most just cause of Warre

7Wi Y*''' t./3f.4 ("

'.:*,+; ,,,0

i:,5,, '.1 )t'

QuarterlyMarch-April1968Vol.3

NEW GUINEA AND AUSTRALIA. THE PACIFIC AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Edited by PETER HASTINGS.

MARCH

1

APRIL, 1968. VOL. 3, NO. 1.

Published by the COUNCIL ON NEW GUINEA AFFAIRS as a quarterly journal. Single copies: 50 cents posted to Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand; 55 cents posted elsewhere. Annual subscription (four issues): Australia. New Guinea and New Zealand, $2.00 A ust. post free; elsewhere, $2.20 Aust. post free. Editorial Office: Council on New Guinea Affairs, 4th Floor, 17 Castlereagh Street, Sydney. Telephone: 28-7155. Cables: Conga/, Sydney. Printing, distribution and advertising: Sydney and Melbourne Publishing Co. Pty. Ltd., 29 Alberta Street, Sydney. Telephone: 61-7101.

THE FUTURE TARGET DATES!

8

H. L. R. Niall.

THE ECONOMY BUT WHOSE DEVELOPMENT?

19

P. W. E. Curtin.

34

J. R. Sharp.

48

Peter Hastings.

12

Percy Clwtterton. Robin Hide. John Bames. J. D. Conroy and W. R. Stent.

SHORT STORY POROGA

POLITICS MAKIM NAMAWAN VOT

GENERAL THE MISSIONARIES THE MERANI LESSON ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS LITTLE MEN, WHAT NOW?

25 43 54

BOOKS HIGH V ALLEY, HIGH PROSE OTHER NOTICES

60 61

LETTERS

66

Hank Nelson.

INDEX TO VOLUME 2 A GUIDE TO ISSUES 1 TO 4

70

BOOKS RECEIVED BIBLIOGRAPHY

72

Editorial Adviser: Professor HENRY MA YER. Books: EDW ARD WOLFERS. Cover Design: Torres Strait Tortoise Shell Mask, KEVIN BROOKS.

Robin Hide

The Future

A most just cause of Warre A lesson to be learned at M erani ...

"For they counte this the most just cause of warre, when any people holdeth a piece of grounde voyde and vacant to no good nor profitable use, kepying other from the use and possession of it." 1 -Sir Thomas More's Utopia.

"WE are here to stay", reads the motto

These are impressive achievements, and they can be paralleled (though in a lesser extent) by the efforts of the longer established and more widely dispersed plantations of coconut, cocoa and rubber of the island and mainland coastal regions of Papua and New Guinea. Backed by these arguments, based as they are upon the percentages of export production, tax revenues, development of infrastructure, employment opportunities and the provision of other services, the planters' claim that they are here to stay appears entirely reasonable and justifiable.

of the Highlands Farmers and Settlers' Association, one of the most vigorous bodies of expatriate planters in Papua and New Guinea. This is a strong claim, and a proud one, made by men who, in their own words, state: "Today we earn for this country $6,000,000 We have been responsible for pushing a reluctant Administration into the development of tea, pyrethrum, passionfruit, peanuts and cattle. We have . . . developed roads, furnished more than one hospital and promoted a variety of welfare and aid . . . our members have taken part in every development of importance since the New Guinea Highlands were opened to settlement and the indigenous people given the opportunity of seeking a cash economy . . . We give employment to more than 8.000 persons . . ."2

The planters are not alone in holding this view. The recommendations of the World Bank Mission gave strong support to the role of the expatriate plantation sector in aiding and encouraging the economic growth of the country. Though accepting the Administration's principle of safeguarding the land rights of indigenes, the report stressed the necessity of developing a viable economy as a basis for political self-determination and self-government. Therefore it was "highly important that there should be

Robin Hide, a graduate in Social Anthropology of Cambridge V niversity is research assistant on land tenure with the A.N.U.'s New Guinea Research Unit. His article concerns the highly wccessful experiment in settling Papuans on undeveloped leasehold land started by Mr. G. C. Elworthy at Merani Estate at Cape Rodney.

