El marco de origen y el marco de recepción de la investigación en

From the beginning of the colony of Sydney, alcohol was an important part of social and economic life and quickly became a headache for the early Governors. The 26th of January 1788 was reportedly a night of drunkenness at Sydney Cove (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 11). The officers of the NSW Corps had control over ships entering the colony and could therefore control the flow of alcohol. They also had the capacity to purchase spirits at fixed prices and then re-sell at market prices, thereby establishing the Corps as a cartel (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 22-6). Successive Governors made attempts to halt the flow of spirits, but they were thwarted by the power of the Corps who had established a lucrative market to supplement their employment (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 28-36). This led to the infamous downfall of Governor Bligh who tried to break the NSW Corps’ stranglehold over the rum trade, and was ousted by the officers (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009). With few other

recreational pursuits, the largely male colonial population established (heavy) drinking as a popular pastime (Stewart 1997, 391). Officers, free settlers and even convicts had access to alcohol (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 21). In 1800 the colonists of New South Wales drank around 13 litres of alcohol per capita per annum and by 1820 the rate had dropped to 12.5 litres, a slightly higher rate of consumption than Britain (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 63; Lewis 1992, 7; Powell 1988, 12). By the 1830s there was a spike in consumption to a rate above that of Britain, although less than in the United States and other European countries (Lewis 1992, 7; Powell 1988, 11; Room 2010, 152). This period brought the highest rate of spirits consumption in Australian history. Consumption dropped due to the Depression of the 1840s, and then rose again with the gold rushes of the 1850s (Brady 2008; book 5, 7).

From 1860 to Federation, average consumption fell. This was attributed to increased urbanisation as major cities of Sydney and Melbourne grew, replacing the rural frontier

(Powell 1988, 60; Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 173). In the 1890s another Depression hit the Australian economy and average consumption dropped to less than six litres per person per year, less than half of the average earlier in the 19th century (Room 2010, 152). There were regional differences, even though it was the major beer producer Tasmania had the lowest consumption per capita due to its economic frailties (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 90). From the First Fleet to Federation, the beverage preference shifted from rum to brandy to beer. Rum was the favoured drink of the navy, even though beer was the predominant drink in England and whisky was the favoured drink of the Irish in the late 18th century (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 19-20). By the middle of the 19th century the preferred drink was brandy, despite the number of Irish and Scottish immigrant’s whisky was not commonly consumed until later in the century (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 66; Lewis 1992, 8). Beer consumption did not take off until later in the 19th century; its lack of keeping qualities and the hot

Australian climate meant that it could only be consumed in the area where it was produced (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 58-61). Beer production was best suited to the cooler climates and Tasmanian beer was the beverage of choice. Upon the founding of each colony, a brewery was established to service the local population (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 71). By the 1830s wine was increasingly popular, and from the middle of the century local table wines were consumed to a greater extent. Victoria established itself as the wine capital by the late 19th century and encouraged Australians to shift to local wine (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 113; Lewis 1992, 8). But by 1900, beer was firmly entrenched as the beverage of choice (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 136).

Colonial alcohol consumption occurred in licensed taverns and pubs, as well as illegal “sly grog shops”. By 1837 Sydney, with a population of 23,000, had 224 licensed taverns plus a large number of sly grog shops. In 1850 Hobart there were around 150 taverns, described as cheaply constructed “boozing dens” (Powell 1988, 15). The concentration of licensed outlets continued to grow through the 19th century; the ratio of licences to population hit its peak in 1880 and never again reached this level (Lewis 1992, 15). High numbers of outlets left a legacy of using the licensing law to provide both economic and social regulation, as well as industry development and trade protection (Stewart 1997, 391). Australians developed specific patterns of drinking during the 19th century. One was the rural male tradition of “drinking the cheque”. Rural workers would forego alcohol for weeks or months while they worked in the bush, but when they had leisure time and had been paid would go on drinking binges that lasted for days (Powell 1988, 34; Room 2010, 153; Brady 2008, book 5, 10).

Brady argued that it was common for these workers to drink until they passed out (Brady 2008, book 5, 20). Another pattern was the “shout”, where each drinker was expected to buy a round of drinks for the group. This was closely linked to male mateship, which became a feature of the Australian character (Powell 1988, 32; Room 2010, 153). Rural binge drinking was less influential as Australia became urbanised from the 1860s (Lewis 1992, 10).

However, high levels of drunkenness were a feature throughout the 19th century, leading to a strong policy focus on reducing public drunkenness (Lewis 1992, 15; Stewart 1997, 391).

