Public needs more time to consider Seabed Minerals Bill

The Bill was tabled on Thursday 19 March, with only two weeks to forward submissions to the Select Committee. The Committee has indicated its preference for written submissions.

The Seabed Minerals Bill compiled by Joshua Brien and Daniel Dumas from the Commonwealth Secretariat has 321 provisions (not 231as originally reported).
It is a comprehensive Bill covering nearly all contingencies envisaged in the industry. Nevertheless, some issues need to be addressed within the Bill.
For instance, s 3 binds the Crown but they cannot be liable for prosecution under the Act for an offence. Are they trying to avoid liability from prosecution in case of a major environmental pollution disaster as happened in the OK Tedi gold mine in PNG?
Section 4 states ownership of the seabed minerals are ‘vested in the Crown’ but who legally is the Crown? Is it the Queen and Executive Council, or Cabinet, or Parliament including Government MPs and Opposition MPs, or is it the people of the Cook Islands including the powers that be?
At preliminary meetings we were assured the ownership of the seabed minerals (manganese etc) would be owned by the people of the Cook Islands. To avoid doubt as to ownership, the legislation could be amended to say that ‘ownership vests in the people of the Cook Islands under the trusteeship of the Crown’.
Why is there reference to limited liability companies and limited partnerships in the ‘interpretations’ section of the Act?
We should be dealing only with mining companies of good international repute which are publicly listed on one of the major stock exchanges in the world. Assets of companies on a stock exchange have had their credentials thoroughly scrutinized by the competent regulatory bodies within their own jurisdictions before they are even allowed to be publicly listed. Not only that but the assets and finances of publicly listed companies would be a matter of public record.
For instance if the likes of BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto or Chinalco come knocking on our door, we can be assured they have the money and the know how. All we need to check is their environmental credentials and the financial benefits they can offer to our country.
Limited liability companies in these circumstances are likely to be suspect because they may be limiting their liability for damages in case of environmental disaster or not paying dues to the ‘Crown’. If they need to limit their liability, they are highly unlikely to have the ‘deep pockets’ necessary to be within the minerals resources industry.

Herald Issue 446 11 February
- ‘I wanted to finish 3 years ago’ - Sam Pera Jnr?
- Government hangs Ruaau out to dry
- Flies reach epidemic level in Arorangi
- Economic Summits – Talking the Talk or Walking the Talk
- Parliament: Deregistration, Fuel farm and OIA amendment

Herald Issue 445 04 February
- Ball now in Fiji’s court
- Calls for Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Calls for Alternate Dispute Resolution
- $1.8m water project on track
- Undervaluing our own Consultants!