Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape has survived a motion of no confidence against him in Parliament.

During the proceedings, livestreamed on EMTV, Speaker Job Pomat announced the results of the vote as 16 votes in favour and 89 against.

In moving the motion, the member for Abau, Sir Puka Temu, nominated Sir Peter Ipatas as an alternative prime minister to Marape, and said the motion was moved on principle.

“This is not a vote of ambition, it is a vote of accountability, it is a vote of conscience. Mr Speaker what is the role of government if not to uplift its people,” Sir Puka said.

The seconder of the motion, Wabag Open MP Lino Tom acknowledged the government’s superior numbers, but said the opposition were acting in the interest of the people and challenged Marape to address them on the floor.

“He needs to tell the people because he is the chief accountable officer of this country,” Tom said.

“He can no longer blame his incompetent ministers. He can no longer blame any other person here on this floor.”

Speaker put question
The Speaker then went to immediately put the question, provoking the ire of the opposition bench with Madang MP Bryan Kramer accusing him of acting contrary to the Supreme Court order that had the House resume to hear the motion, which had initially been denied by the Parliament’s private business committee.

“Mr Speaker must be consistent with the privileges and the spirit and intent of the constitution that provide every member the opportunity to debate,” he said.

“This is a court order if you entertain this motion of ‘question be put’ then there will be contempt proceedings.”

Despite multiple points of order from the opposition calling for the motion to be debated, Pomat proceeded to put the question and the results were overwhelmingly Marape’s favour.

“Those in favour of this motion are 16 and those who are not in favour of this motion and who want the Honourable Member for Tari Pori, Honourable James Marape, to remain as prime minister are 89.”

After the vote, Marape moved a motion to address the movers of the motion, and spoke at length about the achievements of his government, while throwing jabs at the opposition MPs, many of who had served as ministers in his government at different times.

He finished by thanking all who supported him in today’s leadership challenge.

Thanks to members
“I want to say thank you for members on both sides of the House for your participation today.

“A sincere thank you to the 89 on their feet, who stood up to vote and I want to say thank you as your chief servant.

“I will try my absolute best to continue on leaving no place and no one behind as the ultimate aim of this government and should be for any government going forward into the future.”

The nominated challenger, Sir Peter, also rose to thank the opposition for nominating him, and to all the people of Papua New Guinea who reached out to him with messages of support.

He said he only accepted the nomination because so many MPs had complained about the prime minister’s performance.

Sir Ipatas challenged government MPs to stop bickering and gossiping about James Marape behind his back.

“As he rightly said, he is putting his time and effort into trying to make this country great,” he said.

Call to ‘not gossip’
“It is about our ministers and leaders and leaders of coalition partners not gossiping, but be open with the prime minister and talk about issues that we have for the country and for the people.

“This country belongs to all of us. Our people.”

Parliament is now adjourned until May 27.

Under new laws passed last month, Marape now has an 18-month reprieve from votes of no confidence.

With only two years left until the next election, RNZ Pacific understands this effectively gives him a clear run to the 2027 National General Election.

Several opposition MPs in Parliament on Tuesday urged Marape to make the most of the upcoming period of stability, and deliver some real results for Papua New Guineans.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must be recalled on April 8 to debate a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister James Marape.

In a decision handed down yesterday, the court found that actions taken by the Parliament’s Private Business Committee and Deputy Speaker, Koni Iguan, in November 2024 were unconstitutional and in breach of the principle of parliamentary democracy.

The ruling stems from an incident on 27 November 2024, when a notice of motion for a vote of no confidence was submitted to Iguan and found compliant with constitutional requirements under Section 145.

However, the motion was rejected by invoking Section 165 of the Standing Orders, which disallows motions deemed identical in substance to those resolved within the previous 12 months.

This restriction came into play just over two months after an earlier motion of no confidence had been defeated on 12 September.

