PM’s explanation misleading

I REFER to the prime minister’s comment about the misinterpretation of the amended Environmental Act.
I believe it is the prime minister who has misinterpreted the amendments or he has been ill-advised as to the nature and the effect of the amendments.
Whilst the amendments seek to give effect to the national goals and directive principles, particularly goal No. 3 national sovereignty and goal No. 4 environment and natural resources, they in fact, make a complete U-turn with regard to the basic fundamental purpose which these goals were initially proposed by the constitutional planning committee in its final report tabled in 1974.
I appreciate that to some extent, the government must make allowance for investors’ interests.
But with regard to the PM’s statement that “no landowner rights have been curtailed” by these amendments, I must say he is wrong.
In fact, landowner rights have not only been “curtailed”, they have, in effect, been removed. 
I refer the PM to sections 69A and 69B of these amendments which expressly make an action by developer lawful and unchallengeable in any court, regardless of whether such action(s) directly or indirectly lead to environmental damage or any other damage giving rise to what would otherwise be a civil action for tort or any other civil interest that may be enforced.
The same goes to sections 87A to 87E of the amendments.
And no, Mr Prime Minister, the amendments do not merely strengthen the already stringent compliance policies under the principal act, in fact, they allow for by-passing of these policies by vesting in the director of environment exclusive power and discretion to grant certificates left, right and centre, upon his own satisfaction of whatever reports, findings or reasons given for any activity prescribed under the amendments.
Further to this, the director’s decision cannot be reviewed by any court or tribunal by effect of these new amendments.
Hence, Mr Prime Minister, the question thus arises, what is happening to the democracy that you so valiantly fought for.
Perhaps, the prime minister can revisit the Constitution which he is said to be the “father” and explain to the people what becomes of their right under section 37(11).
And whilst at it, he can explain to his people what and how these amendments can be said to be “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, having proper regard for the right and dignity of mankind”.
I call on the relevant authorities stipulated under section 19 of the Constitution to seriously consider seeking the view of the Supreme Court regarding the Constitutional validity of these amendments.
It is only under section 19 that Papua New Guineans can apply to the court to challenge this new law.

Ariins
Port Moresby