Prohibition

NG to Lift Liquor Prohibition

From PlM’s Port Moresby Correspondent & AAP-Reuter A bill granting Papua-New Guinea natives the right to drink—and imposing a ban on liquor advertising while they are being educated in the evils of over-indulgence—was ap proved in October by the Legislative Council.

i PPROVAL does not mean that the natives can legally get a drink »ht away.

The bill first must go to Australia r the Governor-General’s assent.

Under the new interim legislation, dives will be allowed to drink ything they desire on licensed pre ises or when it is offered without arge at social or other occasions it will themselves be permitted to Ice away beer only for off-premises nsumption.

Elected member Ron Slaughter :empted unsuccessfully to amend bill and delete the section banning vertising.

The ban, he said, was unjust interference in a properly-run in dustry.

The section he attempted to delete forbids advertisement of intoxicating liquor in book, pamphlet, newspaper or other printed matter printed in the Territory, in handbills or on hoardings and “by means of cinematograph film or slide”. There is a penalty of £2OO, or six months imprisonment, provided for infring ment.

The Assistant Administrator, Mr.

H. H. Reeve, told the Council the transition period for which Legisla tion was being enacted was an ideal

time in which to inaugurate and forcefully prosecute a positive policy of education in sane drinking.

He added: “It is appreciated that the education campaign as envisaged would be severely handicapped if there was complete freedom of advertising by commercial liquor interest”.

He said it should be noted that the ban did not extend to the display of advertising matter within licensed premises or on containers or on publication of price lists, and in addition there were powers for the Administrator to consent to any par ticular form of advertising.

Mr. Reeve said the Administration would co-operate actively with voluntary organisations in devising ways of promoting suitable tem perance education and would give them financial and other assistance.

The need for active Government effort to educate the people in a sense of moderation was stressed by native members.

“We don’t want our people to go in and fill hotels and stores and make lot of noise,” said elected mem ber Somu Sigob.

Nominated member Ephraim Jubilee said: “It is time now for our people to be educated in this

law. People will spend much monc on buying drink and they will 1! ruined”.

Mr. B. E. Fairfax-Ross, nominate member and prominent territo: planter, said it would be she; hypocrisy for him to commend tl bill and pointless to contest it—tl Australian Government which was tl true administering authority hs already given its tacit approval.

Comparing results of the bill wii measures planned to promote ter perance he offered a bit of verse: “Mother may I have a drink?”

“Yes, my darling daughter.

“There is no discrimination now.

“But please drink only water!”

Passing of the interim bill throuj the Council followed close on tl heels of the release of the ma points of the report of the Liqui Commission, on which the bill based.

The Commission, headed by Judl Robert Nelson, of Victoria, heat evidence on drinking from 231 w nesses throughout the Territory. 1 main points were released by t: Acting Administrator, Dr. Jol Gunther, on October 12.

Dr. Gunther said the seven coi missioners had agreed unanimous with the report, which was now the hands of the Commonweal Government for closer examinatic The report had recommended tl total removal of prohibition event ally, and interim legislation mea while.

The interim legislation, said E Gunther, was designed as a stf towards relaxation of prohibition “ a gradual process”, because nati witnesses had asked that the chan: be gradual.

In introducing the bill into tf Council, Mr. Reeve outlined earlJ moves to allow NG people to drirr He said prohibition was founded Section 72 of the Papua and Nil Guinea Act. In 1955 a Legislati; Council Select Committee h' suggested a permit system, to introduced after a period of thn years, but “for various reasons” t proposal was not implemented.

In 1957 an Administration coc mittee, including a member Legco, had again examined t subject and proposed that liquor co; sumption by natives be limited 2i per cent, beer, and that liqu laws in other countries be examine This also “was not proceeded wit' for particular reasons”, said M Reeve.

But over the next four years “t J position was closely watched p surveys were undertaken from ti:i

time”. The view had increased t the discriminatory features con :ted with prohibition were objec lable. earlier this year the Administrator I decided the time had come to end the law and abolish total •hibition, but the problem was how Ito what extent. For that reason Commission had been appointed.

Ar. Reeve said it was planned to ig in a new ordinance after the 3le report had been studied. This Id not be done probably before t February or March, or even r if it was found that the Aus ian Parliament had to alter the ma and New Guinea Act.

Meanwhile, to delay relaxation of hibition would “result in a rapid ;rioration of a position which is ady far from satisfactory, and f do irreparable harm”.

Gradualism” was what was re •ed in the trial period, lost of the Legco debate that 3wed centred on the restriction advertising. It was pointed out, e rightly, that Territory journals ild be discriminated against—that e would be no control over the ;rtising of journals published out of P-NG and which would con e to circulate there. The truth, ough nobody pointed it out, is the Government has no control ■ advertising published in outside nals. or did anybody stress the real ?er in the new ordinance—that that the drink ban was being i too quickly—that the so-called dualism” was really an open go :h could cause a great many •lems.

See “Commentary”, p. 19.

iva’s Mayor, Councillor C. A. ion, gave city eating houses a deserved rap over the knuckles s 1961 report, according to PI M’s correspondent. )uncillor Stinson said that while standard of food premises con ;d to rise, the standard of cleanli did not rise with it., ; said it was relatively simple to ove the standard of premises, but as not so easy to change the s of centuries. ife proprietors, moving into ning new or renovated buildings, let them deteriorate into a con i little better than the old in ary premises they had left id them. any of Suva’s eating houses are epossessing affairs, and attract mage in line with their appear-