Australian attitudes to alcohol were influenced by English settlers. Gin was cheaply available in urban English society and binge drinking was considered to be out of control in the first half of the 18th century (Brady 2008, book 5, 3; Powell 1988, 4). This led the British Government to raise the price and decrease the availability of gin (Powell 1988, 4-5).

Everyday drinking was ingrained in English society by the time that Australia was colonised. It was considered to be a normal activity and not viewed as a problem; pressure was often placed on people to drink to be a normal member of society (Lewis 1992, 5; Brady 2008, book 5, 3-9; Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 17). The English considered fermented drinks like beer and wine to be relatively harmless and only spirits were regarded as a problem

(Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 186). However, most wealthy and educated people frowned upon public drunkenness (Brady 2008, book 5, 9). Early colonial alcohol consumption prompted the historian, Russel Ward, to claim that no people had ever consumed more alcohol in history. However, consumption levels were less than many other comparable countries (Lewis 1992, 8; Powell 1988, 12).

While indigenous problems with alcohol are linked to European settlement, some aboriginal tribes were producing fermented drinks prior to European settlement (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 216; Brady 2008, book 2, 2). Some tribes in the Northern Territory and Queensland had regular contact with traders from Indonesia who provided them with spirits. European explorers in the 18th century had also provided alcohol to aboriginal tribes, presumably in friendship (Brady 2008; book 2, 12; book 3, 7-22). The experience of aboriginal Australians changed with European settlement. In early colonial times it was hard for aborigines to get alcohol because of tight controls and the value placed on it by officers and free settlers. However, there were many hotels and sly grog shops near aboriginal camps and it did not take long for aborigines to be given alcohol (Brady 2008; book 2, 21; book 5, 19). During the 19th century aborigines were progressively prohibited from being sold or supplied alcohol.

But by the second half of the century, alcohol was having a devastating effect and drunk and disorderly was the most common offence with which aborigines were charged (Brady 2008; book 4, 21; book 6, 4).

Alcohol Controls pre 1900

Early alcohol control policies drew heavily from the English tradition. The focus was on reducing public drunkenness using availability controls, a system in place from mid-16th century Britain when drunkenness became viewed as a public nuisance and controls were introduced so alcohol could only be sold under licence (Lewis 1992, 53; Room 2010, 154). The British system of control was extended by the Gin Act of 1751, a response to the “gin craze”. The British state initially tried to deal with the rise in public drunkenness through punishing the individual but the Gin Act imposed new taxes and strict controls so that spirits had to be sold and consumed in licensed taverns, decreasing the access of the poor (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 18; Lewis 1992, 5; Powell 1988, 4, Room 2010, 154). The Australian colonies took alcohol controls directly from Britain, especially liquor licensing (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 190; Lewis 1992, 2). The colonies banned distilling but actively

encouraged brewing and viticulture which was seen as important for agricultural

development (Lewis 1992, 26-9). The first Governor of NSW, Arthur Phillip, required a permit to land spirits in the colony and granted the first liquor licence to the fleet Commander to set up liquor shops in Sydney (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 21-3). The first Liquor Act passed by the colonial legislature in NSW was in 1825 and aimed to raise money for the general revenue and ensure the orderly conduct of public houses (Lewis 1992, 54; Craze and Norberry in Stockwell 1994, 40). The early focus had legal and moral undertones, with the policy responses punitive to encourage individuals to behave appropriately and therefore reduce public drunkenness. Like Britain, all sale of alcohol was restricted to those with a licence (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 61). Taxation through the tariff and excise, and a strong licensing regime, became the major tools of policy during the 19th century (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 56). From the mid 19th century, most colonies conducted inquiries or Royal Commissions into existing legislation or the issue of intoxication (Lewis 1992, 52-8). For example, in 1867 there was a Victorian Royal Commission into the Operation of the Wine and Spirit Sale Statute (Lewis 1992, 53).

