Distribute Wealth Equally

WE hear loud and clear the case made by the promoters of transferring ownership of resources to the land owning groups in the country. There is much credence in the arguments. Basically the arguments arise from inequity, not wrongful ow­nership. For decades, landowning groups from Guava v­illage in Panguna to the Min people of the Star Mountains and the Foe and Fasu of lake Kutubu have played obser­vers to the harvesting of billions of kina worth of mine­ral and hydrocarbon wealth on their land. Only a few landowner­ managers and leaders might have come into some real money but the majority received next to nil and remains destitute and frustrated.

Transferring ownership to the landowners of their resources will not improve their case. Indeed, it will make murkier the muddy waters of land tenure system that we have in PNG. Since land ownership itself is a taxing question vesting ownership of wealth in the hands of a group of landowners is akin to giving a child a loaded pistol with the safety catch in the off position. It is quite simple really when you think about it. Landownership issues are some of the most prohibitive to business and investment presently.

Vest ownership of minerals and other wealth on or under the land or sea in landowning groups and it is quite plausible that there will be massive flight of investors with credible new ones shying away from our shores.

With the best of intentions, even one of the biggest promoters of the transfer of ownership idea, Sir Julius Chan, will cringe if he were to put on his businessman hat and suit and consider investing several million kina of his own money with some gold mine landowner in Kerowagi or the Lai valley.

Land is communally owned. This worked in a traditional setting where land use was restricted for homes, for gardening and for hunting.In a modern cash eco­nomy where individual use of land might be for longer periods for cash cropping, there is much tension arising which is increa­singly ending up in courts or more so intra-tribal conflicts. With the land use and land ownership issue unsettled in law and in the minds of people, to suddenly up and vest ownership of the wealth of the land in local landowning groups will be very pro­blematic. The issue as we have sta­ted at the start of this discussion is not one of ownership but really of equitable distribution of the wealth of the land.

The state has shown itself to be a slack and even irresponsible manager of the wealth of PNG. By law it has given a meagre 2.5% back to landowning groups in royalty and limited its own equity participation in projects to a mere 30% of mineral resources and 22% of hydrocarbon projects. This is what needs chan­ging – the regime, not the law. In the end, it is the policy and the attitude that needs amending, not the legislation. This rushing to the law book to change the laws is an easy way out but it will never solve any problem. The government needs now to sit down and work on a workable land tenure system for the country. It needs to discuss how the wealth of the land can be distributed equitably. Under the present laws, it is able to do it.

Change that law and give ownership to the people and out the window will go any idea of “equitabl­e distribution”.

No landowner is going to allow another on his land and that is accepted practice in PNG, we all know that.

What is being suggested will create a new class of very wealthy landowners in pockets in the country while the rest who might not have any wealth or resource on the land will remain destitute. We call on the new go­vernment to carefully screen the issues before rushing off to change the laws. It would be far better if the state could actually get a greater stake in management and ownership of pro­jects including increasing royalty  payments to landowning groups, increasing equity participation in pro­jects and sharing of benefits from projects.If it decides to go ahead with the Boka Kondra bill to vest ownership in landowners, we can only foresee problems in the future.

-OP-ED