Lands Policy

Aus. Minister Defends Lands Policy Reply to PIM Criticism

A COPY of the case made by the Pacific Islands Monthly (see page 21) against the new P-NG Lands Policy was sent in October to the Australian Minister for Terri tories; and Mr. Hasluck, with his usual courtesy, has sent the Editor of PIM his comments on the argu ments used and the points made.

“While I do not agree with every point you make,” he says, “I do not think there is going to be as wide a difference as you appear to think between your hopes for the Terri tory and the consequences of the directions I have given on lands administration.”

“There may be some difficulties during the transitional period and there will not be the same freedom for individuals as in the past to pick out any piece of land they wanted and to obtain it. As the result of the new system, however, I feel confident that the eventual result will be that more land will be brought under European settle ment in a more orderly fashion and with much less waste of effort and of resources and without the risk of setting up conditions which will be harmful to our future in the Territory.”

The Minister then quotes numer ous figures to show the areas of land of different suitability made available every year since 1947-48 for European settlement, with this result as on June 30, 1954; Acreages of land available to Europeans

Agricultural 97,016

Pastoral 26,911 Dairying 2,650 Total 126,577 The Minister claims that under the new system a man who wishes, not to speculate, but to work his land, has “a better and fairer chance of obtaining a suitable area.”

He then says that the matter is one on which judgments seem to differ; and asks us to accept his assurance that he and his advisers have the interests of the Territory as deeply at heart as has the PIM.

COMMENT: The Minister’s letter is typical of the conditions of which we have written at length on pages 21. etc. Except that he quotes total acreages of “available” land (which may or may not be suitable ) the Minister gives no facts to support the drastic action he has taken— only theory, and an expression of his own wishes. As we have ex plained elsewhere at length, we be lieve his new Lands Policy puts a

crippling handicap upon the Terri tory and that the only way now to escape it is an appeal directly to the Prime Minister for an inde pendent inquiry into P-NG land settlement and development.

The Hasluck policy represents frustration and suffocation.