25

26

Robin Hide

acceptance of the view that arrangements must be made for Europeans both to continue to operate existing holdings and to obtain additional lands at present held by natives". 3 Many of the World Bank's proposals for rapid large-scale expansion of rural production for export depended upon this assumption that expatriate enterprise would be forthcoming. Present indications suggest that this assumption was not justified. 4 Historical parallels are often misleading, but with this reservation in mind it would be unwise not to consider just one of the many regularities which have occurred in the mid-20th Century phenomenon of the changeover from colonial administration to national selfgovernment. Deserted club-houses and run-down plantations in many excolonies throughout the world bear witness to the migration of the expatriate planters. Too easily, it appears, can a haunting, "Where have all the planters gone?'' replace a confident, "We are here to stay". But why this migration? Were the planters of Africa and Asia any less productive than those of Papua and New Guinea, any less enthusiastic about introducing new crops and providing employment and other services for indigenous people? It is doubtful. Why then did they leave? The simplest answer is that during and after the changeover to self-government, the security of the planters depends upon politics much more than upon economics, and since the political power is transferred to indigenous people, it is their evaluation of the benefits and disadvantages of expatriate plantation enterprise, their view of race relations, their view of indigenous potential, that come to matter. The question of alienated land and the control of valuable land resources by people regarded as outsiders becomes one of great political importance.

Access to land, whether claimed by discovery, conquest, or purchase, has always played a major role (second only to the quest for precious metals) in the European expansion into the non-European parts of the world and settlement in Papua and New Guinea has been no exception. The process of alienation of land from Papuan and New Guinean owners was reasonably well controlled. 5 But this was also the case in many other ex-colonies. Figures for 1962 show a total of just over one million acres of land alienated for agricultural purposes, divided into 1,181 holdings. this acreage is small when compared with the total land area of about 117 million acres, but this is hardly a useful comparison as the proportion of good quality land alienated in areas easily accessible to transport is considerable, and highly visible. For a more relevant view of the economic position of the expatriate plantation sector we should consider, first their large proportion of the export value of the four major agricultural crops, and secondly the total number of expatriates engaged in rural production. The statistics used by the World Bank Mission show 325 expatriate owners, lessees and share farmers, with a further 718 Europeans, Asians and mixed-race people engaged in farm work as managers, foremen or workers. The 325 expatriate farmers employed approximately 40,000 indigenous labourers,6 who received 7.2 million dollars in wages of the total 9.2 million dollars paid in salaries and wages by the plantation sector in 1962.7 These figures highlight the position of very real economic strength of the expatriate plantation sector. They show also that this is controlled by a comparatively small number of men, who in turn control a relatively small acreage of land. In a country committed to the need for developing a viable economy as fast as

NEW GUINEA and Australia, the Pacific and South-East Asia-March/ April, 1968

The

~1 erani

possible the political importance of these resources is undeniable. In the early years the relationship between expatriate settlers and the indigenous population was complementary; the expatriates, with a monopoly of the necessary technical skills, capital, and communication with external markets, lacked land and labour; and indigenous people, on the other hand, were prepared to provide land and labour in return for newly introduced goods. Such a relationship, if undisturbed by other influences, may continue unchanged over many years, as was the case in Latin America. But settlement came late to Papua and New Guinea, and came not alone, but hand in hand with the Administration and the missions, both of which in their different ways, have been increasingly committed to developing the indigenous people towards full participation in the modern world. Opened to these other influences, not only have the indigenous people been provided with other alternatives than plantation labour for acquiring new goods and cash, but their aspirations have risen accordingly. In the field of rural production they have learnt, both from their experience with plantations and from agricultural extension, how to produce and market cash crops. Since the early 1950s, the increase in indigenous participation in this field has been very rapid* and in several areas, notably the Gazelle Peninsula and the Highlands of New Guinea, the relationship between the expatriate planters and the indigenous p e o pI e, originally complementary, changes to one of competition, since both are producing the same crops for the same restricted world market and both require land.a ' *

Indigenous smallholders now pmduce more coffee than

expatriate increase of

planters

and

the

28

indigenous production

per

cent.

rate

of

of coconut products

between 1961-65 was at least four times that of expatriates. Current Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1967, p. 57.

Lesson

27

Two points of this change are worth remarking upon. Firstly, it has happened recently, it has come quickly, and the indications are that it will continue. Secondly, whereas the indigenes were formerly most dependent upon the planters for the satisfaction of their new needs, this is no longer the case. These two points carry an important message for the expatriate planter. The indigenous smallholder's way of life is changing fast, his aspirations are turning from traditionally determined goals to those more similar to the expatriates', and the abilities and facilities to achieve the new goals are developing rapidly. The expatriate cannot afford to look back upon his past achievements; rather must he look to his present relationships with those whose land he shares and those whose interests are so rapidly becoming one with his. "What an irony," writes Hannett in a recent editorial of Dialogue,9 expressing concern at the failure of members of the "inseparable troika" of Administration, missions and planters to change their attitudes in pace with the times, "What an irony that those who made us realise who we are always seem to be the last in respecting us for what we are". He adds wryly, "Even in family life there are some parents that never grow up with their children". A recent event in the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain illustrates the kind of problem which I believe to be symptomatic of this change. Under the heading of "Villagers told to quit in Rabaul Land Dispute", it was reported1o that 200 Ulugunan villagers had planted, "in an organised planned operation", approximately 100 acres of coconuts in the space of a month on a plantation held under freehold title by Coconut Products Ltd. After several fruitless attempts, the presence of the East New Britain District Commissioner, six police officers and sixty armed members of the riot squad were required to persuade the villagers to leave the land in

NEW GUINEA and Australia, the Pacifrc and South-East Asia-March/ April, 1968

28

Robin Hide

question. This is an extreme example, the Gazelle Peninsula being an area of high population density, with widespread and intensive cash cropping, and an increasing land shortage. It does however reveal the major loophole in the planters' claim to future security based upon economic benefits, especially in areas similar to the Gazelle. The Ulugunan villagers moved on to alienated land that was undeveloped.

legislation will apply to the 408,000 acres of freehold land, the majority of which was taken over from the Germans in New Guinea. Until now there was no means of ensuring that such land was used productively, unlike leasehold land which may be forfeited if not properly developed and maintained. The latter legislation has however rarely been exercised.

There is no point in stressing the relevance of the quotation from More at the head of this article. Rather, we should accept the general principle that property tenure entails obligations, and consider the extent to which land held by expatriates for agricultural purposes is undeveloped. The World Bank Mission gave the following figures: 11 (See Table I.) The figures speak for themselves. Just over one million acres of land have been alienated to expatriates for agricultural use of which 669,000 acres, or nearly 70%, is undeveloped. The bulk of this alienated and undeveloped land (an unspecified proportion of which is undoubtedly unsuitable for agriculture) is located in the lowland and island regions which have not undergone the rapid development of the Highlands. All alienated land in the Highlands is held under lease from the Administration. That this problem of undeveloped land is recognised by the Administration is clear from the proposed legislation which is tabled for discussion in the House of Assembly. If passed, this

The position of the expatriate planter in this time of rapid changes in the focii of economic and political power is undeniably awkward. Worried about his future security under an independent government, he is loath to invest further capital and effort in developing his land beyond his present commitment. But failure to do so, will soon be sanctioned by the threat of forfeiture under the Administration's planned legislation to tighten the conditions of tenure. Present fears for the future are thus understandable, but more positive action is necessary if planters are to continue to make their contribution to the economy, to achieve a working relationship with their indigenous counterparts, and to prosper themselves. To answer the question, "What kind of action?", there are many hypotheses, but what is needed are concrete, successful examples. Unfortunately, both public knowledge and documentation of such examples are sadly lacking. An attempt will be made to meet this deficiency by outlining the main features of one expatriate's small scale, but highly successful scheme to establish indigenous

TABLE 1 Non-indigenous agricultural holdings, 1962 Land tenure ('000 acres) No. of holdings Freehold Leasehold lowlands Islands Highlands Total

535 463 183 1,181

98 310

445 125

408

53 623

land

use

('000

Total

Cropped

543 435 53 1,031

138 214


10 362

acres) Unused

405 221 43 669

The NI erani Lesson smallholders on plantation land.

surplus

undeveloped

This scheme was established by Mr. G. C. Elworthy in 1955 on Merani Estate, his rubber plantation of some 2,000 acres of leasehold land at Cape Rodney in the Abau sub-District on the north coast of Papua. At that date, approximately 400 acres were under rubber, with a further 400 scheduled for development, thus leaving a considerable surplus of undeveloped land to his foreseeable requirements. The stimulus to initiate some form of settlement project came partly from Mr. Elworthy's own interpretation of the labour problems besetting expatriate planters in Papua and New Guinea, and partly from his visits to Malaya where he was impressed both by the large-scale Land Development Schemes of the Government and by the example of expatriate owners who had already seen the need to improve conditions of labour on plantations. By dividing and distributing undeveloped land among selected Papuans, he hoped to achieve several aims: • To put to productive use land surplus to his requirements, and to serve as rewards to long term employees. • To establish a community on the edge of the estate and with close links to it, to serve as a future source of labour. • In more general terms he hoped that provision of secure tenure on productive smallholdings might assist in stemming, or at least provide an alternative to the "drift'' from the villages to the towns. To implement this plan a private surveyor was hired in 1955 to mark out six blocks, each of ten acres, on undeveloped Merani land bordering an expatriate -owned coconut plantation. These blocks were then allocated to six

29

Papuans, and a verbal agreement made that if certain conditions were fulfilled within thee years, the blocks would then be deeded to them as leasehold property. These conditions were, first, that the 10 acres should be cleared and planted with coconuts and a nitrogenous cover crop and, second, that a house should be built, a well dug and some fruit trees planted. The original six settlers were chosen by Mr. Elworthy on the basis of his assessment of their personal qualities, drawn from his experience with them during the I 0 years that he had owned Merani. In a letter to the District Commissioner, Central District (June 29, 1965) he explained that the six "had a lot of experience as plantation overseers, were mature, married and had families, and would take direction from me in the planting of their land". All six men had long experience on plantations, although they came from three different regions (Mailu and Rigo in the Central District and Musa in the Northern). None of them had had more than two years' education and their common language is Police Motu though they all have a limited knowledge of English. To provide loans for roofing iron, tools, etc. during the early years, Mr. Elworthy established a fund of $4,000. The original survey, which cost $800, was paid for from this, and interestfree loans to the settlers, since repaid, totalled a further $600. That larger loans were not required, is explained by two factors. In the first place, all six men continued to work for wages for several years and secondly their close association with Merani Estate enabled them to borrow tools and make use of other facilities such as transport, which they hired. After two years, the original 10 acres was not considered sufficient for economic independence and the blocks were resurveyed by the Department of Lands,


Robin Hide

30

Surveys and Mines which was by then interested in the scheme, and their size was increased to 15 acres. Since all six settlers fulfilled the conditions agreed upon, Mr. Elworthy duly surrendered the land to the Administration and in 1961 agricultural leases were issued to each Papuan settler. Encouraged by this preliminary success, a further 11 blocks were surveyed and gradually allocated between 1961 and 1966 at the end of which year Mr. Elworthy sold Me rani and moved to Port Moresby. Of these latter blocks, the first five were given to five similar long term employees, all of whom were married and from the Central District. Two of the original six settlers asked for and received an additional block each, and the remaining four blocks were allocated to three young married men, two from the Trobriands and one from Musa, and a Gulf District overseer of a neighbouring plantation who had brought his family to Cape Rodney. By the time Merani Estate was sold in 1966, a total of 255 acres had been surrendered, consisting of 17 blocks of approximately 15 acres each, divided among 15 Papuan leaseholders. The 10year period between the first and last allocations is reflected in the range of development shown between the original six blocks and those only recently taken up. All of the original six are entirely planted with coconuts; except for the house sites, and the first 10 acres planted are all in production, five of them since 1963. Incomes from copra are shown in the table below. TABLE 2

Gross income ($A) from copra production (10 acres) of original 6 settlers, 1963-66 12 Settlers

1963

1964

1965

A

26

289

680

598

B

68

300

624

590

c

222

540

808

558

D

111

428

560

396

E

21

734

512

70

107

132

F

Of the original six, five* have now firmly established households with houses built close to the graded road which runs the length of the blocks, affording direct access to all but three of the 17 blocks. The standard of these five houses is generally high, the majority having iron roofs, and utilising milled timber offcuts from the nearby Pacific Islands Timber sawmill for walls and flooring. Each of these blocks has its own copra drier, and each household is well equipped with a range of tools. The largest households have more than one house, and the number of residents ranges from five to 15. Besides their returns from copra, these six men also have other sources of income. Two of them (B and F) are still working for Merani Estate, for annual wages of $384 and $240 respectively. All six sell considerable quantities of vegetable produce either occasionally or regularly at the twice weekly market at Marshall Lagoon and the local Saturday market at Aru River. The wife of B, who was trained at Kwato Mission near Samarai, bakes bread once or twice a week and sells it in her husband's store to settlers and others. Three of them have established small trade stores, two ( B and F) on their blocks, and one (A) in his home village near Rigo. The latter also owns a tractor and trailer purchased in 1965 and has recently acquired a new two-ton truck. He now transports all six settlers' copra to the wharf for shipping to Port Moresby, runs a school transport service for both settlers' and village children, carries produce and passengers to the markets, and also takes on contract work from the

1966

* The exception (settler E in Table 2) is an older man than the others, who prefers to live in his home village about one mile from his block. The large drop in his gross copra income from $512 in 1965 to $70 in 1966 is partly explained by the loss of a large quantity of bagged copra in an accidental fire. Settler F, on the other hand, who only started producing copra in 1965, planted later than the others, but is now well established.


The Merani Lesson Administration for gravelling roads, etc. The composition of his household reflects these diverse interests. Besides himself, his wife, and five young children, it includes his married daughter and her husband (one of the young Trobrianders who lately received a block) , his brother's son with wife and child, and three unrelated young labourers. Both his son-in-law and nephew work for him as drivers and are paid $20 a month each. The labourers, who work on his two blocks and that of his sonin-law, receive $6 per month and food. This man is one of the most successful of the settlers but when it is remembered that he has had the barest education, the opportunities provided by such a scheme are clearly seen. The 11 blocks which were allocated between 1961 and 1966 show a wide range of development though none is producing copra as yet. Six of them are completely planted with coconuts. Of these six, two belong to settlers A and B and therefore have no house built on them, while the other four are all homesites. The settlers on the latter four all continued to work for wages during the early years of development, but only one of them is doing so at present. Of the five remaining blocks, the least developed has just over two acres planted, the greatest has 11. None of the leaseholders of these blocks had established a permanent household in situ at the beginning of 1967. Two of them were unmarried and living with settlers B and C respectively, while a third had recently married the daughter of A with whom he lived and for whom he worked. The remaining two were both married and lived and worked for wages elsewhere, one as overseer on a neighbouring expatriate plantation, the other with the Pacific Islands Timber sawmill. The unequal development of these five incompletely developed blocks is

31

explained by a number of factors. Of the two with the least acreage planted, one is owned by the young man living with C, a very recent allocation shortly before Mr. Elworthy's departure, the other by the P.I.T. employee who lives in his nearby home village and who has so rarely been seen on his block that other settlers have expressed hopes of obtaining it. The plantation overseer, with seven acres planted and an annual wage of $312 with rations, had brought his old father and his younger sister from the Gulf District to live on and look after his block. He also leases a block of 21 acres at the nearby Government settlement scheme of Bomguina on which two acres are planted. His commitments outside Merani are therefore heavy. The two most fully developed blocks belong to the two young men who live with A and B, the two most successful of the original settlers. Both are related to their household heads, to A by marriage, and to B by distant kinship, and both have clearly benefited by their close association with these older men in being enabled, through use of their relatives' labourers, and loan of tools, etc., to very rapidly clear and plant their blocks. Allocation of the blocks at Merani continued over a period of nearly 10 years. This has several interesting features. Firstly, new grantees have benefited from the examples, advice, and occasional assistance of the six original pioneers. Secondly, the latter having completely developed their blocks, have had to look elsewhere for land for growing vegetables for their own consumption and for sale. The new settlers have allowed them to make temporary use of their blocks, an arrangement advantageous to both parties. Whereas the first settlers continued to work for wages up to and beyond the time that their copra came into production, many of the newer settlers stopped working


32

Robin Hide

earlier, especially when the estate changed hands. They are not therefore so able to hire estate labourers to assist them in clearing their blocks. By granting the older settlers temporary rights to make gardens on uncleared land, they thus succeed in clearing their blocks at less cost to themselves. One of the more recently allocated blocks has no fewer than 11 such gardens under cultivation. Thirdly, the older settlers provide the newer ones with opportunities for full or part-time work. A variety of such arrangements can be seen at Merani, ranging from settler B's son-in-law who receives $20 a month as a driver, to more temporary cases which may involve a new settler making copra for an older one, on either a weekly or daily basis. The fact that only $600 was borrowed during the early years of development by the original settlers from the loan fund of $4,000 established by Mr. Elworthy has already been mentioned. This compares very favourably with the figures of the Department of Agriculture13 which detail the loan requirements necessary for establishing individual settlers and their families on similar 15acre unimproved leasehold blocks without established subsistence gardens or any capital. Their estimates require a total loan of $1,440 per settler during the first eight years, which will not be completely refunded until 18 years after first settlement, at which time the settler will receive a net income of only $342 (copra at $100 per ton). Both this initial cost and long period of loan repayment were avoided at Merani by the original settlers continuing to work for wages. As their own unaided efforts were restricted to the afternoons when their estate work was completed, it was necessary for them to recruit labour from elsewhere for the initial task of clearing their blocks in preparation for planting. They either hired fellow

estate labourers for afternoon work, paid men and women from such nearby villages as Tutubu, or brought from their home village people whom they compensated with both food and cash. This comparison of the Merani scheme with the Coconut Budget estimates shows that not only were Merani settlers much cheaper to establish, but that their production figures are also considerably higher. Table 2 (see p. 30) records the gross incomes from copra of the original settlers, five of them since 1963. (The sixth planted rather later.) Assuming that these five settlers planted all I 0 acres within the first year of 1956-7, then 1965 and 1966 should have seen each of them producing about 2! tons and 3 tons of copra respectively, according to the Coconut Budget estimates of yields for the ninth and tenth years after planting. In fact, the average production of these five Merani settlers was 4 tons in 1965 and 3:} tons in 1966. A successful community of smallholders is thus developing at Merani, based on the productive use of 255 previously undeveloped acres, and stemming from the opportunity and encouragement provided by the expatriate owner. By personally selecting settlers from known employees, and providing, after a probationary period, secure tenure under the conditions of leasehold legislation, Mr. Elworthy undoubtedly laid the foundations of the project. It would be difficult to over-estimate, though hard to calculate in exact terms, his major contribution in providing continuous extention services over the first I 0 years. Living not more than a mile from the blocks, and fluent in Police Motu, the lingua franca of the settlers, his availability and interest in providing advice and assistance are important factors. In his relationship with the Merani settlers, he combined, amongst others, the roles of employer, settlement man-


33

The M erani Lesson ager, agricultural adviser, and welfare officer, all the while successfully managing his own rubber estate. Such commitment is surprising, not because of its "altruism" but because of its understanding of the problems raised by the presence of expatriate enterprise in unsophisticated rural areas and its foresight in taking long-term measures beneficial to all involved. With the estate now sold, and Mr. Elworthy living in Port Moresby, the Merani settlers have entered a new phase of their development. The Merani scheme is offered as an example of one possible solution to certain problems confronting the expatriate sector in commercial agriculture in Papua and New Guinea today. Compulsory acquisition as now proposed by government (and increasingly used in a wide range of countries) 14 is one means of ensuring that alienated land is used productively. Merani offers an alternative, and shows also a means by which a labour nucleus may be established, a factor which with the development of skills necessary for efficient plantation production may soon become more important. Merani also provides an illustration of a means of integrating the expatriate planter and the indigenous smallholder and of establishing that

kind of relationship founded on common problems and interests which may eventually prove to be the surest investment in the future security of all parties. REFERENCES 1 Collins, J. C. (ed.), Sir Thomas More's Utopia, Oxford, 1904, pp. 66-7. 1966". New Guinea 2 Editorial, "Introspection Highlands Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1966, p. 7. 3 The Economic Development of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Sept. 1964, p. 172. 4 "T.P.N.G. the economy in the 'sixties." Cur· rent Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 4 1967, p. 56. 5 For some exceptions see Road belong Cargo, Peter Lawrence, Melbourne U.P. 1964 (pp. 478, 87). 6 Op. Cit, page 74. 7 "T.P.N.G.-the economy in the 'sixties". Cur· rent Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1967, p. 55. 8 For an example of expatriate realisation of this development see I. Downs, "Let's stop this economic suicide". New Guinea Highlands Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 1967, pp. 8-13. 9 H. L. Hannett (ed.), "Give us a fair go". Dialogue, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1967, p. 2. 10 South Pacific Post, Friday, October 6, 1967, p. 3. 11 Op. cit, page 74. 12 Figures from the Copra Marketing Board, Port Moresby, by kind permission of Mr. I. McDonald, Chairman. 13 Coconut Budget, Section M Sub. E. Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries, Port Moresby, November 3, 1965. 14 See, for example, Latin-American land reform: the uses of confiscation, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, December 1964.
