Papua Native Landowners Association Inc - PNLAInc

28/04/2026

Terrible behavior

44 likes, 43 comments. "CHAOS: HAGEN TOWN UPRISING BY SOUTHERN HIGHLANDER'S 2026"

15/04/2026

15/04/2026

The 7th Pacific Urban Forum (PUF7) is a regional platform convened by UN-Habitat that brings together governments, civil society, customary landowners, development partners, and technical experts across the Pacific to discuss urban development challenges and solutions. The forum focuses on housing, land, basic services, climate resilience, and inclusive urban planning in rapidly growing Pacific towns and cities.

At its core, PUF7 is about how Pacific communities can shape development in ways that respect customary land systems while improving access to housing, infrastructure, and essential services. It recognises that land is not just an economic asset but a cultural, spiritual, and identity foundation for Pacific peoples.

Across the discussions, key themes included strengthening land governance, improving access to basic services in informal settlements, protecting vulnerable communities, and ensuring that development does not override customary ownership systems. The breakout sessions, including those on Housing, Land and Basic Services, highlighted practical approaches that balance urban growth with indigenous land rights and community participation.

For the Papua Native Landowners Association (PNLA), the engagement at PUF7 aligns directly with our mandate to protect and strengthen customary land rights. PNLA stands for the recognition that customary landowners must be central decision-makers in all land development processes, particularly in urban expansion, infrastructure development, and resource allocation.

PNLA advocates for:

Full recognition and protection of customary land tenure systems under national development planning

Meaningful participation of landowners in all housing, land, and urban service decisions
Protection against unlawful or unjust land acquisition and dispossession

Equitable development that benefits landowning communities rather than marginalising them
Stronger legal and policy frameworks that uphold customary ownership in the face of urbanisation pressures

Our position is that development in Papua New Guinea must not come at the cost of customary land rights. Instead, it must be built through partnership with landowners, respecting traditional authority while improving living standards.

PUF7 reinforces the importance of these principles at a regional level and confirms that the future of Pacific cities depends on inclusive systems that protect customary land while delivering sustainable development.

28/02/2026

As customary landowners, you do not need land titles to prove your ownership of your native land. The most Simplest explanation, I can give like for a child is this....

This land is yours because your grandparents lived on it, your parents lived on it, and you live on it. Your stories, graves, gardens, boundaries, and customs are your proof. That is what the law calls customary ownership.

Land titles are government papers. They are mainly used for government land or private lease land, not for native land. Most land in Papua New Guinea is owned without titles, and that is normal and legal.

The danger is this

When a Minister starts talking about “declaring land,” “sorting files,” or “national interest,” it sounds like paperwork only, but paper can change the future. Once something is written down the wrong way, it can later be used to take land away.

That is why Hon John Rosso must be very careful with his words. Yule Island is not just land on a map. It is a native home, with ancestors, identity, and customary law. Ministers do not “sort” native homes like office files.

What landowners should remember
Customary land does not become government land just because of a Gazette
Customary land does not need a title to exist
The government has no power to quietly convert native land without consent and due process
So when landowners speak strongly, they are right to do so. This is not disrespect. This is defending home.

In simple words:

We are not tenants

We are not squatters

We are not waiting for permission to exist

This is our native land.

Titles are optional.

Custom is permanent.

Our Native Lands WILL ALWAYS BE OUR HOME.

27/02/2026

Landowners in Papua New Guinea are under no legal, constitutional, or customary obligation to approve every investor, corporate, or government proposal.
Customary land ownership is recognised under the Constitution and protected by traditional law and practice. Any development proposal must be subject to free, prior, and informed consent of the legitimate customary landowners, including women who hold equal land rights under custom.
A refusal by landowners is lawful and valid.
Consent obtained through pressure, misinformation, exclusion of women, or state influence is not consent.
Development that ignores customary authority undermines the rule of law, weakens social cohesion, and fuels conflict. Sustainable development can only occur where landowners are respected as decision makers, not obstacles.
Papua Native Landowners Association Incorporated affirms that landowners retain the right to say no, to negotiate fairly, or to walk away entirely.

