Television New Zealand has filed an opposition claim against Vodafone’s attempt to trademark the name “One NZ”.

In September last year, the telecommunications company revealed it wanted to change its name to One New Zealand to better reflect its legacy in Aotearoa, having separated from the global Vodafone group three years ago.

But a TVNZ spokesperson said its own TVNZ 1 and One News were reputable and valuable brands, and it was keen to protect them.

“Given these discussions are ongoing, we are simply exercising our rights until the parties reach a position they are comfortable with,” they said in a statement.

“We continue to partner with Vodafone commercially and on a range of projects.”

An initial three-month extension to the opposition period was filed in October but could not be renewed, and discussions had paused for the holiday break.

In a statement, Vodafone NZ corporate affairs head Conor Roberts said they expected TVNZ’s objection given the extension period could not be renewed.

They were “constructively working” with TVNZ on the matter, Roberts said.

“The remaining issues are minor and procedural and relate to various uses of the brand — rather than whether it can be used at all — and as such we believe they can be resolved,” he said.

Vodafone has up to two months to file a counterclaim or withdraw the application.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Indonesian government has filed a K105.6 million (US$30 million) writ against Papua New Guinea, naming two senior officials as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of hazardous materials.

The two officials named are acting managing director for Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA) Gunther Joku and State Solicitor Daniel Rolpagarea.

Republic of Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry-Basel Protocol’s Department’s Chief Compliance Officer Siti Muhammad told the Post-Courier they had been given the cold shoulder by the PNG government over the issue.

Last week the Indonesian government, in a letter addressed to the CEPA’s’s acting managing director Gunther Joku demanded that the PNG government pay a fine of K105.6 million (US$30 million) in 14 days for the management and storage of six illegal oil shipments.

Muhammad said that by 1 August 2022 PNG would be required to seek written approval from Indonesia Environment prior to the loading of any oil-related products, including but not limited to HS 1511 – Palm Oil HS 2710 – Crude Oil.

“We have advised Sime Darby (Malaysia) of the new process required effective August 1 2022 toward any oil palm shipments which transit through our waters and Indonesia Customs is advising PNG customs as such,” she said.

“It is my intent to ensure that any shipments coming from Papua New Guinea are monitored and checked for correct information due to the ongoing mislabeling issues.

Filed a writ
“We have filed a writ against the State of Papua New Guinea, naming Mr Gunther Joku and Mr Daniel Rolpagarea as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of Hazardous Materials from Papua New Guinea and they will be advised in due course and requested to attend the hearing in Jakarta.”

Muhammad said they were currently planning a ban on any oil shipments through Indonesian waters either to or from PNG until such a time they had assurance that the products which were being claimed, were indeed what were being shipped.

This includes oil palm and crude oil.

“The waters of Indonesia are critical to the Asia-Pacific region and we acknowledge that on the previous instance of PNG causing a spill from an illegal shipment, no recognition or rectification was provided,” Muhammad said.

“Our waters provide transit for fuel to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. Closing our waters due to an issue from Papua New Guinea will see the entire Indo-Pacific shut down and provide an unthinkable security risk to the region.

“Many countries will suffer if our waterways are blocked due to this occurrence. Indonesia will not take such risks purely because Papua New Guinea lacks the interest to implement programs which she has signed to.”

Melisha Yafoi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Winston Peters is well known for being belligerent, complaining and prone to political conspiracies. It’s easy to write-off his current High Court trial as hubris and score-settling. 

Peters is suing former National Cabinet Ministers and heads of government departments for their alleged role in his embarrassing 2017 scandal when his pension overpayments were made public in the midst of the election campaign.

Many seem to think that the Deputy Prime Minister should just move on. However, the issues involved in Peters’ lawsuit are incredibly important for politics and democracy. They go to the heart of ethics and the dangers of corruption in government. Peters is alleging, after all, that public servants and ministers of the Crown used privileged and private state information in a way that tried to bring him and his political party down during an election campaign.

One journalist who has been close to much of this action, has little doubt that dirty politics has been in play. Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan claims that she knows it was National who leaked the dirt on Peters’, because they told her this themselves – see her opinion piece, Winston’s in the right – National has a history of playing ‘dirty politics’.