Iguan disallowed the motion and prevented it from being tabled in Parliament, triggering legal action from Chuave MP and deputy opposition leader James Nomane.

The court emphasised that parliamentary democracy relies on the executive’s accountability to the people through such mechanisms as motions of no confidence.

Overstepped mandate
The court also found that the Private Business Committee had overstepped its mandate, taking actions that should have been handled by the Speaker or Parliament as a whole.

Marape has responded to the decision, saying his government will respect the rule of law and comply with the court’s directives.

“We are a government that respects the courts. The Supreme Court reads and interprets the Constitution better than all of us, and we will honour its ruling,” he said.

Marape commands the support of more than two-thirds of the MPs in the house which enabled him to pass several major consitutional amendments last month, including declaring Papua New Guinea a Christian nation.

He acknowledged the Supreme Court’s clarification of critical constitutional provisions which pertain to the right of MPs to introduce motions and participate in the democratic processes of government.

“The court found that there was a vacuum in the law and has provided direction,” he said.

“As the executive arm of government, we will not stand in the way. Parliament will sit as ordered by the court.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.

Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.

In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.

The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.

Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law
On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.

Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.

The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.

Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”

It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”

On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.

The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.

The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.

JOURNO ARRAIGNED ON CYBER HARASSMENT
Journalist Hennah Joku appeared before Magistrate Paul Nii at the Waigani Committal Court on charges of cyber defamation following a Facebook post made on 4th September 2024.
Read more:https://t.co/LEIDEcTZv6#EMTVNews #EMTVOnline pic.twitter.com/zHqm353Cst

— EMTV (@EMTVOnline) December 5, 2024

Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation
Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.

Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.

Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.

On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.

On 4 and 15 September 2024, Joku shared her reactions with more than 9000 followers on her Meta social media account. Those two posts, one of which featured the injuries suffered from her 2018 assault, now form the basis for the current defamation charges against her.

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).

The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.

“Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”

Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group
In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.

In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.

That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.

ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

“SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.

SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.

The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!

In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.

Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation
The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.

The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”

In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.

As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.

There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.

Organisations such as Transparency International PNG, Media Council of PNG, Pacific Freedom Forum, and Pacific Media Watch/Asia Pacific Media Network among others, have asked for the policy to be dropped.

The press freedom ranking for PNG dropped from 59th place to 91st in the most recent index published by Reporters without Borders (RSF) in May 2024.

Civicus Monitor.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that this law does not contravene the provisions of Section 46 which provides for freedom of expression.

The decision is a serious warning to offending users of social media and the internet that they might find themselves with fines of up to K1 million (NZ$430,000), or jail terms of between 15 and 25 years.

A Supreme Court panel comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justices Les Gavara-Nanu, David Cannings, Kingsley Allen David and Derek Hartshorn made this determination in Waigani on Friday.

The constitutional reference was made by National Court judge Teresa Berrigan during the trial of Kila Aoneka Wari, who was charged with criminal defamation under section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016.

Judge Berrigan then referred for Supreme Court interpretation on whether Section 21 contravened the Freedom of Expression provision of the National Constitution.

Reading the judgment on behalf of his fellow judges, Sir Gibbs said: “We (Supreme Court) consider there is a clear and present danger to public safety, public order and public welfare if publication of defamatory material by use of electronic systems or devices were allowed to be made without restriction, including by criminal sanction.”

Sir Gibbs said the court had determined that the regulation and restriction of the exercises of the right to freedom of expression imposed by section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code is “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect for the rights and dignity of mankind.”

‘Necessary’ for public safety
Sir Gibbs said the court was satisfied that the first, second and third interveners had discharged the burden in showing that section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code complied with the three requirements of section 38 (1) of the Constitution in that:

•  FIRST, it has been made and certified in accordance with section 38 (2) of the Constitution.
•  SECONDLY, it restricts the exercise of the right to freedom and expression and publication that is “necessary” for the purpose of giving effect to the public interest in public safety, public order and public welfare; and
•  THIRDLY, it is a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect to the rights and dignity of mankind.

