Government Pushes Open-Go Drinking

Through Fiji Legco

Fiji’s new liquor laws, enacted by the Legislative Council after a three-day sitting in July and in the face of much oppo sition, give the go ahead signal for unrestrained drinking by males of all races.

IHE Liquor Bill, published about two months previously, and sed on the report of a committee iiich studied liquor problems for >out 12 months, gave rise to un strained controversy. Letters poured to the Colony’s newspapers, and at e rate of three to one, condemned e new proposals.

The Government stubbornly dug its ;s in, and refused to heed the iticism. Why delay the proposals, ty asked, when the Liquor Com ittee report had been public for 12 anths and the bill for about two anths. They persistently tried to t across the idea that because the iticism was belated it was invalid.

Naturally there was little criticism the report of the committee, as it well known that such reports all D often find their way into a con oient pigeon-hole. The storm broke :er publication of the bill.

The legislation when it becomes v, will allow all adult males to ink anything they like wine, irits, beer, the lot. Previously, In in and Fijian men have been re lated to beer, which they could ink in any quantity they liked; and Jre was a blanket prohibition on dian and Fijian women drinking ything.

The new regulations will provide f the 38 wholesale liquor licences w in existence in the Colony being rtaced by 58 off-licence establish es; for a break in Saturday after on trading hours between 2 p.m. i 4 p.m.; and for new hotel trad ihours which will be from 11 a.m. 9 p.m., instead of from 10 a.m. to Ip.m., as at present.

Compromise

Hie Fijian Council of Chiefs, ich met about a fortnight before I Legislative Council, expressed con n about removing restrictions from pns, and the Fijian members of Legislative Council accordingly >ressed that concern.

Hiis caused something of a “flap”, » pleas from the Government and European side of the House for ne sort of a compromise.

Semesa Sikivou, one of the main opponents of the bill, was the target for much pressure behind the scenes to try to get him to change his mind.

Approaches were also made to other Fijian MFC’s.

After much “duchessing” Semesa and his fellow Fijians changed their minds, on condition that the measure relating to spirit drinking did not come into force till January 1, 1963.

They wanted this time to approach their Fijian Provincial Councils to see if Fijian opinion would agree to the change.

And how they were praised for their “compromise”! Smiles returned

to the faces of the Government and the European members. “What a wonderful spirit of compromise you showed,” they said, in effect.

The Fijians’ capitulation was the death-knell of the hopes of many non-Fijians who know only too well, as the Council of Chiefs obviously did, the dangers to the Fijians in unrestricted access to spirits.

Discrimination All the old arguments for and against liquor were trotted out during the debate, and some new ones added.

Suggestions that a referendum be held at the same time as next year’s general election (when women will have the franchise for the first time), or that the bill be delayed until there was a new Council, were brushed aside.

The Government said that it would be too difficult, if not impossible, to draft terms for a referendum in simple terms. They also considered that liquor should not be a subject of an election platform when there (Continued on page 147)

were many more problems to be con sidered. Obviously they did not con sider liquor much of a problem.

“The bill will remove racial dis crimination,” the Government and some unofficial members cried.

“Rot,” retorted Mr. J. Madhavan, an Indian member, “there are many other forms of discrimination which should be removed first.”

After much argument the Govern ment agreed that present restrictions on drinking by Fijian and Indian females should remain, and amended the bill accordingly. But they sounded a warning that this would have to be considered again soon. Fijian and Indian opposition to allowing their womenfolk to drink was too strong for the Government, stubborn as it was, to go ahead at present.

Liquor Interests Wanted It Government speakers frequently quoted the views of the United Licensed Victuallers’ Association as their reason for going ahead with some of their plans.

This seemed an extrordinary ap

proach. The outcry which would be heard in say, Australia, if any Government publicly admitted it was doing something because the hotel owners considered it was the best course, can best be left to the imagi nation.

The bill, however, does have some good clauses, notably heavier penal ties for breaches of the law. One unofficial member, Mr, R. G. Ker mode, described it as “tough, border ing on vicious” as far as the penalty clauses were concerned. The publi cans will certainly have to be on their toes to avoid breaches.

The bill perpetuates a provision which prevents women entering public bars.

Another old feature that remains is the minimum age of 18 for drink ing. Efforts were made to have this lifted to 21, but on a free vote of the House, the amendment was de feated by 19 votes to six.

The Government considered that as 18 was the present age it would be an unfair discrimination to take away that privilege from the present crop of 18-year-olds.

It ignored suggestions that these people could be given permits till they reached 21, and that anyone else, after the bill became law, would have to wait till he was 21 before he was allowed to drink in hotels.

An interesting sidelight to the de bate was a confession by the Colonial Secretary (Mr. P. D. Macdonald), who was in charge of the bill, that he had made several personal in spections of hotels in Suva.

He said he did this so that he could test public opinion for himself and observe drinking conditions. He found that older and middle-aged Fijians were against derestriction of spirits, and that the younger men favoured it. He made his visits at varying times, including peak drink ing hours, and—so he said—never once saw anyone the worse for liquor. [lt would be interesting to know how inebriated they have to be before Mr. Macdonald considers them “worse”. Most people have no diffi culty in finding drunk Fijians in Suva, even when they aren’t looking for them.—Ed.] He did admit, outside the council chamber, that he found the going rather heavy, and the hospitality al most overwhelming.

The 2 p.m.-4 p.m. break on Satur day afternoons is not likely to make much difference to the rowdyism which goes on in Suva round about that time. It is easy to imagine drinkers, when called on to leave at 2 p.m., buying a few bottles, and

settling down in some handy position to wait till 4 p.m., before continuing at the public bar.

Over-all, it could be conceded that the Government made an honest at tempt to give Fiji modern liquor laws —but it was in spite of what the general public wanted. Most people believe that the Fijian should have first learned how to hold his beer before being allowed hard liquor.