I would prefer faster communication and more COMPREHENSIVE on...

I would prefer faster communication and more COMPREHENSIVE on several grounds not least of which is the following:

"Under the Land Disputes Settlement Act a Local Land Court sitting on any case is required to visit the disputed area twice: the first time to see what the nature of the problem
is before beginning to hear evidence; the second time on completion of the hearing, to hand down the decision, give the reasons for it and indicate to the parties involved
any boundaries decided. This is a necessary but costly and not always easy procedure to comply with because the area may be remote and access to it may require hours of
walking over difficult terrain. The prohibitive costs of accessing Local Land Courts could be seen as a legislative design fault." - See http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/MLW_VolumeTwo_CaseStudy_11.pdf a brief summary of the land disputes process in PNG.

The disputes process can be lengthy and expensive for the parties. Although grounds of appeal beyond the Local Court are limited, the lack of case precedents (reliance on customary laws recited by tribal leaders) and the lack of magistrates if the Local Court option is exercised are very real issues that go to the heart of estimated production and profit figures.

I really hope that LGL offers some more detail on the problem as well as the progression of the dispute tomorrow when the market opens.