Many Problems When

New Guineans Drink

NONE of the “old Territorians” of Papua and New Guinea was happy with the official announcement of May 14 that the restrictions on the consumption of alcoholic liquor by natives were to be reviewed, be cause they savoured of “racial dis crimination”. The majority were appalled.

Immediate action is not proposed.

A committee, consisting of a chair man from outside the Territory, and members of most of the Territory’s communities (Europeans, Chinese, natives, missionaries, licensed vic tuallers, Departments dealing with social affairs, etc.) will examine the situation and advise Administrator and Minister.

A large body of public opinion does not accept the contention that present liquor laws represent racial discrimination, any more than does the “White Australia Policy”.

Australia does not disbar Asians and Africans because of race or colour, but because Australia’s living standards are based on economic and social conditions which must be rigidly protected. Similarly, the at tempt to keep the Europeans’ alco holic liquors out of the hands of natives is due simply to the inescape able fact that many non-Europeans cannot “hold their liquor”.

There are some Europeans who, under liquor, behave like pigs, and there are some non-European people who “carry their liquor like gentle men”. But that does not change the general rule, any more than the fact that some good-class Asians and Africans are good Australian citizens justifies any abandonment of the “White Australia policy”.

However, the official decision to allow P-NG natives access to liquor has been taken; and the Territory’s European residents now can only hope that the advisory committee will do its job wisely and thoroughly. If restrictions are to be removed, certain difficult questions immediately arise.

For example— • Should the natives’ access to liquor be restricted to a light beer, or should they be allowed to consume the more exciting distilled beverages? • Some restrictions presumably will be maintained. How will they be policed? Will some harassing responsibility be placed upon the licensed victualler? • Is it proposed to try the “permit” system, which was used for some years in Fiji, so that only natives of known good repute were given

access to liquor? The committee, making its inquiries, might learn something from the experience of other Islands territories in giving the indigenous folk access to liquor. • Where will the part-Europeans stand in this? They are now a large and growing community of increasing social importance and have not been under any liquor restriction. It would be a mis take to interfere with their free dom.

The economic factor should not be orgotten. The great majority of natives, having gained their point— freedom to drink—may find the pro cess of drinking very much beyond the capacity of their modest purse. ☆ ☆ ☆

Any Banana Market

Is a Good One

Sr\ * - )A’S reluctance to enter the Japanese banana deal is under standable (see article on page 17).

But if we are to accept the contention ot nost of the Big Powers that Aus tra isia and the rest of us in the South Pacific are really part of the Asian economic sphere, the fewer reservations we have about trading with Japan the better.

When New Zealand—the only pre sent outlet for South Pacific bananas —began its period of acute balance of-trade troubles a few years ago and began to slash imports, it was Fiji and Tonga banana growers who suffered.

Samoa, by virtue of the fact that it was then a NZ Trust Territory, con tinued to have free entry, and this state of affairs has continued since independence.

No one seems to know how long the Japanese market for Pacific bananas will last —but the situation at the moment is that any kind of banana market, short-term or long term, is a good one.

Since the end of World War I, New Zealand has been the sole buyer for Pacific Islands bananas. Long ago, Fiji had a flourishing trade with Australia but this came to an end when Australia developed her own banana growing industry, much of it on a soldier-settlement basis, and slapped on a tariff against imports.

Ten years later, under the Ottawa Agreement, Australia reluctantly allowed Fiji 40,000 centals of bananas per year at a farthing a pound duty.

This is still on the statute books but it has never done Fiji any good, be cause Australian banana interests have always seen to it that Fiji never gets a chance to re-establish its much superior bananas on the local market.

Attempts have been made to sell bananas to Canada, but Canada has long-standing agreements with South American producers, and they have failed.

The Japanese prospect is the first break-through on the banana front for 40 years and although it is too soon yet to do any shouting, most people in the interested islands will be hoping.