No Official Marriages For Natives

New Law to Operate in New Guinea

THE marriage laws of New Guinea were amended in a curious and unexpected manner on February 25, when the Legis lative Council adopted an ordinance mak ing it impossible for natives to contract a marriage other than in native fashion.

Natives, now, may not enter into the European or Christian marriage. Under the native marriage, polygamy and divorce by a gesture are possible.

When the Australian Civil Administra tion took charge of New Guinea in 1921, the Papuan Marriage Ordinance of 1912-14 was adopted; and it has remained in force until now. Under this law, which still operates in Papua, natives may contract either a native of an official (Christian) marriage. If it is an official marriage, the natives concerned must observe the usual marriage laws.

There has been much confusion and difficulty in New Guinea because natives —especially those in contact with mis sionaries—have been contracting official marriages, and subsequently living in native fashion, under which a plurality of wives is recognised. It has been felt, especially by officials, that such conditions tended to bring a most important Euro pean institution —namely, the monoga mous marriage and the good status of women —into disrepute among partly civilised natives.

As a result, a Bill was brought in, and carried, My which the following section was inserted in the Marriage Ordinance; “SA: Nothing in this ordinance shall apply to any marriage both of the parties to which are natives.”

The Government Secretary, Mr. H. H.

Page, in introducing the proposed new law, said that a large majority of the natives had not reached the stage when marriage under the Marriage Ordinance with its obligations should be made avail able for them. They were not able yet to understand those obligations.

The proposal was opposed by the Crown Law Officer, Mr. G. G. Hogan. He argued in favour, of a continuance of the sys tem under which natives might choose a native or an official marriage; but con ceded that amendments were necessary to compel natives to recognise, beforehand, the nature of the obligations imposed by an official marriage.

As this matter is likely to receive a good deal of attention from the missionary bodies, we quote hereunder some of Mr.

Hogan’s arguments; “In the tribe or unit, marriage was con sidered as something of importance to the tribe or unit, and, in some cases, as sacred.

The obligations and rights arising from marriage were clearly laid down, and strictly enforced, if not by law, then by the force of public opinion. We all realise how contact with Europeans and the changes made by European administration have affected native communities which are in close touch with European influ ence. Many of the males, and a number of the females, leave their homes for long periods and the forces which govern na tive life have lost much of their authority.

Changed conditions make it essential that the contract of marriage gradually be made more binding and certain than now results from marriage according to native custom.

“The Territory for some time has been

controlled by Europeans, and missionar ies have laboured here since 1875. There are many natives who have not been brought into touch with Europeans and there are many others whom European influence has not affected; but, surely, the work over many years, of Govern ments and missionaries, has had some results in the areas in which that work has been carried on!

“Are we prepared to say that none of the Christian natives of this Territory are capable of understanding that a marriage under the Ordinance means the volun tary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others? Because of the fear that marriage under the Or dinance may restrict the freedom of a native to take another wife, or prevent him from casting aside his wife without showing cause, are we prepared to make it a law of the Territory that a Christian native woman cannot obtain the protection of a marriage under the Ordinance, but must be a party to a native marriage which is no obstacle to the husband having several wives? Are the advantages to natives of polygamy and easy divorce so great that we must forbid the voluntary adoption by natives

of monogamy and divorce controlled by law?

"The application of the Ordinance to marriages of natives cannot be harmful to native social life. Such marriages will raise the status of marriage amongst the natives and so will help to promote the moral well-being and the social progress of the natives of the Territory. They will result in the gradual appreciation by natives of a status that ensures the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

“We know the position of native women in the Territory, and I think we all realise that without a change in that position there can be little true progress. Raise the status of native women and you have taken an important step to ensure the progress of the natives. The celebration of marriages between natives under the Marriage Ordinance, since, amongst other advantages, it increases the security of

the wife, will gradually raise the status of native women, and must tend to create a healthy home and social life.”