Editorial: Calling time on liberal liquor laws

Opinion

The law Commission's review of the liquor laws, which produced its first report this week, is likely to stand as a watershed of our social culture. The review and the legislation probably to flow from it will mark the end of a 20-year hope that more liberal laws would produce more civilised drinking habits.

When the commission surveys today's drinking culture it is frankly dismayed. The eminent panel has gone so far as to join police on inner-city patrols and observed the results of unlimited licensing hours, easier access to liquor and a lower legal purchasing age, among other liberalisations since 1989.

None sounds more disappointed than the commission's president, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Justice Minister when Parliament passed the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Wisely, his commission is not advising a wholesale retreat from liberalism.

On the vexed issue of the so-called drinking age (really the purchasing age) the commission recommends that the minimum age be restored to 20 for off-licence consumption but left at 18 for the right to drink in bars and other licensed places. That is a reasonable compromise, preserving the right of 18- and 19- year-olds to socialise in situations where there can be some supervision of the irresponsible minority.

It would do no good to shut all of that age group out of licensed premises, consigning them to the parks and beaches where too many of their age group seem to prefer to drink anyway. It is doubtful that restoring the purchasing age to 20 for off-licence consumption is going to reduce their supplies. As young people told us yesterday, there is always somebody of legal age willing to go into a supermarket for them.

Nor does the commission's suggested increase in excise taxes seem likely to curb the excesses that concern it. Social researchers insist that price has a proven impact on demand for alcohol but it is hard to believe, considering the premium that patrons of popular bars and clubs are prepared to pay for standard drinks. But a lower excise on low-alcohol drinks might reduce some drunkenness.

Unlike the liberalisation, the proposed tightening of liquor control does not come with hope of a cultural improvement. A previous era of even tighter control did nothing to breed a better attitude to alcohol and nor would a reversion in that direction. The commission says the law alone cannot change our drinking culture. It is only one influence, and probably not the most effective one.

Drinking habits will improve when we cease to pretend we are amused by drunkenness, when enough of us treat it as the ugly, unseemly and extremely boring condition that it really is. Drunks should find their company melting away. If somebody can bear them long enough to put them in a taxi home, they should know they are being given more help than they deserve.

Today's younger generation are not getting a fair deal on this subject. They happen to come of age in an era of easier legal access to alcohol and their worst behaviour is perhaps more obvious than that of their parents. But younger people may have been better on the whole when it comes to designating a non-drinking driver or taking other precautions for the journey home.

Paid publicity on television has probably had the desired effect. It can do much more to depict drunkenness and its dangers in true light. The law can do no more than hold licensees to the rules of their trade and ensure that excessive drinkers know the risks they run. Little would be gained raising the age, restricting trading hours or otherwise reducing access to liquor. We have been there and in many ways drinking habits were worse. Let's not go back.