Brian Rudman: World leader in liberal booze laws - a title we don't need

One of the goals listed in Auckland City's proposed new liquor policy is to "enhance Auckland as a unique arts, culture, sports and events destination in Australasia."

It's hard to see how leaving the bars of downtown Auckland open 24 hours a day is going to achieve this.

The only thing unique about Auckland as an arts and culture destination today is that customers leaving shows at the Aotea Centre and the Town Hall tend to feel unsafe the moment they step outside and have to walk the gauntlet of yahooing, can-swilling hoons as they go down the main street to the public transport terminals at the bottom of town.

And that's at 11pm, when the feral pleasure-seekers are still cruising around in a good mood.

Auckland City's quest is the same as that of the Law Commission, which a year ago was asked to review the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, the legislation which liberalised New Zealand's liquor trading laws.

In a preliminary paper issued last month, the Law Commissioners said the objective of their review, "is a reduction in the harm to both society and individuals associated with the consumption of alcohol while securing for the community the benefits of it."

Imagine all the long lunches that could be indulged in seeking an answer to that riddle.

After all, both the curse and the appeal of alcohol is our inability, particularly while under the influence, to ascertain exactly when enough is enough.

After cataloguing the "wide range of harm" alcohol can do in terms of car accidents, family violence, cancers, liver disease, sexual offending and crime in general, the commission then hedges its bets by pointing out that the various estimates of the social cost of alcohol "do not take into account the beneficial effects ... arising primarily to the individual".

It says alcohol "provides various benefits, including flavour, social cohesion and celebration, social signalling and, of course, the value of the neuro-cognitive deficits associated with drinking (ranging from mild to extreme intoxication)".

For those of us who get light-headed trying to follow that sentence, the legal greybeards decide to go with the flow, noting, "The fact that New Zealanders last year spent between $4 billion and $5 billion on alcohol suggests that consumers find significant 'benefits' in consuming alcohol."

All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that what the Law Commission - and Auckland City for that matter - are seeking is some optimum in damage limitation.

As for Auckland City, its plan to reduce the hours of trading for licensed premises in the suburbs, but continue to permit 24-hour trading in the city centre seems an odd way to respond to public disquiet about nocturnal drunkenness in the inner city.

Mayor John Banks and his councillors seem to believe that to be a "vibrant world-class" city, visitors and citizens alike, must be able to get legless around the clock.

I prefer the wisdom of downtown police boss Senior Sergeant Ben Offner, who told me last year that "nothing good happens after 3am".

Over the past decade, more than 40 per cent of violent crime in central Auckland happened during the booze-laden hours between 11pm and 5 am - almost almost twice the figure for the rest of the country.

The Law Commission notes the obvious, saying "A reduction in the hours or days of sale of alcohol leads to fewer alcohol-related problems".

But targeting suburban bars, as the city council is proposing, while chickening out of reducing the 24-hour central city booze cycle, is just funnelling more trouble downtown.

No one wants to go back to the bad old days of the six o'clock swill, when drinking wine with one's meal, meant decanting it into a restaurant milk jug and hoping the police didn't arrive.

But is Auckland a better place when most youngsters propping up downtown bars at 3am, don't need more alcohol, they need a ride home.

The police told councillors last year that Auckland's drinking hours were more liberal than our "world-class" rivals in most of Australia, the United States and Britain.

The vomit stains on the new downtown paving slabs, is evidence enough that this is one leadership role we should surrender.