[?]ecision on Native Liquor

[?]G Legislative Council in Session

[?]ecision on Native Liquor Permits Deferred

From Our Port Moresby Correspondent Debate became heated at the March meeting of the Papua ?w Guinea Legislative Council when the controversial amend snts to the Native Liquor Ordinance were discussed.

[E Council passed more than thirty bills in record time dur ing the meeting (March 21-25) adjourned debate on the amend bill to the Native Liquor Ordin- I of 1953, to the Council’s next ig in June. bate on this bill showed an zing range of opinions on the bion of whether natives should llowed to drink, her important matters included II for superannuation for the Itory Public Service, which pro i payment of pensions for officers :ng at the new earlier retiring of 50 and 55; and a Liquor Bill ti governs hours and conditions erritory hotels and clubs, jviously there have been two r ordinances for the two Terri 5. and in Papua the clubs I’t been restricted at all—which nade many New Guinea hotel ;rs and clubmen a little un- V- When the bill gets assent, Papuans will be brought into ? Council got off to a good by passing a motion, moved by L A. James, that the title of nistrator be altered to that of Commissioner. This debate was vhat heated, too, although were only two speakers—the ;ant Administrator, Mr. R. n (who was against it) and ames.

James’ victory was regarded me quarters as a defeat for Minister for Territories, Mr.

Hasluck, who had previously n against the move, which was brought up in the Council in fiber, 1954. i March meeting of the Coun is one of the best yet. The N as done, and there was plenty portunity for debate—and the 3rs did not pull their punches. ;h of the smoothness of the ill’s business was due, as in the to its president, the Admin )r, Brigadier D. M. Cleland, s no novice when it comes to cting a meeting.

lie Native Liquor Bill

proposed amendments to the itive Liquor Ordinance are to ntroyersial Section 9. which at it gives the Administrator to issue permits to drink to i natives.

Although the Ordinance of 1953 was assented to last year, regula tions on Section 9 were not proceeded with because of the opposition from sections of the community.

Last November the Administrator, Brigadier D. M. Cleland, outlined a proposed new Section 9 to the Missions’ Conference, then sitting in Port Moresby, and asked for a re action. The reaction was that the missionaries could not agree. Some wanted the permit system intro duced at once. Others wanted it suspended for five years, and then reconsidered. And a third group did not want it at any price.

The new amendments seek to re peal the old Section 9 and replace it with one giving natives right to apply, in writing, to the Adminis trator for a permit to drink. The amendments set up a Liquor Con sent Board to advise the Admin istrator and to check on the applicant through the District Com missioner of his district. The Ad ministrator would have final say on whether an application should be received or rejected.

The Consent Board would have a membership of three—the Director of District Services (chairman), the Director of Health and the Com missioner of Police.

In the debate, a Mission Member, the Rev. F. G. Lewis, Methodist Mission, said the bill contained great dangers for the native people.

A nominated member, Mr. R.

nting, said if you gave one permit I would have to give hundreds.

Ir. G. Whittaker said the supply liquor to natives would increase ne. and already the police force 5 overtaxed. He said it was un al for such a measure to be en without a request from the ive people themselves and he ild like to know where the scheme [inated. imogun, a native Member, said was not against the principles of bill, but after talking to a lot tiis people he thought it would i good idea to defer the bill for •or five years. Some natives d drink but others could not. >hn Vuia and Merari Dickson, two other native members, jsed the bill and thought it ild be deferred. le Rev. D. E. Ure, of the London sionary Society, said liquor was ading and he believed that if ferendum were taken Territory rs would be 99 per cent, against r. S. Elliott-Smith, Sepik Dis- Commissioner, said he was in tort of the bill,, which was a one if handled safely, as he ved it would be. It didn’t allow icriminate drinking, as many le seemed to think. *. J. K. McCarthy, former New lin District Commissioner, said le couldn’t continue to put their s in the sand and ignore the that natives were drinking. This jould control native drinking. . E. A. James said in view of ittitude of the native members ouncil, he believed the Council d be shouldering a grave re sibility if permits were issued jdiately. It was a responsibility limself, did not wish to accept, le opposed the issue of permits.

John Gunther, the Director of ffi, in an eloquent appeal on If of the bill, said that unless ieople of the Territory gave the es guidance and leadership and ited them as partners they i become restive and want to n too quickly. Many thinking es wanted the privilege of be ible to drink if they desired.

Dill would not allow indiscrim drinking.

Gunther believed that because ssion was anti-liquor as part i belief, it should not be per d to push its views on to others ; majority was against them. gadier Cleland, in a statement the Chair, said that he accepted responsibility for the amend 5, which were not the result of d Nations proposals or pro -5 from any outside body. The :r had been brought up in its it form because he had ht, and still thought, that it ime, for it to be ironed out. 16 people were encouarging is to drink for their own

economic ends, he said, and native convictions for illegally drinking liquor were increasing. It had to be stopped and the proposed amend ments were aimed at that control.

However, he concluded, after hear ing the debate, he had formed the opinion it would be wrong for him to use the official majority to pass t he bill. He said he therefore sug gested that the debate be adjourned while he had further discussions with the proposed Consent Board,