New Guinea thinks it has a better

recipe for sane drinking laws

From PERCY CHATTERTON in Port Moresby

Up to 1963, the supply of alcoholic liquor to indigenes of Papua New Guinea was prohibited by law; non indigenes, including persons of mixed race (sometimes a fairly elastic term) could obtain and consume it.

By 1960 it had become clear that this arrangement, benevolent in inten tion as it may have been, was increasingly resented as discriminat ory, and that the illicit supply and consumption of alcoholic liquor to indigenes was rife; also that the preparation of home brews, and even the home distillation of spirits, was widespread.

Further, the drinking of methylated spirit, and even of more noxious sub stances, presented a danger to health, and sometimes to life. 1 myself, as a minister of religion, was called upon on one occasion to officiate at a mass funeral of 10 Papuans who had indulged in an all-night spree with a can of methyl alcohol.

Under these circumstances, in 1962, a commission of inquiry was set up, and as a result of its recommendations a new Liquor Licensing Ordinance was enacted in 1963, the effect of which was to enable Papuans and New Guineans to buy and consume alcoholic drinks on the same basis as persons of other races.

Eight years later, in 1971, in res ponse to widespread public unease, a second commission of inquiry was set up to assess the situation which had arisen consequent upon the law of 1963.

There were some interesting diff erences between the two commissions.

The 1962 commission had an Aust ralian judge (Judge Nelson) as its chairman, and its membership was predominantly expatriate though it did have two indigenous members.

The 1971 commission had a judge of the PNG Supreme Court (Mr. Justice Clarkson) as its chairman, and the

rest of its membership was exclus ively indigenous. In addition, the terms of reference of the second commission were much wider than those of the first.

After four months of strenuous activity, the 1971 commission has turned in a report which has been widely acclaimed as an able and well-balanced survey of the situation.

The commission only dissents from the recommendations of the 1962 commission on one major point, that of the appropriate size for public bars and taverns. The 1962 comm ission favoured a few, large, well appointed and well controlled estab lishments, and was afraid that small establishments would degenerate into shabby, insanitary beer-houses.

The 1971 commission points out that in fact the few, large establish ments have, in the main, been neither well-appointed nor well-con

trolled, and favours a larger number of smaller drinking places.

While appreciating the difficulties under which it has worked, the report is critical of the way in which the Liquor Licensing Commission set up under the 1963 ordinance has oper ated, and opines that the method and results of its operations have not been those intended by the 1962 commission. As a member of that commission I can only comment, “Too right”.

After expressing dissatisfaction with the statistics available to it, the com mission comes to the conclusion that while the average wage earner in Australia spends about 4% of his income on liquor, his non-indigenous counterpart in Papua New Guinea spends 9.5%, and his indigenous counterpart something like 20%.

The commission questions the des irability of the widespread granting of licences to trade stores to sell bottled liquor, and stresses the danger of these becoming the shabby, insan itary beer-houses which the 1962 commission feared taverns might be come. It would like to see the number of outlets for bottled liquor reduced and the sale of bottled liquor divorced from the sale of food.

It also wants to see the consumption of beer encouraged at the expense of other alcoholic drinks by increasing duties on spirits and fortified wines, and by creating “beer only” licences for public bars, taverns and some clubs.

The commission also suggests that the permitted alcohol content of beer to be sold in the country should be fixed at 3,5% by weight maximum.

This is at the lower end of the range of imported Australian beers and somewhat below the strength of beer currently being brewed in Papua New Guinea.

This proposal may well upset din kum Aussies to whom beer is not so much a beverage as a way of life.

However, the commission experi mented on itself, and declares itself unable to distinguish between the stronger and the weaker beers by heir taste.

The commission has come down leavily on the side of those who lave urged shorter trading hours for lotels, taverns and clubs. The old rading hours were 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. )n weekdays, with substantially shor er hours on Sunday. The new hours ■ecommended by the commission will )e from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4 >.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, 0 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 ).m. on Saturdays, and 11 am to 1 >m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Sundays.

The commission thinks that the >reak in the afternoon will be of alue in restraining immoderate drink-

Percy Chatterton, who wrote the report below, was awarded an 0.8. E. in the Queen’s New Year Honours List on January 1. The rank of Officer of the Order of the British Empire was conferred “for long and outstanding service to the peo ple and the country of Papua New Guinea in the fields of education and welfare.” He has been involved in the affairs of the people since his arrival in Port Moresby in 1924. Reg ular PIM readers are familiar with his, racey contributions to these pages.

ing and maintaining good order, and I understand that many licensees fav our this plan.

The 8 p.m. closure will not meet the wishes of those indigenous leaders who favour closing the pubs before nightfall to avoid lawless behaviour during dispersal. However, it seems a reasonable compromise, and, pro vided that both licensed premises and their immediate environs are well lighted (and this should be a require ment for a licence), there should at any rate be fewer dispersal problems than there are with the present 10 p.m. closing time.

A finding which has already come under fire is that which recommends that “the duty to maintain order on licensed premises be placed clearly on the licensee”. Licensees protest that they cannot do the job without police assistance, and paint a picture of current conditions which suggest that playing the part of mine host in a Paguinean pub is a pretty un enviable job.

Wherever the responsibility may technically lie, it might be better to have the official police force hand ling the job rather than to force licensees to recruit what would in effect be a private police force.

Other recommendations made by the commission relate to the comp osition of the Liquor Licensing Com mission, the appointment of full-time licensing inspectors, the creation of a Liquor Branch of the Police Force, drinking conditions, licence fees, advertising (complete prohibition ex cept on licensed premises), prohibition orders (including a recommendation that courts should be empowered to order the employer of an excessive drinker to pay part of the employee’s wages to his wife), and creation of a Research and Education Section of the Liquor Commission.

The commission has done its job and done it well. It is now up to the third House of Assembly to decide on the next moves.