will be repercussions years later.”

The Bougainville government’s acting director of peace, Stephanie Elizah, acknowledges that previous discussions about transitional justice have never been acted on. There is particular sensitivity around the topic, particularly with former combatants, for whom the partial amnesty period from 1988 to 1995 is contentious.

In 2014, the government launched a policy to provide assistance to families still searching for loved ones who disappeared during the conflict, but it does not support justice or compensation measures.

Investigating human rights abuses soon after a fragile peace was declared would have entailed some risk, given that several armed groups did not sign the peace accord, nor surrender their weapons. However, Elizah admits the government’s current approach to peace and reconciliation, which will be reviewed this year, has fallen short of addressing deep-rooted grievances.

“Those who have been involved in some form of injustice to the next human being – some of them have been allowed to just go and be forgotten.”

The situation is now backfiring, with “a resurgence of human rights abuses … also new forms of payback, torture and sorcery killings”, reports the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Nearly one in five men in Bougainville had engaged in sorcery-related violence. One in two men, and one in four women, had been witnesses, according to a Bougainville study released by the UN Development Program last year. One in three men and women said there is lack of peace in their communities.

South of Buka, the central town of Arawa, located 26 kilometres from Panguna, saw intense fighting. Walking towards the heaving central fresh produce market, the sound of a helicopter cuts the air. Passers-by gaze silently skyward as it soars into the mountains in the direction of the mine. No longer do helicopters induce fear of being strafed by gunfire.

But last October, the rural community of Domakungwida, not far from Arawa, was stunned by brutal shootings. One male villager, accused of witchcraft, was murdered. Then a relative of the victim picked up a gun and shot the person believed to have led the killing. Arson and further violent retribution followed.

Local resident Rosemary Dekaung told me that witchcraft accusations related to events during the Crisis are
not uncommon.

“People have been accused of killing others during the Crisis and that has carried on in the form of recent killings.” 

She is adamant that customary truth telling and reconciliation processes, employed following clan wars for generations and led with remarkable success by local leaders recently in Domakungwida, should be rolled out consistently to address the Crisis.

When I ask Rosemary Moses at the Bougainville Women’s Federation in Arawa if this is actually happening, she replies that “unfortunately this is where we have let ourselves down. We have let other people drive the [reconciliation] programs that are for our people.” She says that the lure of donor money, rather than local ownership, has overshadowed hundreds of reconciliations. Internal revenue accounts for only 10 per cent of the Bougainville government’s yearly budget of about 300 million kina, making it heavily reliant on international donors and the PNG government to fund peace and development programs.

The Catholic bishop of Bougainville, Bernard Unabali, suggests customary and modern truth-telling mechanisms may be needed, but the former must come first. He reserves judgement on the truth and reconciliation commission launched in 2009 in the neighbouring Solomon Islands, which had its own civil conflict from 1998-2003. He says time is needed to see if it has made a difference to lasting peace. Nevertheless, he does not dismiss the idea of taking those guilty of mass abuses to court. Nor does Moses, who believes it would help restore a sense of justice in Bougainville. “The voice of the common people is so low…” Moses says. “At the moment there is a lot of fear in terms of what they can say, especially when it comes to atrocities.”

At the bottom of the mountain road that leads up to the Panguna mine, where it all started 27 years ago, youths in camouflage fatigues swing on the boom gate as we drive through Morgan Junction. The valley is scattered with rusting mine infrastructure and gutted buildings. Amid the ruins a young man proudly displays a garden of flowers he has grown and schoolgirls throw a ball around a deserted car park. And I wonder about the world they will inherit in another decade.

Govt needs to explain huge difference in mine sale prices

The Tolokuma mine, sold by the government for K80 million in November 2015, is now being traded for K670 million…

PNG Exposed | July 12, 2016

In November 2015, Petromin sold the Tolokuma mine to a foreign speculator, Singapore businessman Philip Soh Sai Kiang, for a reported K81.35 million [US$25 million]. Soh Sai Kiang acquired the mine using a Singapore registered front company, Asidokona Mining Resources.

The mine has been closed since April 2015 when Petromin shut down gold production claiming it could no longer cover the mining costs. 

At the time of the sale in November 2015, Petromin Chairman, Brown Bai said the decision was based on commercial considerations and refuted claims of ‘political overtones’. He said the Petromin Board had sole responsibility for the decision to sell. 

Mining Minister Byron Chan said the buyer, Asidokona Resources, was “reputable, committed, has integrity and capacity” (LOL).

Now, just eight months later and with the mine still mothballed, another Singapore outfit, LifeBrandz, an entertainment company that owns six nightclubs, bars and restaurants is reported to be paying US$212 million  [K670 million] to acquire the mine.

How can a State asset sold by the government for K80 million in November 2015 now be worth K670 million? That represents a huge profit of around K590 million for a Singapore based company, Asidokona Mining Resources, and its owner Soh Sai Kiang.

And why is Petromin House the registered address in PNG for Asidokona!

Can a PM wrapped in corruption allegations be trusted on PNGSDP?

Photo: Joosep Martinson

Prime Minister O’Neill ‘Committed to Resolving the PNGSDP Issue’

Papua New Guinea Today | 30 June 2016

Prime Minister Peter O’Neill reiterated today that the Government remains committed to ensuring that the assets of Papua New Guinea Sustainable Development Program are protected and safely delivered back to the people of Western province.

“We have said all along that all assets under the care of PNGSDP, including the US$1.3 billion long-term fund in Singapore, belong to the people of Western province and PNG.

“We have begun a process to have these assets returned to their rightful owners, and to be utilized for their direct benefit.

“Despite efforts by individuals with vested interest to frustrate and hinder the process we have undertaken, I am delighted that we have made a lot of progress.

“The court cases in Singapore and the international arbitration tribunal which the people of Western province won, are part of this process.”

The Prime Minister welcomed media reports that Sir Mekere Morauta was open to a speedier resolution outside of the court process.

“I welcome this gesture and I am always available for talks. It is not my practice to shut the door on anyone.

“Had Sir Mekere not walked out of the negotiations we started earlier on this issue, we would not be where we are today.

“So he has to be genuine about this.

“At the end of the day, we are talking about assets that belong to the people of Western province. They do not belong to me or Sir Mekere.”

PM O’Neill said the Ok Tedi Mine was unique case, which the government had to pursue in this manner.

“Sir Mekere created this complicated structure to deprive the people when he was Prime Minister. He must feel bound to help us undo it. Otherwise we will continue the fight in court and return these assets to the people,” the Prime Minister said.

Survey reports mining bribe claims

Ropate Valemei | The Fiji Times | June 10, 2016

CIVIL society organisations (CSOs) report numerous instances where chiefs of deep sea mining (DSM) project-affected communities were swayed by bribes or personal favours from Government or industry to allow mining and/or other industrial activity in their villages.

This included villages where CSO surveys reported 100 per cent disapproval from respondents on mining prospects on their land.

This was revealed in the report by Blue Ocean Law and the Pacific Network on Globalisation, which was released early this week, on how deep sea mining and inadequate regulatory frameworks imperil the Pacific and its people.

The report notes this occurred with respect to fishery agreements, where the consent of fishery owners within the village had been bypassed by obtaining the endorsement of the chief instead.

“The courting of local leaders, chiefs or landowners undoubtedly poses risks for the preservation of traditions and livelihoods of indigenous communities,” the report notes.

ABG surrendering Bougainville to foreign corporations

Chris Baria

Friends, citizens, fellow country men and women. I am here to express my utter dissatisfaction and discontentment with the way ABG and a select group of people are leading us blindly into the teeth of a storm. Some months ago a Mining Law was passed in the ABG House of Representatives. Few days ago there was a blanket lifting of the moratorium. With it we have surrendered our last bastion against the onslaught of corporate might that has taken over democracies through out the world. How strong, how capable and how well resourced is ABG to contain such might?

Many of us think this is some airy-fairy theory. Many of our leaders and people in the village do not understand that the world out their had changed so much while we in the “dark ages” of the crisis. Today, big businesses control much of what use to be known as the “free-world”. There is a new form of government masquerading as democracy where government conspires with powerful corporation to liberalize the economy and the public sector for a takeover by these corporations. It is called “Corporatocracy” Thanks to the Internet where we can always go to sites that give us the other side of the coin so that we are not misled to believe all the lies dish on television, newspapers and other media for the benefit of the government and its cronies.

I am further sadden that the quest for wealth has taken over the initial cause that we went to war for. They are telling us that the crisis was a bad call and it shouldn’t have happened. So what happened to the heroic stance that people of Bougainville took against all odds to defend themselves, their land and environment for the future generations against an unscrupulous mining giant that was tearing up the mountains and valleys leaving communities landless and penniless. We were hailed around the world as the first ever indigenous victors against a world class mining company.

Australian Government sat on the fence hoping that these pathetic poorly armed kanakas would be put in their place. It shamelessly supplied arms and helicopters to claiming that it was part of some defense cooperation program. It was a disappointment and maybe embarrassment for them in the end. All these efforts were for nothing but reopening of the mine at Panguna.

ABG denies (or tries to) that Mining Law and Moratorium lifting are aimed reopening Panguna when we have BCL management singing a different song.

ABG claims that the people through out all of Bougainville have agreed to the blanket lifting of the moratorium. I have no problems with that. My question is, do we sincerely believe majority of our people know what a “moratorium” is or what we mean by “blanketing lifting?” Do they know what they are agreeing to? The Sioux, Apache, and Cherokee indigenous people defeated rather annihilated US 7th Calvary at the battle of Little Big Horn. Today, this once proud, brave and noble people live in Reservations around USA. A people reduced to rubble by a government that they looked up to and trusted after they signed a treaty not knowing what they were doing.

One of the key requirements for referendum is total disarmament. During May 17 celebrations I was not in Bougainville but I am told that people are heavily armed. Assault rifles, grenade launchers and machine guns enough to dissolve the PNG parliament were openly displayed on that day.

So why are this people totting such toys when they should be happy that BCL or whoever is going to come and mine minerals is going fill up their houses with wealth while they seep Champagne on ice by the roadside?

Are these the people who have agreed to lifting of blanket moratorium as we are told?

Over a period of time I have come to realize that life is more exciting when people say one thing and do another. Great novelist sell their work because protagonists are liars. Yes we were led to believe we were fighting to close the mine and for something call independence which allowed us to mind our own business.

Yes we all sacrificed our nice jobs, our salaries, our medical benefits, school fee subsidies and because we looked out the window and saw that we had left our people behind when we got on the bus.

The very people who preached bleached white freedom now have come down with severe case of amnesia. They can’t remember all that “I am for you” messages they the imparted to us.

Just how much money does the Autonomous Region need to operate without politicians dipping their dirty fingers into the national coffers? Have we set up industries that will act as a buffer in our economy when price of copper and gold fall? Are we preparing our people for the advent of mining or are they just going “get in the way” again as usual?

A large number of educated elites support leanings towards mining without broader understanding of it’s impact on people other than themselves who stand to gain through employment or otherwise. We cannot pretend that we are westerners. We come from a world where groups interests are more important than individual. We belong to a extended family, clan and an area or ethnic group. This are the things we must consider before we make decisions that may clash with our way of life.

Seek to find deeper truth, let’s be honest with ourselves, if we are to gain respect from those who seek to do business with us. Maski crawl olsem kuka painim moni na glory.

Thank you.

NZ government looks to change law to accommodate seabed mining

Photo: ROBERT CHARLES/ Fairfax NZ

Green Party | Foreign Affairs | June 9, 2016 

Environment Minister Nick Smith and the National Government appear to have bowed to pressure from mining lobbyists to change the law to help seabed mining companies.

In 2013 Trans-Tasman Resources applied for a marine consent under the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) legislation to mine 66 km² of the seabed for iron ore off the South Taranaki coast. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Decision Making Panel refused the application. In its 2014 decision the panel said the scale of impacts was uncertain and it wasn’t satisfied that potential environmental effects could be avoided or remedied. Impacts included sediment plumes with potential impacts on fisheries, ecosystem productivity and health, and marine mammals including the threatened Maui’s dolphin.

Documents released to the Green Party under the Official Information Act show that mining industry lobby group Straterra wrote to National Ministers shortly after the 2014 EPA decision, on behalf of Trans-Tasman Resources, pressuring the Government to review the decision making process which governs applications to mine in New Zealand’s EEZ.

Straterra also a produced a paper analysing the Trans-Tasman Resources decision and seeking a range of changes to the EEZ legislation and the way the EPA operates, in order to promote mining.

A year later the Nick Smith went against official advice and proposed a law change to give himself, as Minister, greater influence over decisions to approve or decline seabed mining in the EEZ.

This law change, in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (RLA Bill), removes the independent EPA from its role appointing the Decision Making Panel which decides seabed mining and other applications in the EEZ. The Bill instead requires the Environment Minister to appoint members of a Board of Inquiry who will decide these marine consent applications.

The regulatory impact statement for the RLA Bill shows that officials advised against this law change, arguing that greater ministerial involvement would not only increase costs to the taxpayer, but create a perception that the government was seeking to influence the outcome of independent decision-making process. [1]

National has not been straight-up with New Zealanders. These law changes are clearly about enabling the Minister to influence who makes decisions about controversial and high impact activities such as seabed mining. National is about to replacing an independent decision making process with a more political one, and override decisions that recognised we need to put the long-term health of our environment ahead of short-term profit making.

National is deliberately eroding the independence of our Environmental Protection Authority, by instead giving the Minister the power to handpick the people to decide which environmentally damaging projects should go ahead. The whole point of having these things at arm’s length is so New Zealanders can trust the decision makers to be fair and objective and make evidence based decisions about environmentally damaging use of natural resources.

National’s law changes compromise this independence, allow vested interests more influence and mean the mining industry and other resource users won’t have to lift their game.

 Timeline of events

In June 2014 an EPA appointed Decision Making Committee declined Trans-Tasman Resource’s application to mine the seabed off the South Taranaki coast for iron ore. [2]

Four months later (October 2014) Straterra wrote to National Ministers on behalf of trans-Tasman complaining that the government wasn’t doing enough to counter “an ideologically-driven, anti-mining agenda in New Zealand” and saying that changes were necessary “to the structure of the [EPA-appointed] decision-making committee, the nature and operation of the hearing process, to the way in which the EPA conducts its role, and the law.”[3]

In December 2015, Environment Minister Nick Smith introduced legislation (RLA Bill) which removes the EPA’s role in appointing decision making panels and instead requires the Minister to appoint the Board of Inquiry to decide applications for notified activities such as seabed mining in the EEZ. [4]

In November 2016, a month before the Minister publicly announced the legislative changes, Trans-Tasman Resources announced it would be making a new bid to mine for iron ore off the South Taranaki bight. [5]

References

[1] MfE (2015) ‘Regulatory Impact Statement – Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015: alignment of the decision-making process for nationally significant proposals and notified discretionary marine consents’, page 5.
[2] http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/eez-proposals-details.aspx?ProposalNumber=EEZ000004
[3] See letter obtained under the OIA from Straterra to Ministers titled Minerals Policy Proposals, October 2014, page 5.
[4] This change confirmed in government Summary of Resource Management Act Reform, page 9. The difference between the two decision-making processes as described in MfE’s Regulatory Impact Statement, page 7.
[5] http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/74547041/transtasman-resources-apply-for-new-permit-to-mine-iron-ore-from-seabed.html

President John Momis implicated in Chinese-Australian plot to lift Bougainville mining moratorium

The Panguna mine’s scars remain

PNG Exposed | 12 May, 2016

It was 1989, blood was spilling on the streets of Bougainville after landowners closed Rio Tinto’s controversial Panguna mine. Yet while mobile squad officers and the BRA traded fatal blows, a number of political heavy weights were trying to lift Bougainville’s moratorium that forbade any further mining activities.

According to internal records published for the first time here (see below), senior government figures wanted exploration licenses over the island to be exclusively issued to Bougainville Resources Pty. Limited (formerly Patana Company No. 86 Pty. Limited), a corporate entity which they had a 49% stake in through their shares in the holding company Patana Company No. 89 Pty Limited (see below).

It can be revealed that President John Momis was one of the individuals with shares in this company. He was also directly implicated in this effort to open up Bougainville to mining exploration, at a time when Panguna was provoking a war that would end up taking 20,000 lives.

Just two years prior John Momis had written to Bougainville Copper Limited, denouncing the devastation that mining had caused to his island. Then he described the company as a “cancer”.

Two years later Momis’ colleague the North Solomons Premier wrote to Papua New Guinea’s Mining Minister, to ask that the mining moratorium be lifted, and exclusive prospecting license be issued to a company Bougainville Resources Pty. Limited.

This company was co-owned by a Chinese-Australian consortium, Bougainville Gold Enterprises Pty Limited (50.1%), and a second concern, Patana Company No. 89 Pty. Limited (49.9%). Bougainville’s current President held 33% of the shares in Patana Company No. 89 Pty. Limited.

In a second letter to the Mining Minister the North Solomons Premier insisted that the lifting of the moratorium and the award of a prospecting authority to Bougainville Resources Pty Limited, would help to stop the Bougainville crisis in its tracks. He also implies that a failure to comply with this request, may lead to a loss of provincial support for the upcoming Bougainville Copper Agreement renegotiation, which was seen as critical to the national government’s Bougainville peace package.

As part of this high risk strategy being pursued by those behind Bougainville Resources Pty Limited, the Mining Minister is asked to steamroll over existing regulations through an amendment to the Mining Regulations – this would ensure there was no time for objections to be lodged by potential “opponents” to this mining exploration monopoly over Bougainville.

 “It is a matter of urgent priority that the Prospecting Authorities sought by our company (Bougainville Resources Pty Ltd) be awarded immediately. Applications for Prospecting Authorities through the current regulatory framework would take time which in this instance is a luxury we cannot afford ourselves. The long period of time involved under current application procedures would also permit opponents to orchestrate a deliberate campaign of misinformation which could jeopardise our aspirations and our venture”.

The letter continues: 

“I suggest that the solution can be found through a change in the Mining Regulations (Chapter 195) whereby so far as the applications for Prospecting Authorities related to the North Solomons Province, the time period as prescribed under the above regulations for objections (Section 69), time for hear(ing) (Section 70), and such other procedural impediments to an immediate consideration and granting of our Prospecting Authority application – be minimised as far as possible”.

While these letters to the Mining Minister were never made public, the press did uncover links between Momis and the Chinese-Australian consortium who would be the primary beneficiary of this secretive deal.

The Australian Financial Review revealed in 1990:

 “A detailed plan is in place for a joint venture between Bougainville’s Provincial Government and Australian business interests to acquire the prospecting rights for virtually the whole of the island, once security is restored. Although Bougainville MP and the national Minister for Provincial Affairs, Father John Momis, conceived the venture, its true architect is Sydney-based notary, Mr Benedict Chan. Associated with Mr Chan in the Bougainville Resources joint venture is Sydney media consultant Mr Martin Dougherty, through the PNG-listed company Patana No 82 Pty Ltd [renamed Bougainville Gold Enterprises Pty Ltd]”.

At the time it appears reporters were not aware that Joseph Kabui, John Momis and James Togel each held shares in the company partnering with the Chan led consortium. Therefore, no questions were asked about the nature of this involvement.

Nevertheless, when Benedict Chan was confronted with general allegations of corruption, he claimed “Why would I need to ‘grease’ people? It is a commercial venture”. The Australian Finance Review also noted: 

“Mr Chan denied he was a financial backer of Father Momis’ Melanesian Alliance Party … But, Mr Chan said, he was a ‘personal supporter’ of the Melanesian Alliance and was also a trustee of the Melanesian Awareness Campaign, another organisation of which Father Momis was a trustee”.

This  historical revelation comes as John Momis in his capacity as ABG President has overseen discussions that could potentially lead to a lifting of the mining moratorium on Bougainville. This began with the passing of the Bougainville Mining Act 2015 – drafted by controversial British company Adam Smith International – and it continues as parliament debates the moratorium question at this very moment.

There are public concerns that any lifting of the moratorium will be used by today’s political heavyweights on Bougainville to benefit a small national minority and their foreign business partners. Already misgivings have been expressed over the considerable payments made to businessmen such as Henry Chow by the Momis government.

These new revelations over Bougainville Resources Pty Limited, also raise important legacy issues. For example, why were certain political leaders trying to lifting the moratorium at a time when the mining question on Bougainville was throwing the nation into civil war? Could the war have been averted, if more time had been spent dealing with Panguna landowner grievances, rather than engineering a scheme to open up Bougainville to the Chinese-Australian exploration company?