“We conclude that no, section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is not invalid. Although it (Cybercrime Code Act) restricts the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and publication in section 46 of the Constitution it is a law that complies with Section 38 of the Constitution and the restriction it imposes is permissible under section 46 (1) (C) of the Constitution.

The questions that Justice Berrigan referred to the Supreme Court were:

•  DOES section 21(2) of the cybercrime Code Act regulate or restrict the right of freedom of expression and publication under section 46 of the Constitution?
•  IF yes to question 1, does section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act comply with section 38 of the Constitution?
•  IS section 21(20 of the Cybercrime Code Act) invalid for being inconsistent with section 46 of the Constitution?

The court answered yes to questions and one and two and answered no to question three.

The court also ordered that each intervener will bear their own costs.

Wari is the fourth intervener in the proceedings.

Others are Attorney-General Pila Niningi (first intervener), acting public prosecutor Raphael Luman (second intervener), Public Solicitor Leslie Mamu (third intervener).

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is the law on defamatory publication.

It makes any defamatory publication using any electronic device as an offence with a penalty of K25,000 to K1 million fine, or imprisonment not exceeding 15 to 25 years.

Boura Goru Kila is a reporter for PNG’s The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Papua New Guinea MP, Peter Isoaimo, who had been ousted by the National Court in an alleged bribery case, has been reinstated by the Supreme Court on appeal.

A three-member Supreme Court bench found that the National Court had erred in finding that Kairuku MP Isoaimo had committed bribery and ousting him in a Court of Disputed Returns trial in June last year.

The National Court judge, Justice Teresa Berrigan, then ordered a byelection. However, this was overturned last Friday on appeal.

Outside court, Isoaimo’s lawyer George Kult confirmed that Isoaimo can now return to Parliament and continue serving the people of Kairuku district in Central province.

Justice Susan Purdon-Sully handed down the decision on behalf of the two other judges, Panuel Mogish and Jacinta Murray. She said the earlier decision by Justice Teresa Berrigan last year had been quashed.

The three-member bench found that the petition had a “pleading deficiency” in that the bribery was done with the knowledge and authority of Isoaimo and that he had aided his campaign coordinator Maso Makuri in committing the offence.

They found that the petitioner, Paru Aihi, had failed to notify Isoaimo of the facts of the allegation which he could have responded to. They upheld Isoaimo’s appeal in that Justice Berrigan erred on mixed law and fact.

‘Basic yet fundamental’
“Pleadings draw evidence which is the most basic yet fundamental feature of a petition,” Justice Sully read.

“Where an allegation is serious in nature the onus is on the petitioner to prove to the entire satisfaction of the court.”

The judges found that the failure to plead facts of the allegation contravened section 208 (a) of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.

Outside court, a teary-eyed Isoaimo said it had been embarrassing to deal with the wrong National Court decision which had then “seemed like the truth”.

However, he said his two decades of reputation built through parliamentary leadership had gained him loyal supporters.

“I am thankful for my supporters, now it’s time to get back to work as we have a lot to do,” he said.

Isoaimo is a member of the National Alliance and will bolster the NA’s ranks in government.

Melyne Baroi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Kramer had appealed to the Supreme Court over a National Court decision not to review his application of the Leadership Tribunal decision which had cost him his seat.

The National newspaper reported that the Supreme Court, which heard the appeal on November 28 last year, had still to hand down a decision.

Kramer hopes to stand in the byelection when it eventually goes ahead.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Police Commissioner David Manning has been reinstated after being stood down following riots and looting on January 10.

That rioting — branded as Black Wednesday — was sparked by a police protest after unannounced deductions from their wages, which the government blamed on a glitch.

The protest led to a riot causing the deaths of more than 20 people, widespread looting and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to businesses.

Amnesty International called on authorities to protect human rights in response to the riots.

The 14-day state of emergency following the violence has now ended.

