Editorial: Drink curfew aimed at wrong targets

Opinion

What has possessed some Auckland City Council members to propose an 11pm curfew on suburban bars and restaurants? It cannot be the police, who made known their concerns about all-night bars in the central city some time ago. The targets of the council curfew are not in the central city. And it cannot be the Law Commission's review of liquor licensing for the Government. It is likely to take a principled approach to the problems it has nominated.

There appears to be nothing principled about the council proposal. If the members believed 11pm was the proper closing time for drinking establishments they would impose that principle on all. But they have chosen only soft targets - suburban bars - and exempted those in places that are well patronised and likely to resist. Thus Ponsonby Rd, Parnell Rd, Newmarket, Mission Bay, Kingsland and Mt Eden village are designated entertainment areas where liquor may be served until 1am or even 3am on application.

How fortunate for them. If there is one thing better for business than unrestricted trade it is a restriction that favours your business. Any other area of Auckland City that boasts popular bars and restaurants will be at a disadvantage. Any area with ambitions to become an entertainment precinct should probably give up the idea.

There are about 1260 licensed bars and restaurants on the Auckland isthmus. About 300 have taken out a 24-hour licence. It is a fair guess many of the 300 are in the central business district where all-night licences would continue to be available under the regulations proposed by the council's city development committee.

The council has been reviewing its policy on liquor outlets since November. Its research has found residents want the central city treated differently from the suburbs. That view might express tolerance of inner-city nightlife rather than reflect any problems in the suburbs. There are few reports of trouble from the small bars that can be found in most suburban shopping centres today.

Doubtless not many have much patronage by 11pm most nights but if they do they should be allowed to keep it. The suggestion that they should have to employ security to do so is no concession. Security may be a reasonable requirement if they are offering late-night entertainment such as live music. Those that already have a resident band would be crippled by a mandatory 11pm closure.

The council proposal reflects a return to restrictive liquor laws nationwide. All-night bars, corner liquor stores and bargain sales from supermarkets are being blamed for teenage binge drinking, domestic violence and most other crimes in which alcohol plays a part. The pleasure and convenience of the majority is probably going to suffer for the sake of those who lack self-control.

But the city council would do well to wait for the Law Commission's review before it restricts the hours of on-licence service. The commission's instincts appear not to be unduly restrictive. It might take aim precisely at the sources of cheap alcohol and the sites of binge drinking. Neither can be blamed on licensed bars and restaurants.

Rather than punish them for the behaviour of young people who have probably obtained their supplies from an off-licence and consumed it in parked cars or at a private party, lawmakers should do their utmost to ensure that when young people drink they are more likely to do so under a licensed eye.

The legal purchasing age can be raised for off-licence sales and bar opening hours can be left to the decisions of people who know their business. Young people might then discover that a civilised drink in a suburban bar is better than a binge in the nearest park.