The Government must get its priorities sorted in the correct order over alcohol regulations. It claims overhauling the various laws "as a priority" - although not such a high priority as satisfying Sir Peter Jackson and his backers - yet seems terrified to take action to curb alcohol abuse until after the Rugby World Cup.
Yet, if the behaviour at Eden Park at the weekend is any reliable indication, John Key and his colleagues cannot continue to dither over taking prompt action and retaining public confidence. Parliament votes on the Alcohol Reform Bill only this week, a formality that will see the measure sent to a select committee for further consideration.
Worse, that consideration will drift along until well into next year, when a conscience vote will determine its fate after the committee reports its amended form back to the House. There is no certainty even then the proposed measures will be passed by Parliament, and even the final form of the Bill, although planned to be passed before the next election, will not come into force until after the rugby tournament.
The liquor industry's lobbyists may justly claim to have performed a successful exercise for their paymasters.
Consider that as long ago as 2008, coincident with the previous government tabling a Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill in the House, the Law Commission was talking about the importance of its review of outdated alcohol licensing laws; a response to the perceived need to make the regulatory framework around the sale and supply of liquor match the modern environment where the combination of extremely cheap liquor and the reduction in the drinking age had inflamed general public concerns about liquor abuse, especially among the young, and communities were frustrated by their inability to effectively manage that harm.
The reconciliation of the conflicting interests of the liquor industry and its opponents has always challenged Parliament and produced over many years a confusion of law and regulation, matched by the unprincipled focus of some in the industry itself.
The Sale of Liquor Amendment Act of 1999 reduced the minimum drinking age to 18 years and made possible a virtual "open house" of liquor sales.
There can surely be little doubt left about the extreme social costs of alcohol abuse let alone the cost to tourism of images of its consequences being transmitted instantaneously world-wide during such events as the weekend's matches at Eden Park.
A 2002 study, for example, estimated public health sector costs of $760 million, crime-related costs of $280 million, social welfare costs of $232 million, other government costs of $383 million and lost productivity at $1.353 billion (in 2008-dollar terms).
These figures alone suggest compelling fiscal reasons to waste no more time before comprehensively improving the laws.
The latest Bill reflects only some of the Law Commission's recommendations, significantly banning the sale of liquor at off-licences to persons under 20, prohibiting any new liquor licences for corner dairies and limiting the alcohol in "RTDs" - alcoholic concoctions designed to appeal to youth.
The Bill also proposes giving the State the ability to ban alcoholic drinks altogether if they are considered particularly dangerous or appealing to minors. However, 18-year-olds will still be able to drink on licensed premises.
It does not set minimum prices as a measure - much called for in recent times - to try to restrain the volumes of cheap alcohol being sold through discounters and similar outlets, nor will it impose higher taxes on alcohol, an unfair impost but one which must be considered in some form.
Plainly, none of the proposed changes of themselves will create a culture of good behaviour; that is a feat beyond even Solomon between now and next October.
Nevertheless, a start made now would be bound to make progress which, coupled with the obvious zealous police action that will be required during the Rugby World Cup, likely would enable New Zealand's hospitable reputation to be in part preserved.
In the meantime, however, we can expect another summer of irresponsible alcohol promotions, uncaring parental responses to youthful demands for alcohol, more mayhem at beaches and holiday resorts during the Christmas-New Year period, more alcohol-fuelled violent behaviour on our streets, and more police time diverted to dealing with anti-social crimes.
The fact so much public opinion which has been aired for years in response to various proposed measures or deferred government action must now be repeated to the select committee - and may even then be ignored - suggests a Government bound not by principle on a crucial issue of public health but by political convenience and timidity.
