Hard thinking over land

From a Port Moresby correspondent The importance of land to an Islander, especially New Guinean, soon became apparent when the Papua New Guinea Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters started its public hearings. Some hard thinking is ahead to sort out various claims without disturbing the status to an alarming extent.

Some of the evidence was devoted to the rather dubious methods adopted by settlers in the 19th century to acquire land. In Papua New Guinea the methods were apparently little different from those used in other parts of the Pacific, when thousands of acres could be bought for a few axes and some bright trinkets.

Miss Vinnie Kaviula, a Health Education lecturer, told the commission that during German times in New Guinea plantations had been bought with pipes, axes and red laplaps. She was concerned that plantations in Kokopo were mainly owned by European businessmen, who were selling them back to the people at high prices.

She explained that Papua New Guineans, especially Tolais, did not usually travel to other districts to buy land and settle. They regarded land as being very important in their lives. The Tolais rated land owner ship very highly.

Mr Aroa Geno, a Port Moresby City Councillor, said that 76 years ago his family had sold 16,000 acres for a quantity of goods, which included beads, axes, mirrors and calico. Because of that his people, the Wanigela, had no land.

An indication of how highly the people rated land

was given by Minister for Lands, Albert Maori Kiki, in a speech at the inaugural meeting of the commission, when he said, “You can take a man’s wife, his pig and anything else he owns without too much trouble, but touch his land and the answer is death”.

A number of witnesses called for the return, without any strings, of all European-owned land. A witness at Rabaul, Mr Joel ToGita, said the Australian Govern ment should give $lB million to the Tolai people to pay for the land on which Rabaul was built. People who owned businesses in Rabaul should pay compensa tion from the time the business started, and the land must be returned to the people.

Witnesses also criticised the early surveyors. Mr Mahiro Kivovia, a Port Moresby City Councillor, said they had not done their job properly. They made up their own boundaries.

Mr Kivovia was one of several witnesses who sought respect for traditional land tenure systems. Another, Mr Philip Taunakekai said all good customary land laws should be retained, while Mr Makeo Opa, of the Gulf District, said cement blocks marking land boundaries were often the main cause of land disputes. They should be removed and traditional land marks should be re cognised.

Mr Alfred Bala, of Rigo, said the government should look at land ownership traditions. In his area in days gone by the people used traditional hunting methods.

When pigs were killed on a piece of land, the heads went to the person who claimed the land. If there were any disputes, the person with the largest number of pig heads was the rightful owner of that land.

Mr Blasius Tirupua said land problems on the Gazelle Peninsula must be solved now, before there

was more trouble between the people and the govern ment. The problems were created by another govern ment and must be solved before self-government.

The land at Japlik and Kerevat had to be returned to the people, and compensation must be paid by the government for businesses, schools and institutions on the land. Many years ago the government made an agreement over the Japlik land. The people understood it was for timber rights only and not for the sale of the land. If all land in the Japlik area were returned to the Tolais they would be able to solve their land problems peacefully.

Another claim was that the owners of land used by businessmen should be shareholders in the business.

People should not sell land without the consent of village elders or experts.

One of the problems appears to be in administration.

A submission from the East New Britain District Com missioner’s office, said the present system of identifying, surveying and marking land was long and expensive.

There should be a simpler method. There were long delays in transferring land documents between districts and the Land Registry Office, and also between the registry and district offices. Many land documents were mislaid because the records and registry section in Port Moresby was dealing with a great number of documents.

There should be district land registry offices in all districts.

The only type of title at present was the Australian Torrens title. It was not completely adequate for the different types of tenure.

So far the commission has heard a wide variety of views, and it is bound to hear more, even more con flicting, before it sits down to consider its report.