Papua New Guinea: Aust. exec admits role in human rights abuse

October 29, 2012
Issue 
A Paga Hill home after it was demolished. Photo by Jeffry Feeger.

The on October 8 documenting a forced eviction that took place in Papua New Guinea鈥檚 capital, Port Moresby, on May 12. en masse by the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary.

Those who resisted the forced eviction were . At one stage police even fired live rounds at bystanders.

The demolition was conducted to being spearheaded by the Paga Hill Development Company (PHDC) 鈥 a company largely run from Australia, with significant Australian shareholdings.

PHDC鈥檚 chairperson and secretary is Gudmundur Fridriksson, an executive who heads Noel Pearson鈥檚 Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. Fridriksson has specific responsibility for the controversial Cape York Welfare Reform Trial (although I understand as of October he is on 鈥渆xtended leave鈥).

The ISCI鈥檚 report presented evidence that raises questions about the land deal behind this proposed development, but it never suggested that PHDC condoned or indeed directed the brutal events of May 12. Indeed, it was assumed responsibility lay entirely with the PNG police.

However, we must now pause for thought, courtesy of new allegations voiced by PHDC鈥檚 own director (), George Hallit, on .

During his 10 minute interview, Hallit seems to suggest that PHDC not only directed the forced eviction exercise 鈥 or 鈥渇orced relocation鈥 as he put it 鈥 but they even hired the excavation equipment used to crush the homes, as weeping families looked on.

鈥淎t the end of the day there are only a few suppliers of excavators as you can imagine in Port Moresby ... we just went to the first, we鈥檝e paid for their use鈥, Hallit told Pacific Beat.

If the line between public and private administration of this demolition was not already blurry, it became more so as Hallit appeared to suggest PHDC directed the police operation.

鈥淭he [Paga Hill] settlers had actually challenged the consent order in the district court and failed [on May 11],鈥 he said. 鈥淪o we waited for that. Now they sought a stay order in the national court on that [next] day and they succeeded. And when the eviction was in process, when they arrived with that, we stopped.鈥

So who was in fact directing the demolition, the police or the developer? From this statement it sounds like the developer.

Why was a private company providing operational assets for a policing operation? Why did the developer allow the demolition to take place, when they were aware a national court hearing was pending that day?

And lastly, in a rather overlooked twist, why did the developer permit police to demolish properties that lay outside the boundaries of its lease?

Hallit also argued on Pacific Beat that PHDC had bought alternative land for Paga Hill residents at Six Mile, the site of a large decommissioned dump and a 17,000 person settlement.

鈥淲e have actually bought a piece of land at Six Mile, NCDC has agreed to turn it into freehold title鈥, Hallit claimed.

Unfortunately, this is not quite how it works in PNG. The land in Six Mile is, by PHDC鈥檚 own admission, customarily owned.

To be converted into freehold title, demanding procedures set out in must be observed. Even once converted to freehold, 鈥渢he land may be transferred or leased for a longer period than 25 years only with the consent of the Land Board鈥.

So for fundamental legal reasons, the National Capital District Commission cannot simply sign over customary land to PHDC, as Hallit suggested.

However, Hallit not only claimed PHDC had land awaiting Paga Hill residents, but that the residents were in fact looking forward to the 鈥渇orced relocation鈥.

He argued: 鈥淲e鈥檝e worked with them, they鈥檝e been in agreement, and they looked forward to the move and even on the day of the eviction, which was essentially a forced relocation, they knew full well it was coming.鈥

In the images leaked to ISCI from a government source, the community look anything but happy or prepared. In fact when police opened fire, .

Hallit remembers things differently: 鈥淥n the day of the eviction, we were working with them, we had big bags they were putting in all their possessions from their houses and it was only until they had actually left their houses, and we would assist them to be moving, that we would use the excavators to basically knock over their house as the final act, such that they wouldn鈥檛 be returning.鈥

Indeed, according to Hallit, residents were anxious to leave Paga Hill: 鈥淭his [Paga Hill] is not a happy environment.鈥

He continued:鈥淚t's well documented from independent parties that the current residents on the settlement are in fear of dysentery and sexual assault on a regular basis.鈥

The only evidence PHDC has publicly cited in this respect is written by a US photographer. And even then, the Paga women interviewed noted their community 鈥渋s safe鈥, it was outsiders they feared.

If Hallit played PHDC鈥檚 鈥済ood cop鈥 in the company鈥檚 media appearances, then the 鈥渂ad cop鈥 has been Fridriksson.

When interviewed by The Australian on October 9, he claimed, 鈥渢here are just squatters and settlers and criminals hanging out there [at Paga Hill]鈥. This is a common stereotype used to demonise informal settlements in PNG.

However, as , it is a stereotype fundamentally lacking in empirical evidence.

Indeed, in a study conducted by resident anthropologist, Joe Moses, with assistance from University of PNG academic Dicks Rae Thomas, it was found that the community at Paga Hill was made up predominantly of skilled and semi-skilled workers who are gainfully employed in the formal (54%) and informal sector (45%).

Moreover, their residency at Paga Hill is by no means new. Indeed, the original , with permission from the hill鈥檚 traditional owners, who deny having alienated their land to the state. Such is the complexity of urban land relations in PNG.

It was also suggested by Fridriksson that Paga Hill is merely a collection of shanty homes: 鈥淭here would not be more than three houses there that qualify as a house. It is just rocks on top of corrugated iron held down by nails. It's like Rio de Janeiro or Manila.鈥

I am not sure how the residents of Rio de Janeiro or Manila would feel about being used as the baseline for urban decay, but the fact is Paga Hill does not correspond to the developer鈥檚 caricature.

During my research on the forced eviction, I was supplied with photographs by neighbor Sam Moko, which he had taken in July 2010.

These homes which punctuate Paga鈥檚 shoreline are a colorful example of the type of serious investment many local residents have plumbed into their living space. And much of their opposition to the development has been grounded in the derisory compensation offered for a lifetime鈥檚 work.

Interestingly, when questioned about two auditor-general reports, and three Public Accounts Committee reports, censuring the consulting firm, CCS Anvil 鈥 which Hallit ran with Fridriksson 鈥 the executives have been more circumspect.

The accusations levelled at CCS Anvil 鈥 a firm that was also appointed project manager for the Paga Hill development 鈥 are extremely serious.

Both that as an agent for PNG鈥檚 Public Curator鈥檚 Office, CCS Anvil personally pocketed money from deceased estates, which it was meant to deposit in Estate Trust Accounts.

They also claim CCS Anvil鈥檚 PNG principal was certifying government payments to his own firm, for as much as K500,000 (about $A250,000).

Let us hope a few Australian politicians take note of these new admissions. Papua New Guineans already believe their friendship with Australia is a decidedly one-sided affair. Failing to act on these serious allegations involving expatriates in PNG, will only alienate Australia鈥檚 important neighbour further.

[Dr Kristian Lasslett is a member of the executive board of the . Photos below.]


You need 91自拍论坛, and we need you!

91自拍论坛 is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.