The National newspaper reported Prime Minister James Marape announced Manning’s reinstatement, and that of Taies Sansan as the Department of Personnel Management Secretary, after administrative preliminary investigations concluded.

However, Treasury Secretary Andrew Oake and Finance Secretary Samuel Penias remained suspended “due to their failure to update the salary system, which led to the events of Jan 10”, Marape said.

Marape also said Deputy Police Commissioner Dr Philip Mina was being suspended.

A commission of inquiry will be appointed to look into the police force.

“The commission of inquiry will be headed by a judge from the Supreme Court and National Court, and will be concluded as soon as possible, to look into the structure, the operation, and their ethics of conduct,” Marape said.

“The country deserves to have a police force that is effective and efficient. We will leave no stone unturned as we recover, reboot and restore.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A five-man Supreme Court bench has quashed by a majority decision National Court temporary orders that have stayed the death sentence of 14 prisoners on death row in Papua New Guinea.

The court ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction at the time to commence the proceedings on its own initiative under Cection 57(1) of the Constitution, and directed that the orders be dismissed.

This ruling clears the way for the first executions in Papua New Guinea for 70 years.

These orders were appealed to the Supreme Court by the state, through Solicitor-General Tauvasa Tanuvasa, after he identified errors of law, made by the primary judge in 2017.

These were errors of commencing the proceedings as an inquiry, establishing that there were prisoners on death row who were awaiting execution with five having had no Supreme Court appeals or reviews pending and nine awaiting completion of their Supreme Court appeals.

The primary judge at time held that there were breaches in their rights under sections 36, 37 and 41 of the Constitution and also declared that the National Executive Council (NEC) had failed to facilitate appointments of members of the advisory committee on the power of mercy (ACPM) to determine their mode of execution.

The bench, that comprised deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi and judges George Manuhu, Ere Kariko, Colin Makail and Nicholas Miviri, reached these orders after the majority held two of three grounds of appeal.

One minority view
Justice Manuhu was the only minority view, resulting in a four out of five judgment.

The grounds appealed by the state that were anonymously upheld were that the National Court lacked jurisdiction in such proceedings, that the proceedings were contrary to section 57 of the Constitution; and that assuming the decision of the transferees case by erroneously holding that decision was Orbita Dicta.

Orbita Dicta is a judges expression of opinion uttered in court or in a written judgment, but not essential to the decision and therefore not legally binding as a precedent. Also the trial judge had erred in law when he found breaches of the prisoner’s rights without any evidence and facts that established any of the breaches.

The bench also ordered that the National Court direction to the state, which was the appellant, to facilitate the appointment of members of the advisory committee on the powers of mercy and to provide a report to the NEC on October 12, 2017, in the proceeding styled HROI No. 2 of 2015 be quashed.

Tanuvasa, when contacted, told the PNG Post-Courier: “There is no impediment now.

“Those on death row can now apply to the power of mercy.

“Or all executions could proceed soon after the NEC properly appoints the members to a committee that would identify the most possible mode of execution.”

Trevor Wahune is a PNG Post-Courier reporter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court has stayed a court order nullifying the appointment of David Manning as Commissioner of Police.

Manning, who was ordered to vacate his office by noon today, is also the country’s Pandemic Response Controller.

The order was handed down by Justice David Cannings in the National Court last Friday in response to an application for a judicial review of Manning’s appointment filed by former senior police officers Sylvester Kalaut and Fred Yakasa.

Both men had failed in an application for the position of police commissioner in competition with Manning in 2019.

Justice Cannings ruled that Manning’s appointment was wrong because he did not have a tertiary qualification as required for the parallel post of Secretary to the Police Department.

Yesterday, Justice Derek Hartshorn granted the stay order sought by lawyer Troy Mileng of the Solicitor-General’s office representing the state and lawyer Derek Wood representing Manning pending the determination of an appeal against Justice Cannings’ decision.