Here’s the key part: “Did the National party leak Winston Peters’ superannuation details? In my opinion, yes. The reason I say that is because in the weeks before the leak, I was told by the Nats that the Nats had the information. They told me they were considering leaking it. They told me how they would leak it, the process they would follow to cover their tracks. Without going into details, I can tell you that’s exactly how it played out. So the chances that the Nats leaked it are about 99 per cent.”

Du Plessis-Allan says Peters is therefore completely justified in taking legal action: “Winston Peters is doing the right thing by suing senior MPs in the National Party. In fact, he’s doing us all a favour. I’ve no appetite for the dirty politics that the National Party plays. In my time working in and around the press gallery in Wellington, in my opinion, there was no party prepared to stoop to the levels the Nats were to ruin someone’s reputation. Too often they made things personal.”

I’ve also argued that Peters’ case is a vital one for democracy – see my opinion piece published yesterday on the RNZ website: The Winston Peters case and the politicisation of the public service.

Here’s my main point: “It’s yet to be proven that the National politicians were in any way involved in the leak – even if it seems highly likely. But what is not in doubt is that the dirt on Mr Peters was passed on to his political opponents by public servants. Mr Peters is right to challenge this. There is something wrong when government departments are passing on potentially damning electoral weapons to their masters of the day. There’s a term for this: the politicisation of the public service. It’s what erodes democracies, allowing ruling politicians to have unfair and unethical advantages over their opponents.”

Much of the debate in the case hinges on the so-called “No Surprises” briefings that senior public servants used to convey the information to National Cabinet Ministers during the 2017 election campaign. These briefings are supposed to be used to alert government ministers to significant operational developments in their government departments.

But it’s hard to see how the Peters pension overpayments qualified as being a legitimate subject for a briefing. According to blogger No Right Turn, “WINZ had a legal duty to protect his privacy. And instead of doing that, they handed private data about a past issue which had been resolved to their satisfaction and which they had decided was not worthy of prosecution or further action to Ministers to be used for a shoddy political smear” – see: Winston is right.

According to the blogger, Peters is therefore right to characterise the leak as “malicious” and “repugnant”, and he believes those involved “absolutely deserve to be taken to the cleaners over this”.

Similar arguments have been made by rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton, who says the “no surprises” briefing policy has become corrupted, leading to its misuse for political and anti-democratic advantage of governments – see: Good may come from Peters’ lawsuit.

According to Hooton, in recent administrations, “scuttlebutt” about political opponents would be passed on by government departments under the auspices of the need to know in case it becomes public, but this political dirt was then likely to become public through this very process.

Hooton finds it hard to believe that the two ministers who were briefed – Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett – wouldn’t have misused the dirt on Peters by leaking it. But he says that’s only natural, as politicians can hardly be blamed for doing what politicians do, and really it’s the job of officials to keep information to themselves. He’s astounded that senior public servants could possibly believe it was right to hand the information over to campaigning politicians.

For more on the history of the “no surprises” briefing policy, and how it has been misused, it’s also worth reading John Tamihere’s column from last year: Peters right to pursue leak in court.

In this, he argues that public servants should have been extra careful during the election period not to involve themselves in politicised actions, and the officials who decided to pass the political dirt onto National politicians would have known this information would hurt Peters and affect the democratic process.

With the High Court trial in full swing, we are now seeing the politicians having to explain themselves. For the latest on Anne Tolley’s involvement in spreading the Peters information, see Isaac Davison’s Winston Peters’ pension overpayment: Anne Tolley admits telling staff, family members.

According to this, Tolley shared the dirt on Peters with staff and family members. Furthermore, the information was passed onto others in Tolley’s office.

Not everyone following the High Court trial necessarily sees Peters as being the victim. Newsroom co-editor Tim Murphy, is covering the trial in detail, and portrays the leak of Peters’ pension information as being the work of a “whistleblower”. The implication is that Peters deserved to be exposed – see Murphy’s latest report from the courtroom: Minister told husband, sister about Peters’ super.

