Liquor Law Equality
p. 77 · Read in the full issue
Struggle
Fiji Government Abandons Its Thorny Bill
From Our Own Correspondent
Suva, Nov. 25.
THE Liquor Bill, one of the most bitterly contested pieces of proposed legisla tion in the History of Fiji, has been abandoned and withdrawn by the Govern ment.
Published in 1946, the Bill, which pro posed the removal of restrictions on the sale of liquor to, and consumption by, Indians, while retaining the rigid and very limited permit system for all but a few Fijians, immediately provoked a storm of opposition. .This opposition included all the Christian missions, as well as other power ful groups, who contended mainly that an “open slather” for all Indians, whether responsible or irresponsible, would open the door to a great exploitation of the still-prohibited Fijians by bootlegging in dividuals or organisations.
It was freely stated that in order to make a concession to the Indian demand for equality with Europeans the Govern ment appeared to be willing to “throw the Fijians to the wolves.”
Held up by petitions, the Bill did not reach the Legislative Council until 1947, when, of the 15 unofficial members, four Indians and one European supported it The remaining European and the Fijian members tore it to shreds. The one Indian critic of the measure opposed it on social and religious grounds but, like his com panions, simultaneously waved the flag of “equality”.
The Bill was referred to a Select Com mittee of seven members, whose report was not tabled until last August.
IN his opening address at the Budget session of the Council to-day, the Governor (Sir Brian Freeston) said:— “Only one member supported the Bill in the form in which it was presented. An alternative proposal was submitted by four of the seven members but was not acceptable to the other three. In these circumstances, the Government has de cided not to proceed with the Bill, which will accordingly be withdrawn ... No further action will be taken until some alternative system can be proposed vhich will receive substantial support from all parties concerned.”
In the public view the fate of the Bill was sealed when it became known that the Select Committee was as much at log gerheads as the Legislative Council had been.
The mystery of the Government’s per sistence in pushing the measure along in 1946-47, in the teeth of vehement, re sponsible and disinterested opposition, is not explained. The only achievement of the Bill is a three-year record of angry inter-racial strife.