Justice Hartshorn said there was an arguable case on the separation of the two positions of commissioner and secretary of police which Manning was holding.

Ruling accepted
Manning will remain police commissioner in the meantime because of the stay order.

Outside court, Kalaut and Yakasa yesterday accepted the decision by Supreme Court judge Justice Hartshorn.

Police Minister Bryan Kramer wrote a strong defence of Manning’s appointment on his Facebook blog this week, saying that due process had been followed and none of the six police commissioners since a law change in 2003 had had a tertiary degree.

RNZ Pacific reports that in May 2020 Sylvester Kalaut was arrested by anti-fraud detectives within the PNG police force and charged with one count of abuse of office, and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Karo Jesse is a reporter for The National. Asia Pacific Report republishes The National reports with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge over the election of James Marape as prime minister last year.

The challenge by Opposition Leader Belden Namah related to alleged irregularities in the parliamentary election 18 months ago.

During the May 2019 session, after resigning as prime minister, Peter O’Neill was re-nominated among the candidates for the vote in Parliament.

However, shortly before the vote he withdrew his candidature, and James Marape was elected as prime minister.

Later, the opposition leader at the time, Patrick Pruaitch, sought the court’s ruling on whether O’Neill’s withdrawal was constitutional.

Namah subsequently took over as opposition leader and pursued the same case.

A five-man Supreme Court bench today ruled against the challenge, upholding Marape’s position as prime minister.

The five judges were unanimous in dismissing the challenge.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Todagia Kelola in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea’s National and Supreme Court sittings in Waigani, NCD, resumed under the “new normal” yesterday – no facemasks, no entry – and the same applies for national courts throughout the country.

At the Waigani Supreme and National courthouse, Registrar Ian Augerea officially turned on a tap for court users to wash their hands before entering the court rooms.

All court sittings were suspended as a result of the covid-19 coronavirus pandemic lockdown and were only attending to urgent matters and by way of teleconference during the period.

Augerea said while the courts will be open, public access to courtrooms will remain restricted, with strict protocols to be adhered to.

Some protocols that will be used are:

• Any person entering courtroom in this capacity must adorn a face mask;
• Any person entering a courtroom must use a hand sanitiser prior to entering the court premises and the court rooms;
• Any person entering any courtroom must maintain 1.5 metres distance between him/herself and any other person in court;
• Entry into any courtroom by persons observing court proceedings is restricted to no more than five persons;
• Access will be supervised and authorised by security officers; and
• Personnel access to all registry counters will be restricted to only 3 to 4 persons at one time. All persons gaining access to the registry counter must adorn a mask.

Todagia Kelola is a PNG Post-Courier reporter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

An internationally acclaimed investigative documentary about Paga Hill community’s fight for justice from the illegal eviction and demolition of their homes in Papua New Guinea’s capital of Port Moresby has been banned from screening today at the PNG Human Rights Festival.

“The ban highlights the lingering limits on free speech in our country and the continued attempts to censor our story of resistance against gross human rights violations,” claimed Paga Hill community leader and lawyer Joe Moses, the main character in The Opposition film who had to seek exile in the United Kingdom after fighting for his community’s rights.2,3

“This censorship comes as a deep disappointment for my community who have suffered greatly over the past six years.”

READ MORE: Paga Hill resettlement mothers plead for help from Governor Parkop

The Opposition film tells the David-and-Goliath battles of a community evicted, displaced, abandoned – their homes completely demolished at the hands of two Australian-run companies, Curtain Brothers and Paga Hill Development Company, and the PNG state.

What was once home to 3000 people of up to four generations, Paga Hill is now part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit “AELM Precinct” which will take place this November.

Moses said: “We appreciate the PNG Human Rights Film Festival for choosing to screen The Opposition film at their Madang and Port Moresby screenings.

“It is shameful that our government continues to limit free speech and put such pressure on our country’s only annual arts and human rights event. How does this make us look to the world leaders who will be coming here for the APEC meeting in November?”