In this, Murphy also reports the arguments of Tolley and Bennett’s lawyer, Bruce Gray QC, who suggests that the release of the dirt on Peters was in the public interest. Gray says: “For senior politicians seeking high office there are things which the public are legitimately interested in and may be entitled to know, that need to be considered.” And he bats away the notion that Peters might have an expectation of privacy: “sadly for those who bring themselves into the public eye, it’s not one-size-fits-all. It is case-by-case and person-by-person.”

The same article also reports on the other minister briefed about Peters, Paula Bennett, who says she informed National’s campaign strategist, Steven Joyce, when he expressed concern that the media were about to publish scandalous details about Bennett’s own private life. She claims she wanted to reassure him that a looming expose in the media would actually be about Peters rather than her.

Murphy also reports on the testimony of other journalists summoned as witnesses – see: Who leaked? Journalists’ views differ. In this, Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper is reported as blaming the National Party for the leak, while Newsroom’s Melanie Reid pointed in another direction: “Reid said her anonymous informant had imparted unhappiness at the fate of former Greens co-leader Metiria Turei over welfare payments when Peters’ overpayment had been quietly tidied away.”

In another article, Murphy reports on the trial discussions of how Peters came to claim the wrong level of superannuation, together with the role of Peters’ partner in the issue – see: Trotman forced out of Winston’s shadow.

Despite all the focus on who filled in Peters’ application form, and who was at fault, the article notes that the Chief High Court Judge, Justice Geoffrey Venning “said the case was one of breach of privacy and it was accepted a mistake had been made on the form. He did not expect to spend much time on the form-filling in his judgment.”

Finally, given that the Peters’ court case involves the politicisation of the public service, it’s useful to reflect on the fact that today is New Zealand’s first official “Public Service Day”, celebrating the anniversary of the day the Public Service Act 1912 became law, establishing a politically neutral and professional public service – see Minister of State Services, Chris Hipkins’ Celebrating NZ’s first Public Service Day.

It’s a big deal when the High Court rules against a former prime minister and fines them $6m for their reckless business practices. After all, it raises questions about the probity of such former political leaders, especially given that Jenny Shipley has a knighthood and holds the respected honour of being New Zealand’s first female prime minister.

This week a High Court judge ruled that Shipley is liable for up to $6 million after the collapse of construction company Mainzeal, of which she was the chairperson. Along with her fellow directors, Shipley was deemed by the judge to have been “reckless” in allowing the giant firm to keep trading for nine years while insolvent.

She will personally escape the fine, which her insurance will apparently pay. So, does this mean that she gets off scot-free? No, her reputation is hurt, and there are now questions about whether she should relinquish her knighthood, and whether it’s time for her to step down from her other public and business leadership roles.

The most damning response to Shipley’s loss in the High Court is today’s Dominion Post editorial which says: Shipley’s shiny post-politics career forever tarnished (). The newspaper points out that the $110 million her company was left owing to creditors has been “borne by the ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders politicians like Shipley usually champion.” And she had that position as a result of her “mana”.

Shipley’s loss in court “could hardly have come at a worse time” according to the paper, because it comes on the back of her recent public statements in praise of China. The editorial states: “The Chinese government was clearly using a former New Zealand Prime Minister as a propaganda mouthpiece.”

The reaction in the blogosphere has also been severe. Documentary-maker Bryan Bruce sees Shipley’s judicial loss as apt, because the controversy mirrors her time as a politician: “The legacy of both the Bolger and the Shipley neoliberal governments was that they opened up a huge gap between the rich and the poor in our country. They slashed benefits for example, as a result of which all the diseases that affect poor children the most all shot up” – see: Former PM ordered to pay creditors $6 million.

Bruce points out, “As a result of the Mainzeal collapse a lot of tradesmen were not paid, some of their businesses went under, and it caused their families a lot of stress.”

Leftwing blogger No Right Turn is asking why Shipley and her colleagues haven’t faced stronger penalties, saying it “seems to be a straight-up violation of s380(4) of the Companies Act, carrying a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Which invites the question: why weren’t Shipley and the others prosecuted? Or do those laws against corporate fraud mean nothing?” – see: The obvious question.