25/02/2026

PNG is not one culture. It is many nations living together. Reform should
Formally recognise customary nations tribes or language groups as constitutional entities
Allow them authority over land culture and internal governance
Protect diversity instead of forcing uniformity
This does not break the State. It strengthens it by rooting it in reality

By Lucielle Paru
President
PNLA

Lucielle Paru
Lucielle Paru

24/02/2026

The Constitution already recognises customary land, but it treats it as an exception rather than the base of the nation. Reform should clearly state that
Customary land is the primary and permanent foundation of the State
The State exists to protect landholders, not replace them
No law policy or agreement can permanently extinguish customary ownership
This makes land non negotiable and places development under landholder consent.

24/02/2026

The question of land lies at the very heart of Papua New Guinea’s history, identity and continuing struggle for justice. To understand why land remains contested, one must first separate power from ownership, and law from legitimacy.
For Papua New Guineans, land is not a commodity. It is identity, ancestry and continuity. Customary land existed long before foreign contact, held collectively by clans and lineages and governed by custom, memory and responsibility to future generations. No document created this ownership. It existed because the people existed.
Colonial rule disrupted this reality. The British Crown asserted sovereignty over territories that were already inhabited and governed by complex customary systems. Through colonial law, the Crown declared authority over land and classified large areas as Crown land, not because customary ownership had disappeared, but because it was ignored. This was not an act of discovery or agreement. It was an act of imposed power.
At Independence, the Crown transferred administrative control of these lands to the new State of Papua New Guinea. This transfer is often misunderstood as ownership being handed over. In truth, what was transferred was legal control under a colonial framework, not moral or customary legitimacy. The Crown could only pass on what it had claimed under its own laws, even where those claims were fundamentally unjust.
Customary land was never meant to be transferred because, in principle, it was never Crown land. It was assumed to remain with the people and protected by the Constitution. Alienated land, however, remained with the State for reasons of continuity and governance. The new nation needed land to operate hospitals, schools, roads and public institutions. Returning all such land without review was considered impractical and destabilising.
This decision created a lasting injustice. Lands taken without free and informed consent were not automatically returned. Instead, customary owners were required to prove ownership through courts, using a legal system foreign to their traditions. The burden of proof was placed on the dispossessed rather than on those who dispossessed them.
The enduring myth is that the Crown owned the land and lawfully gave it away. In reality, the Crown assumed authority, declared ownership and passed on that declaration. From a customary and moral perspective, this assumption was flawed from the beginning. You cannot give what was never yours.
The State of Papua New Guinea did not inherit stolen land willingly. It inherited a broken system. Yet inheritance does not erase responsibility. The failure since Independence has been the absence of a comprehensive process to acknowledge, review and remedy historical dispossession.
Land disputes today are not merely legal conflicts. They are expressions of unresolved history. They are the voice of clans asserting that legitimacy does not flow from distant authority, but from ancestral connection and lived stewardship.
True justice will not come solely from courts or titles. It will come when the State fully recognises that much of what it controls exists not because it was rightfully acquired, but because it was never truly returned. Until that truth is confronted, land will remain the deepest wound of the nation and the strongest call for reform.

Taken from Chapter XX

By Mesia Novau
Papua Native Landowners Association Incorporated PNLA

24/02/2026

Chapter VII

Colonial Administration, Indigenous Peoples, and the Architecture of Harm

An extract from an educational manuscript on colonial governance and Indigenous rights in the Pacific

Introduction

Colonial rule in the Pacific was not benign administration. It was a system of control, structured through law, force, and racial hierarchy.

This chapter examines the historical record of colonial atrocities and systemic abuses carried out by Colonial Australia, directly and indirectly, against four Indigenous groups:

the Territory of Papua, Torres Strait Islanders, Aboriginal Peoples of Australia, and Māori of Aotearoa.

