It looks as if the Dunedin liquor-ban area might well be extended from the central city to cover North Dunedin. A powerful array of forces - the police, the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic - are all in favour and that could influence city councillors. When the issue has arisen over the past seven years, councillors were divided and an extension has been rejected.
Some, like former councillor Michael Guest, were strongly opposed to a ban across a residential area. Others have been in favour and a few unsure. But the promotion, at today's meeting of the council's planning and environment committee meeting, of a bylaw to extend the ban area indicates a shift in council opinion could be looming.
The present proposal comes with two significant caveats. The first is that members of the community should be given the chance to voice their opinions and to make formal submissions on the proposal before final decisions. The second is a requirement that police would have to warn offenders except where it was impractical to do so, for example where a mob had gathered or people were too drunk.
One should always start from a default position of being against further rules and regulations.
They hamper freedom and personal responsibility and often have unforeseen consequences.
One should, then, however, dispassionately try to examine if - despite reluctance - rules would result clearly in the best outcome. Society does depend on rules to control misbehaviour and few could deny that over the years the North Dunedin student area has seen its share of problems.
Interestingly, Dunedin police in 2004 were not particularly supportive of an extension, warning that an extended ban would be difficult to enforce with "already overstretched" police resources. Since 2006, however, police have been in favour of having unambiguous rights to step in early when drinking in the street shows signs of leading to trouble. Police, according to the council report, agree with the warning provision.
Mr Guest, in earlier debates, argued that the wider ban would mean a family sharing a glass of wine in the Botanic Garden would be breaking the law. So, too, would those sharing a quiet beer, anywhere in public, across the broad area from Opoho Rd to Queen St and around Logan Park and including the stadium surrounds. While the police in such cases would be most unlikely to take any action, including the warning step, it is concerning when acceptable behaviour becomes illegal and when police discretion becomes ever wider.
Civil liberties, often for the best of motives, are easily eroded.
It can also be argued the ban in North Dunedin ignores liquor misbehaviour in other parts of the city. Surely, what is good enough for one area should apply elsewhere?
It is because of these legitimate points that it is appropriate the council, if it supports the extension as proposed, gives the wider community, including individual students and student representative groups, the chance to have their voices heard before final decisions are made.
It might well be that the liquor ban extension deserves council and public support because measures aimed at addressing societal attitudes to alcohol, while necessary, are not much help on the front line as trouble brews. Quite apart from the trouble itself, the university - and by extension the health of the city - depends on its reputation not being besmirched. There is nothing to stop students continuing to drink on the front lawns of their flats, but when large crowds spill on to the streets the combination of alcohol and mob mentality can be dangerous and destructive.
But extending a liquor ban across such a wide area for all the year and at all times of the day is a big step which should only be taken after the most careful consideration. Although the police undertake difficult tasks on the community's behalf and although they require society support and backing whenever possible, there are long-term perils in ever-widening police discretion and in the legislating acceptable behaviour as illegal.