He questions why the Financial Markets Authority hasn’t taken a case against the Mainzeal directors, and how it is possible that insurance can apparently cover Shipley’s $6 million fine: “Most insurance policies for us dirty peasants include a clause saying that they won’t pay out for intentional, reckless or criminal behaviour – so they won’t pay out if you burn your own house down, or if you crash your car while drunk driving or robbing a bank. Are the rules different for rich corporate directors? If so, it seems to be a perfect case of moral hazard, not to mention a terrible business decision on the part of the insurer.”

Unsurprisingly, the Government is now said to be discussing whether to remove the former PM from her role on a state-funded board. RNZ’s Jo Moir reports: “Sources have told RNZ that Dame Jenny’s role on the executive board of The New Zealand China Council had already been an item of discussion amongst senior Cabinet ministers in light of yesterday’s court judgement” – see: Future of Dame Jenny’s senior positions on multiple boards uncertain.

Moir also says: “It’s understood senior ministers saw Dame Jenny’s comments as failing to put the security, safety and wellbeing of New Zealand’s interests first.”

In addition, there is pressure on Shipley to step down from her other company board directorships. Under particular scrutiny is her role on the board of the China Construction Bank NZ. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters has previously commented on this saying, “It is actually extraordinary that someone who has so little knowledge of banking, for example, should be in the second biggest bank in China”.

Peters spoke out again yesterday, responding to journalists quizzing him on whether Shipley should remain on her various boards: “What are you journalists doing about it? I’ve been telling you for years, I’ve been telling you since the Winebox Inquiry, since the BNZ scandal about this person’s incompetence and the incompetence of a number of National Party people to actually understand business or to represent our country properly.” He is also reported as saying that “public money is not safe” under the current situation.

This is covered in the Herald’s article, Winston Peters renews criticism of Jenny Shipley following Mainzeal court ruling. This points out Peters’ long-running problem with Shipley: “The animosity between the two goes back to 1998, when Shipley sacked him as treasurer and deputy prime minister in a coalition government.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has also been asked about Shipley’s roles, and although she mostly refused to comment for the moment, she has replied “It would very much depend on which boards you might referencing.”

The Reserve Bank has the official role of deciding what individuals are suitable to be company directors of banks operating in New Zealand. But so far the Reserve Bank has merely said that the Shipley court judgement will be “read with interest”.

Former economist with the Reserve Bank, Michael Reddell, has blogged to say that “They need to be seen to act pretty quickly” and “this isn’t a time for pleasantries.  Whether or not she stands aside voluntarily, or the owners remove her, the Reserve Bank should make clear that her continued presence on the Board (let alone chairing it) would not be acceptable to the Reserve Bank” – see: Fit and proper?

Reddell doesn’t believe it’s tenable for Shipley to stay in her position: “I can’t see that the Reserve Bank will have any choice but to indicate to CCB that they would object to the continued presence of Jenny Shipley on the Board. The Mainzeal case involved the failure of a substantial institution while Shipley was chair of that Board, and not because of some unforeseeable shocks out of the blue, but because of actions and choices that the Board had control over.”

Last year Reddell also raised important questions about the trend for former politicians such as Shipley to become company directors, lobbyists and businesspeople, and pointed out the dangers of this for democracy – see: Retired politicians in demand.

In addition, Reddell draws attention to how many former senior politicians are now working as directors for Chinese businesses operating in New Zealand, or other related entitles (including Ruth Richardson, Don Brash, Chris Tremain and John Key).

Others are suggesting that Shipley’s court loss represents a challenge to New Zealand’s ethical standing in the world. John Moore writes: “The fall from grace of Dame Jenny Shipley is both a personal blow to the former PM, as well as a blow to New Zealand’s standing on corruption indexes. Shipley has attained several lucrative positions on both private and public boards over the years since she was PM. Shipley, like many former politicians, has been able to leverage her past pubic service, as an elected politician, to gain wealth and power in her post-parliamentary al life. The light that has been shone on the dodgy activities of the former PM, while acting as a director in a private construction company, point to the endemic rotating door between parliament and lucrative positions in the business world” – see: Critical politics alternative analysis.

For those doubting what skills Shipley has for her business roles, it’s worth looking back to a 2009 interview she gave to Management magazine in which she explains her role: “Most of my consultancy and speaking work is on tracking mega­trends. I track political trends, demographics, the rise and fall of markets, and think about what should be on people’s radar screen so they apply their minds to strategy, allocating their people and finances into the right places. You learn so much… I then have fun pulling the situations and people together to think about what the new shape of the future looks like and where they fit into it” – see: Face to face: Jenny Shipley: Life after politics.

Finally, it’s not only former National Prime Ministers causing grief for their current political parties. Last year, Helen Clark was particularly active in New Zealand public life, leading to a quiet but definite backlash forming amongst some in politics – see Graham Adams’ Helen Clark’s chest-beating is wearing a bit thin and Richard Harman’s Buoyant Labour airbrushes out Clark.

By Marguerite Afra Sapiie in Jakarta

Indonesian social media activist Permadi Arya has threatened to file a Rp 1 trillion (NZ$107 million) lawsuit against Facebook after the tech giant shut down his account in a crackdown on fake news in Indonesia.

Permadi, also known as Abu Janda, said Facebook had made serious allegations by accusing him of being part of fake news group Saracen and shutting down his Facebook pages and accounts.

In a video posted to his Twitter account @permadiaktivis, the activist said his lawyers had sent a legal notice to Facebook demanding that the company clear his name and restore all his pages and accounts.

“Otherwise we will take this to the court and sue Facebook for Rp 1 trillion for immaterial damages,” said Permadi, who chairs an organisation called Cyber Indonesia.

Permadi is known as a supporter of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, while the Saracen group is believed to have produced fake news and hate speech that attacked the sitting president.

“I am a well-known antiterrorism activist at the forefront of battling fake news. I am not a part of fake news. So obviously Facebook has made a great mistake,” he said, adding that his reputation was tarnished and freedom threatened.

-Partners-

Facebook announced last week that it had taken down hundreds of pages, groups and accounts with ties to Saracen, an online syndicate believed to have been involved in creating hoaxes for money, systematically engaging in “deceptive behaviour” and manipulating public debate within the platform.

The tech giant removed a total of 207 Facebook pages, 800 accounts, 546 groups and 208 Instagram accounts believed to be linked to Saracen, one of which was Permadi Arya’s Facebook page.

According to Facebook, the Saracen-linked networks worked together to manage fake accounts and mislead others about “who they are and what they are doing”. The company also removed all ways of accessing accounts related to the network.

Permadi also threatened to report Facebook to the police for allegedly violating the Electronic Information and Transactions Law.

Marguerite Afra Sapiie is media affairs writer of The Jakarta Post.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

A senior French Polynesian politician has been fined for defaming the president Edouard Fritch during the election campaign in April.

The criminal court in Tahiti found the Territorial Assembly leader of the opposition Tahoeraa Huiraatira party, Geffry Salmon, guilty and fined him US$5,000.

He has also been ordered to pay US$2,000 to Fritch who wanted to be paid US$20,000 in compensation.

Fritch took legal action in June, saying Salmon defamed him at a news conference with claims that his party had been giving out subsidies to buy votes.

Fritch’s lawyer said Tahoeraa never lodged any complaint about any alleged abuse of funds but instead Salmon tried to damage his rivals.

Next month, Fritch is due in court with his predecessor as president, Gaston Flosse, with both accused of abusing public funds.

-Partners-

In the last term, Fritch was twice convicted for corruption.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Keith Jackson in Noosa

In a shock development in Papua New Guinea’s Schram case, the former vice-chancellor of the PNG University of Technology has said he will not return to Papua New Guinea “until major changes occur in the country”.

Dr Schram said he has been the subject of a “political prosecution” and will forego bail rather than return to an uncertain legal future in PNG.

“[We entered] a parallel world where lies are truth and all people are blind, deaf and mute,” he wrote in Facebook of the charge of “false pretence” he is facing.

READ MORE: My arrest: Wrongful dismissal and malicious prosecution in PNG

“In this world, you are completely alone because there is no point in trying to have a reasonable conversation with anyone. A truly terrifying world, but the truth will set us free.”

News story of the Sevua report backing Dr Schram in The National. Image: File

But Dr Schram said he will still go through “the costly process” of getting his original doctorate legalised and send it through diplomatic channels to the committal court in Waigani.