‘Speak up today’
Under the theme “Tokautnau long senisim tumora” (Speak up today to change tomorrow) the mission of the PNG Human Rights Film Festival includes: “We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

The international and local human rights films screened “promote increased respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights in Papua New Guinea”.

Paga Hill youth leader Allan Mogerema, who also features in the film said: “The right to freedom of speech and freedom of press is provided for under Section 46 of the PNG Constitution. By banning our story, the PNG government is in breach of our Constitution and our rights as Papua New Guinean citizens.”

The Opposition trailer.

As a Human Rights Defender, Mogerema has been invited to the 2018 Annual Human Rights and People’s Diplomacy Training Programme for Human Rights Defenders from the Asia-Pacific Region and Indigenous Australia organised by the Diplomacy Training Programme (DTP) and the Judicial System Monitoring Programme (JSMP) to share his story of the illegal land grab, eviction and demolition of his community.

“The film has already been screened in settlements across PNG and at the Human Rights Film Festival’s Madang screenings. No matter how hard they try to censor us, our story continues to live, and our fight for justice continues to thrive,” added Mogerema.

“No matter how long it takes, our community will get justice.”

Dame Carol Kidu is also featured in The Opposition film.

Initially an advocate for the Paga Hill community, Dame Carol turned her back on them by setting up a consultancy to be hired by the Paga Hill Development Corporation, on a contract of $178,000 for three months’ work.

In 2017, she launched a legal action in the Supreme Court of NSW to censor the film.

In June that year, the court ruled against Dame Carol’s application.

#Justice4PagaHill

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

OPINION: By Murray Horton of the Aotearoa Independence Movement

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is to be congratulated for trying to do the decent thing by, in her words, “offering to lend a hand” with regards to Australia’s appalling treatment of refugees detained, then abandoned, on Manus Island (not to forget the others detained on Nauru).

Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull tried to swat her away by saying that he has a deal with the US to take the Manus men – I think pigs will fly before Donald Trump honours what he calls “the worst deal ever”, made by Barack Obama.

Nor do I see why there is anything stopping Jacinda from dealing directly with Papua New Guinea. After all, the Manus Island men are being detained in its country and Australia has abandoned them. NZ and PNG are two independent countries, so what’s to stop the two governments sorting out this mess of Australia’s making?

And let’s give credit where credit’s due – the John Key National government made the same offer, namely to take some of the Manus men. It got the same response from Australia. That just goes to show that NZ Tories have got more humanity (in this case, at least) than their Aussie counterparts.

And, to his further credit, Key refused to countenance creating a new category of second class New Zealanders, ones with no rights to travel to Australia. Because that’s why pig-headed Turnbull and co won’t take up NZ’s bipartisan offer.

The excuse given is that the Manus men could then enter Australia through the New Zealand “back door” — i.e. via the free entry allowed to New Zealanders.

That is just so much crap. There is a precedent for New Zealand cleaning up Australia’s refugee mess, namely the Clark government taking in a swag of people from the Norwegian freighter Tampa, which was famously blocked by John Howard in 2001. Not only that, NZ did the decent thing and let their families join them.

‘Back door’ myth
Hands up if you’ve heard of any of those people going to Australia via the “New Zealand back door” and becoming “terrorists”. No, I thought not. Those Tampa refugees made their lives in New Zealand and have become an asset to this country.

Australia needs to hang its head in shame (this crime against humanity has been perpetrated by both Liberal and Labor governments). If you read, heard or saw a news report about civilians imprisoned without charge, trial or hope of release, who were then abandoned without food, water, power or toilets and in imminent fear of attack and/or death by hostile locals, your first reaction would probably be that this was the latest atrocity by ISIS.

And that’s how we need to judge this – Australia is enacting a policy of state terrorism. Its “Pacific Solution” is starting to resemble the Final Solution that Australia and New Zealand fought to defeat in World War Two.

I’ve experienced a little bit of this deprivation myself – no power, water or toilet for several days after the February 2011 Christchurch quake, and it was no fun in a First World society where we had the expectation that somebody would do something about it ASAP. How much worse it must feel then on a Third World island, with no such expectation.

But if our government is serious about “lending a hand”, then it needs to look much further than the (admittedly spectacular) symptoms like Manus Island, and do something about the causes of the global refugee crisis.

Why are these tens of millions of people (of whom only a few hundred are the victims of Australia’s unforgiveable cruelty) fleeing their home countries?

Plenty will be economic refugees, they simply want a better life for their children and themselves. That is a story as old as humanity. That is why several hundred thousand New Zealanders have moved to Australia, after all. It is the same reason why my Australian grandfather moved from Queensland to Wellington – to get a job.

Global poverty, wars
The cause is global poverty and inequality. That’s a very big problem, and tiny little New Zealand can only do so much about that. But we can do our share, and we can start from the recognition articulated by the most unlikely of sources – Winston Peters – that more and more people see capitalism as their foe and not their friend.

He was talking about New Zealanders, so multiply that by the billions of people living at the coalface of global capitalism and you start to get an idea of the scale of the problem. Capitalism is predicated on a few winners and an awful lot of losers.

Not unreasonably, tens of millions of these “losers” want to move to where they think they can join the “winners” (they are bound to be disillusioned by what they discover upon arrival, but that’s another story).

Hand in glove with global poverty as a cause of refugees is war. This is a direct and immediate cause of huge numbers of people fleeing for their lives. There is nothing unusual about people running away from a big disaster, whether man-made or natural – tens of thousands of Christchurch people fled the city in the hours after that February 2011 killer quake (and plenty of them have not come back).

This is an area where the new government can deal with the root cause of the global refugee crisis – get out of other people’s wars that we’re already involved in (such as Afghanistan and Iraq); stay out of the absolute tarpit that is Syria; don’t go haring off after Donald Trump if he goes to war in Korea.

More fundamentally, build on the good work done in the 1980s (which made NZ nuclear free and out of ANZUS) and get out of the Five Eyes spy network and break the remaining military ties that bind NZ to the US Empire. Build a truly non-aligned and independent foreign policy that prioritises peace over war.

There is a direct cause and effect between war and refugees. Our “traditional allies” are very good at creating the mess via war, then expressing indignant surprise when that very same mess comes back to bite them in the bum in the form of a human tide. Libya is a textbook case – NATO military powers, with US assistance, played a vital role in violently overthrowing the Gaddafi regime in 2011 (including being complicit in his being tortured to death).

Even Iraq’s Saddam Hussein got a show trial before his enemies killed him. Funnily enough, Libya has been a failed state ever since and Europe has been inundated with refugees arriving by sea – dead or alive – from Libya. I imagine Gaddafi is laughing in his grave.

‘Charity begins at home’
So, there is self-interest for New Zealand in staying out of other people’s wars and in working to end existing wars and preventing new ones. And for those who say “charity begins at home” – I agree.

We can help our immediate neighbours on tiny Pacific islands that are threatened by inundation due to climate change. These people did nothing to cause that problem but New Zealand certainly did and continues to do – we have an obligation to open our doors to these climate change refugees.

That is not a solution to the problem (at least this government recognises there is a problem and has pledged to do something about it) but it is an amelioration of the dire effects of that problem. Even if we took in all of those affected Pacific islanders, plus the prisoners from Manus and Nauru, it would all only add up to a few thousand people. We bring in more foreigners than that every year to milk them in shonky “education” courses and to supply New Zealand employers with cheap labour.

How about we change the emphasis from bringing people in to exploit and rip them off to bringing them to help them and, as the Tampa experience shows, helping ourselves in the process? Sounds like a win-win to me.

Murray Horton
Spokesperson
Aotearoa Independence Movement (AIM)

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz