Waterfront Site
pp. 29-31 · Read in the full issue
Two Parties Interested In Rabaul
The nationalisation of inter-island shipping during the Ward regime in Papua-New Guinea created almost chaotic conditions and when the embargo on private ownership of local ship ping was lifted, a group of Bougainville planters (the Bougainville Co., Ltd.) brought out the steel-hulled "Polurrian" from England. After considerable initial difficulties, a highly efficient service was established with this ship between Rabaul and Buka-Bougainville. They were permitted by the Administration—under what terms of tenure it is not clear —to build an establishment on the Rabaul waterfront. The future of this piece of land on which the Bougainville Company has built was recently considered by the P-NG Land Board and in this connection we have received a long radio from Mr. F. P. Archer, a shareholder in the com pany. It is not clear to us whether Mr. Archer is speaking officially on behalf of the company, or on his own behalf. However, we print his radiogram, and also extracts from a letter written by Mr. G. A. Clarke, manager of the Rabaul Branch of Burns Philp (NG), Ltd., a subsidiary of which originally held the lease of the land in question. Mr. Clarke's was a circular letter to all known shareholders of the Bougainville Co.
From Mr. Archer, Jame
Plantation, Bougainville:
The Bougainville company, which has been operating the motor-vessel Polurrian on the Rabaul-Buka- Bougainville service for the last 4i years, recently applied for a 10 years renewal of their Rabaul waterfront lease on which the company has its wharf offices, cargo sheds and man ager’s residence.
The Land Board was then sitting in Rabaul and recommended re newal, but this was refused by the Administrator. The reason given the company was that an objection to the renewal had been lodged by Burns Philp and Co., Port Moresby, which claimed prior rights through a pre-war connection with the land which was then occupied by their subsidiary company. The matter was therefore referred back to the Land Court for further considera tion.
If the objection to the renewal of the Bougainville Co.’s lease is upheld, it will involve the company in much trouble and expense, pre vent further extension of a valuable service to Bougainville and will mean the alteration of schedules and activities.
When the lease was originally given to the company, the company was promised continuity of tenure unless the Administration itself re quired to extend its main wharf towards Malaguna, in which event another wharf frontage was to be given the company.
The Bougainville community is seriously concerned at the prospect of interference with the reliable, efficient fortnightly service, Rabaul- Buka-Bougainville-Buin, which has became the life-line for Adminis tration, missions, planters and native alike in this outlying district.
Bishop T. J. Wade, of the Catholic Mission, and the Rev. T. H. Voyce, of the Methodist Mission, have already written the Administrator stating that anything that interfered with the running of the Polurrian would seriously affect the welfare of the whole district as no other ship had given similar service in the post-war period.
Canberra has been advised of the circumstances and the Minister for Territories has asked the Admin istrator for an investigation and a report on the matter.
From Mr. Clarke, Rabaul,
New Britain :
1. Until 1949, the title of Allot ment 1, Section 68, was held by New Britain Plantations Ltd., a subsidiary of Burns Philp and Co. 2. In January, 1948, knowing that the lease of above was due to ex pire the following year, Burns Philp made application for renewal.
Application was rejected on the grounds that the “land was required for Administration purposes.” 3. At the time that renewal was applied for by Burns Philp, the Bougainville Co. was not in exist ence; but the allotment was sub sequently granted the Bougainville Co. on an annual licence. 4. In September, 1952, the Bougain ville Co. applied to the Land Board for a lease to replace their per missive occupancy. Burns Philp opposed this as they considered that they had prior right of renewal of the lease. They were again advised by the Administration that the land was required for Administration purposes. 5. Now that the matter has come up again, Burns Philp’s attitude is that if the reason given in 1948 for refusing to renew the lease be con sidered redundant, the Lands Board should revert to Burns Philp’s application for renewal of Janu ary 14, 1948. 6. Burns Philp is in need of an area of ground adjacent to the main wharves for storage of island crops, principally cocoabeans. 7. The area in question is suf ficient to provide for the needs of the Bougainville Co. as well as to provide Burns Philp with the storage space required. 8. It has been made clear to the Bougainville Company that should Burns Philp’s application for title be successful, that that part of the area now occupied by the Bougain ville Company will be sub-let to the Bougainville Co. 9. The success of Burns Philp in the application for title would in no way endanger the future of the Bougainville Company or interfere with the operation of the Polurrian in maintaining shipping services— which services are patronised by Burns Philp. 10. Burns Philp is not seeking to destroy a soldier-producer company,
inferred by Mr. Archer. To the itrary, Burns Philp is aware that service provided by Polurrian in integral part of commercial 3rprise on Bougainville and that lout it, all commercial interests Bougainville, including those of •ns Philp, would be adversely :cted. Burns Philp’s interests are in conflict with the Bougain -3 Co., but policy has been to k in harmony with it.