-Partners-

“This should clear all charges for ever,” he said.

Last Tuesday, against the wishes of police prosecutor Kila Tali, national court judge Panuel Mogish had varied Dr Schram’s bail conditions and ordered his passport be returned to enable him to travel to Italy to obtain the credentials which would have been prime evidence in a court hearing on a charge that Dr Schram engaged in “false pretence”.

Left at weekend
Dr Schram and his wife Paulina left Papua New Guinea on Saturday ostensibly to retrieve the doctoral qualifications from the European University Institute in Florence.

“We got out,” Dr Schram emailed me from Singapore yesterday, “probably not able to come back until major changes occur in the country.”

“In his judgement on May 22 on the bail conditions, the judge in the national court was deliberately explicit on the substantive case,” Dr Schram has written on his Facebook page.

“There is not a shred of primary evidence suggesting I have falsified anything, while there is overwhelming evidence that in fact my doctorate is genuine,” he said.

“Finally an independent judge has said what anyone with common sense could have concluded since the complaints were made in 2012.”

Dr Schram quoted Justice Mogish as writing in his judgement:

“In spite of this overwhelming evidence (presented by Dr Schram) Mr [Ralph] Saulep continues to dispute the authenticity of the applicant’s doctorate degree. I find this ridiculous and difficult to fathom especially when neither he or the police are in receipt of evidence from the European University Institute in Florence Italy, confirming their allegations and suspicions”.

The judge continued:

“The current charge, with respect, lacks the primary evidence to prove the elements of falsity. Whether they will have such evidence by the 12 June 2018 (the next hearing) is anyone’s guess. The reality is that they have failed to do so when the allegations were raised in 2012.”

Case ‘will be thrown out’
Dr Schram said: “It stands to reason the case will be thrown out at some point in time and my innocence will be established.

“All this is of course is damaging for police and the complainant – former pro chancellor Ralph Saulep….. Since the conditions for the settlement with the [current Unitech] Council, which included no criminal prosecution, have now been violated, I do not consider myself bound to this agreement.

“In any case, for justice to prevail and the people of PNG to be liberated from police abuse, I must describe the facts.”

Dr Schram said he and his wife Paulina “did not come to [PNG] to get rich but neither did we expect the financial ruin we are facing now.

“The legal fight with the [Unitech] Council for wrongful dismissal first and now the fight for my malicious prosecution by the police has drained all of our resources.”

He said he missed two job interviews because of his arrest and, when the charges are cleared, he will claim damages for “all the financial losses, opportunity costs and defamation of character I suffered”.

Dr Schram also said a parliamentary inquiry was warranted into police abuse in his case.

Police ‘need restructuring’
He concluded:

“Like for all of us academics, journalists and other knowledge workers who cannot return to the country, it makes us sad that until amends are made and the police have been restructured and [brought] under control, we will not be able to see our friends and our new and beloved family in PNG.”

When varying the bail conditions last week, Justice Mogish said it would be academic and career suicide for Dr Schram to abscond from bail and not return to PNG.

“I do not think any reasonable man would just walk away leaving a trail of serious allegations unanswered,” he said.

“His standing in the academic world would be seriously affected.”

Whether or not the judge’s words will be borne out, time will tell.

But it does seem that, given these dramatic circumstances, Dr Schram’s hopes for vindication are unlikely to be realised.

Small price to pay
Then again, Albert and Paulina Schram may feel this is a small price to pay.

They had found themselves is a totally powerless position on what appeared to be a trumped up charge in a country where they doubted the politics surrounding their predicament would allow justice to prevail no matter what the court decided.

This has emerged as something of a cautionary tale for outsiders who sail too close to Papua New Guinea’s political winds.

Keith Jackson is a retired journalist, broadcaster, administrator and media educator and has held senior positions in Australia and Papua New Guinea. This article was first published on his blog PNG Attitude and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Scott Waide in Lae

A group of customary landowners in Papua New Guinea has regained access to their land following a significant legal victory against supporters of a Malaysian logging company.

Seven people from Pomio in East New Britain have been barred from entering their land for the past six years after a restraining order was issued against them in 2012.