This account is grounded in archival records, state inquiries, and United Nations human rights language. It is written for education, truth telling, and civic awareness.

1. The Territory of Papua (1884–1975):

Administration Without Consent

The Territory of Papua was never legally part of Australia. It was first declared a British protectorate in 1884 and later transferred to Australian administration in 1906. Governance was exercised through colonial ordinances, patrol officers, and mission systems.
Colonial authority in Papua relied heavily on coercion.
Villages were subjected to so-called “pacification patrols”. Food gardens were destroyed as punishment. Communities were relocated. Customary land was reclassified as “Crown land” without treaty, consent, or compensation. Indigenous Papuans were denied political participation and treated as subjects rather than citizens.
“Colonial rule in Papua relied on coercive force and the denial of indigenous political and land rights.”
— Australian colonial administrative records, PNG National Archives
These practices resulted in dispossession, dependency, and long-term structural inequality that persists beyond independence.

2. Torres Strait Islanders: Annexation and Maritime Exploitation

In 1879, the Torres Strait Islands were annexed by Queensland without consultation or agreement with the Islander peoples. Traditional governance systems were dismantled and replaced by protection regimes.
Islanders were heavily exploited in the pearling and beche-de-mer industries. Wages were withheld or controlled by the state. Movement was restricted. Families were relocated to serve colonial economic interests.
The imposition of modern borders further disrupted Indigenous life.
“Torres Strait Islanders were controlled under protection regimes that denied them freedom of movement, wage control, and self determination.”
— Queensland Government historical records
The long-term impacts include cultural disruption, unresolved sovereignty claims, and heightened vulnerability to climate displacement.

3. Aboriginal Peoples of Australia: Invasion Under Law

Colonial Australia was founded on the doctrine of terra nullius, a legal fiction that declared the land empty despite the presence of hundreds of sovereign nations.
The historical record documents frontier massacres, poisonings, and forced displacement. Protection Acts regulated every aspect of Aboriginal life, including marriage, labour, residence, and movement. Children were forcibly removed from their families in what later inquiries recognised as cultural destruction.
“The forcible removal of Aboriginal children constituted a gross violation of human rights.”
— Bringing Them Home Report, Australian Human Rights Commission
Aboriginal peoples were excluded from citizenship and the national census until 1967, embedding inequality into the foundations of the state.

4. Māori: Imperial Suppression of Indigenous Sovereignty

While Australia did not formally govern Aotearoa, it was part of the same British imperial system that enabled the suppression of Māori sovereignty.
Armed campaigns followed Māori resistance to land alienation. Large areas of land were confiscated. Villages and food systems were destroyed. The Treaty of Waitangi, intended to protect Māori rights, was repeatedly breached.
“The Crown repeatedly acted in bad faith and breached the Treaty of Waitangi.”
— Waitangi Tribunal Findings
Redress has been partial and contested, with long-standing socio-economic consequences.

5. International Law and United Nations Standards

Under contemporary international human rights law, these colonial practices constitute serious violations.

According to United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous peoples have inherent rights to self determination, land, culture, and redress.

“Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, including restitution or compensation, for lands, territories and resources taken without their free, prior and informed consent.”
— UNEMRIP Advice to States

These principles are reinforced across the human rights system of the United Nations.

6. Sustainable Development and Historical Injustice

The legacy of colonial harm directly obstructs the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly:
SDG 1 No Poverty
SDG 5 Gender Equality
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
SDG 13 Climate Action
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Development cannot be sustainable where historical dispossession remains unaddressed.

Conclusion

Colonial violence did not simply occur in the past. It was institutionalised through law, normalised through administration, and inherited through modern governance systems.

Truth telling is not an act of division.
It is a prerequisite for justice.
Without recognition, there can be no reconciliation. Without rights, there can be no development.

Author:
Mesia Novau
Papua Native Landowners Association Incorporated (PNLA)

Excerpt prepared for public education and civic awareness.

05/12/2025

When does Papua stand up together