Papua Divorce

Officialdom Retains an Unjust and Outmoded Law

From Our Own Correspondent

Rort Moresby, Aug. 1.

URING the recent sitting of the Legis lative Council, when discussing the New Divorce Bill, which brings the law up to date, members took exception to the Aboriginal clause”, which debars parties in a mixed marriage from benefits of divorce.

Non-official members opposed the clause, on grounds of equitable rights between white, brown and Euronosian; on the inconsistency of permitting such marriages, while withholding benefits of divorce; and on the changing conditions of the times, and the comprehensive term of “aboriginal native”—which to-day includes Euronesians.

Arguments for retaining the clause in the new Bill referred to the reasons given in 1910, when it was first imposed.

Provision for divorce in mixed marriages, it was then stated, would provide a “frightful harvest” for the Divorce Court.

The Crown Law Officer, Mr. Bignold who introduced the Bill, when referring to the clause, stated that the Govern ment was fully aware that conditions had changed since it was first introduced, 30 years ago, but its view was that the reasons which led to its passing still prevailed to-day.

Clause 48 (“Aboriginal clause”) pro vides that either party of a marriage, one of whom is a native or is wholly or partly descended from a native, is de barred from any rights of divorce.