The landowners include Paul Pavol Palusualrea and Nobert Pames who have been vocal against “land grabbing” and widespread deforestation in the remote district.

The National Court in Kokopo set aside the restraining orders after finding that there was a lack of evidence.

The landowners were represented by lawyers from the Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR).

“We are happy to have won the case for our clients who are from the forested
communities of West Pomio, whose resources have been exploited through SABL. They are now able to move freely on the land that is rightly theirs and continue the SABL campaigns of ridding the logging giants,” said lawyer Everlyn Wohuinangu.

Oil palm plantations
The Pomio District is the site of a controversial Special Agriculture Business Lease (SABL) where large tracts of rainforest have been logged and replaced by oil palm plantations.

-Partners-

The dispute over the logging and land grabbing triggered the six-year legal battle between the landowners and local companies sponsored by the Malaysian logging company.

The court victory is also important for customary landowners in other parts of the country who are battling multi-national loggers.

“The restraining orders were nothing more than intimidation of local people,” said CELCOR director Peter Bosip.

“It stopped them from accessing land to grow food and to hunt.

“There has also been instances of police intimidation and intimidation by other parties.

“Other landowners should see this and stand firm in pursuing recognition of their rights. This was, simply, a suppression of their constitutional rights.”

Scott Waide is deputy editor of EMTV News based in Lae, Papua New Guinea. This article was first published on his blog My Land, My Country and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called on the Philippine authorities to stop hounding Rappler, after officials confirmed that a previously dismissed defamation action against the independent news website had been revived and last week brought a tax evasion complaint against the site.

“All this would be laughable if the site’s survival were not at stake,” RSF said in a statement yesterday.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the entity responsible for ordering judicial investigations, tried unconvincingly to explain its decision to revive a defamation complaint that, according to an NBI official on February 22, had been closed because there was “no basis”.

The information that the case had been dropped was a “premature disclosure,” the head of the NBI said yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Internal Revenues (BIR), a Finance Ministry offshoot announced on March 8 that it had filed a complaint accusing Rappler of evading 133.86 million pesos (US$2.5 million) in taxes.

‘Ludicrous’ complaint
No credible audit was produced to justify this extraordinary sum and Rappler editor Maria Ressa described the complaint as “ludicrous”.

“The behaviour of these various government agencies towards Rappler are tantamount to persecution,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“We call on international bodies to step up their pressure on the Philippine authorities for an end to this offensive against media freedom.

“At the same time, we hail the complete transparency of Rappler’s administrators, which is the best weapon against these crude manoeuvres by President Rodrigo Duterte’s government.”

No let-up in harassment
President Duterte’s declared war on Rappler was stepped up in January when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it was revoking the website’s licence on the grounds that it was not 100 percent Philippine-owned.

The site has appealed against this decision on the grounds that its sources of foreign funding have no shares in the company and therefore no decision-making power.

Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm that is Rappler’s main source of foreign funding, announced last month that it was donating its Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs) to 14 Philippine managers of Rappler in order to ensure that the SEC had absolutely no grounds for its “unwarranted ruling”.

It was this move by Omidyar Network that accounts for the defamation and tax evasion complaints of the past few days. The authorities needed new ways to keep hounding Rappler, said RSF in the statement.

With the Office of the Solicitor-General and the Department of Justice, a total of five government entities are now bringing pressure to bear on a media outlet that has made a name for itself with its investigative coverage of government corruption and abuses.

‘Grave concern’
Despite Rappler’s defensive measures, Duterte has used these attacks to obstruct the activities of the website’s reporters.

Pia Ranada has been denied access to the Malacañang presidential palace since last month although she is Rappler’s accredited Malacañang correspondent.

After RSF referred the issue to the United Nations in January, three UN special rapporteurs said they were “gravely concerned” about the government’s attempts to shut down Rappler.

By way of response, President Duterte referred to UN human rights experts last weekend as “sons of bitches” and said they should be fed to crocodiles.

RSF is conducting a thorough survey of media ownership in the Philippines, which is ranked 127th out of 180 countries in the 2017 World Press Freedom Index.

• Reporters Without Borders
• More Philippine articles
• Duterte’s dangerously zero idea of independent journalism

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz