Liquor Plan

Fiji’s New Liquor Plan Under Fire

Prom a Suva Correspondent

The major changes proposed

in Fiji’s liquor laws (“PIM”

June, p. 138 ) excited surpris

ingly little comment till the Rev.

L. D. Fullerton, acting-chairman

of the Methodist Mission in Fiji,

fired a broadside.

IN June he called the Liquor Bill, which the Legislative Council will debate in July, a “very disturb* ing document”.

He said the general effect of the bill, if it became law, would be to produce a marked increase in con sumption of liquor, a statement with which very few would quibble. To enact legislation such as that envisaged in the bill would be irresponsible and would do the people of Fiji a great deal of harm, he said.

Mr. Fullerton said the legislation would encourage the wage-earnet with enough worries as it was, to spend on liquor, money which was more urgently required for house hold needs.

The Government might gain revenue from increased customs and excise duty, but the net gain would be problematical, for greatly in creased expenditure would be needed to police the wide range of licences suggested hotel, restaurant, off licence, club, etc. There would be an increase in crime, not only the usual run of drunks, but in which liquor was a contributing factor. I

"Disturbing"

Mr. Fullerton drew attention to a disturbing possibility relating to off licences, through which an unlimited amount of liquor in small quantities could be distributed to villages and small communities. With wholesale purchases at present limited tc quantities of two gallons or more, very little liquor gets into the villages. In any case Fijians amj Indians require a permit to bil liquor for consumption away frori licensed premises.

Mr. Fullerton said the only ones who would benefit from the change* would be the local brewery, hotels/ clubs, restaurants, and stores with

(Continued on p. 168)

off-licences. Boiled down this was a minute percentage of the popula tion of the Colony.

Mr. Fullerton said the main objection to the present laws was that they discriminated in favour of Europeans, who could buy liquor at will. (Fijians and Indians can drink beer in hotels without a permit, but for anything else a permit is necessary).

Mr. Fullerton suggested that the best way to remove the discrimina tion was to make the Europeans sub ject to the same restrictions as other races. Europeans who were not prepared to accept that discipline for the good of the whole com munity were free to settle else where.

He recalled that in 1957, when the Government removed the controls on beer-drinking in hotels, it did so in the face of serious misgivings on the part of responsible citizens.

Now, the 1962 Liquor Bill had the avowed intention of removing virtually all control on liquor. As

it stood it would mean the deteriora tion of Fiji.

The United District Committee of the Methodist Church was not long in following the lead given by Mr.

Fullerton. They were quick to en dorse his attack on the Liquor Bill as the view of the Methodist Church.

They boldly asked the Government to delay the bill till there is a new and wider Legislative Council in 1963. (But next year Fijians, and women of all races, will have the direct vote for the first time.)