An early tool of colonial alcohol policy was customs and excise duties. These were easy to administer and unlikely to attract negative attention from the public when compared with more direct forms of taxation (Reinhardt and Steel 2006, 4). Smith argued that these indirect taxes were most commonly levied by young communities (Smith 2004, 11). The excises in the Australian colonies were concentrated on working class pleasures, alcohol and tobacco. Demand for both was relatively inelastic, the necessities of working life for many colonists (Smith 2004, 14). English laws applied in the early colonies and taxes could only be levied on the authority of the British Parliament, they did not pass the first law legalising taxes in the colony of NSW until 1819 (Smith 2004, 8). The first taxes imposed by the Governor of NSW were on imports of spirits, wine and beer that were hypothecated for the costs of policing in the colony. This led to the ironic outcome where the more the citizens drank, the greater the resources available to control them (Smith 2004, 10). Customs duties on imports were an early focus but were soon matched by excises on locally produced goods. By 1840 customs and excise duties had moved beyond alcohol and tobacco to staples such as tea, sugar, flour, meal, rice and grain (Reinhardt and Steel 2006, 4). From the middle of the 19th century, the taxing of goods like alcohol was no longer enough to meet the fiscal needs of the colonies (Smith 2004, 13). In 1866, Victoria was the first colony to introduce a protectionist tariff and by the mid-1890s had increased from 10% to nearly 50% (Smith 2004, 18-9). Most colonies collected over three quarters of their revenue from customs and excise, with alcohol the largest contributor (Smith 2004, 19). But the 1890s Depression meant that customs duties collapsed and by 1900 most colonies had passed laws to impose direct taxes such as income and land taxes to balance their budgets (Smith 2004, 21). In 1896-7, 76% of tax revenue came from customs and excise. This varied by colony with 63% in NSW, 77% in Victoria, 86% in Queensland, 65% in South Australia, 96% in Western Australia, and 78% in

Tasmania (Smith 2004, 43). An implication of Federation in 1901 was the removal of duties on goods traded between the Australian colonies, including alcohol (Reinhardt and Steel 2006, 2).

Availability controls, largely through licensing, were the major alcohol policies in the Australian colonies. There were different types of licences. Fitzgerald and Jordan argued that production licences were issued on patronage whereas distribution licences were based on the character of the applicant (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 56). Each colony had its own subtle differences. In Victoria, the prospective licensee had to get a certificate from a magistrate testifying to their good character and pay a fee of 25 pounds. But from the early

19th century there was plenty of liquor trading outside of licensed premises (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 61-4). This either happened in existing businesses (“sly grog shops”) or informally, and it became a challenge for colonial governments (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 65). Sunday trading was banned in pubs and taverns and took effect in Victoria in 1854, NSW in 1882, Queensland in 1886, and South Australia in 1896 (Lewis 1992, 58; Powell 1988, 37; Room 2010, 155; Dillon 1985, 128). Opening hours were also restricted, NSW introduced trading hours of 4am to midnight in 1862 (11pm from 1882) and Victoria had a closing time of 11.30pm from 1885 (Powell 1988, 40; Room 2010, 155). As the economy expanded, so did the number of licences. In NSW there were over 2,000 licensed hotels in 1870 and nearly 4,000 by 1880 (Powell 1988, 40). Even the smallest colony of Tasmania had over 400 licensed hotels by the late 1880s (Dillon 1985, 97). This growth led to community and temperance concerns about the colonies being “awash with grog”.

Local option was a policy that provided voters the opportunity to have a say on licence numbers in the local area and it became a part of liquor legislation in the colonies in the later 19th century. By the 1890s, every colony had some form of local option except Western Australia (Fitzgerald and Jordan 2009, 158; Room 2010, 154). Each colony had a slightly different approach built around the principle of voters having the capacity to: eliminate licences, reduce licences, or veto/allow new licences in a local district. Local option polls were often held in conjunction with State elections and provisions were progressively strengthened during the 1880s and 1890s (Room 2010, 154). Under the 1885 Queensland legislation, voters in a district could remove all licences or have limited licensing with a two thirds majority (Dillon 1985, 104; Lewis 1992, 57). The 1891 South Australian legislation allowed for polls on the reduction of licences or the granting of new ones (Lewis 1992, 58). The 1876 Victorian legislation only allowed new licences to be granted after a majority had voted in favour at a mandatory poll, and did not allow new licences where a statutory number per head of population in a district had been exceeded (Lewis 1992, 54-5). Victoria had a compensation fund to reimburse licensees impacted. Between 1886 and 1902, 16 licensing districts saw a reduction, 217 hotels were closed and 213,000 pounds paid in compensation (Lewis 1992, 55). Local option had begun to have some impact by the late 19th century.

Royal Commissions and inquiries found the system to deal with alcohol related problems to be poor. A 1880s Royal Commission in Victoria confirmed that prison and fines were useless in stopping drunkards and recommended compulsory seclusion (Lewis 1992, 104).

The colonies began introducing legislation to allow for the special treatment of ‘habitual drunkards’ in inebriate asylums, such as the 1888 Inebriate Asylums Act in Victoria. In Tasmania a Royal Commission recommended public subsidies to charitable inebriate retreats, facilitated in the 1885 Inebriates Act. In South Australia the 1881 Inebriates Act provided for court ordered stays in a special home (Lewis 1992, 105). An 1887 New South Wales inquiry heard of the failure of the criminal justice system to reduce drunkenness and argued for the establishment of inebriate asylums. During the 1890s, convictions for drunkenness remained significant and contributed to the overcrowding of prisons (Lewis 1992, 107-8).