The regulatory services committee approved a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Bill, which the Government introduced after the Law Commission's paper Liquor in our Lives.
Based on previous discussions, the submission originally supported the split purchase age of 20 for off-licence premises, and 18 for on-licences.
However, Mayor Bryan Cadogan believed allowing 18-year-olds to purchase alcohol only from on-licences was "taking a restrictive view".
"I have no problem with an 18-year-old taking a box of Speight's home," he said.
Cr John Cochrane agreed, saying he would prefer to limit the amount of alcohol a person could buy, rather than the age at which they could buy it.
"An 18-year-old can legally drink. They should be able to do it at home," he said.
Cr Stewart Cowie took the view that having a split purchase age was punishing the majority for a minority issue.
"We read a lot in the papers, but that is only 5% to 10% of the population. What about the other 90% that behave themselves? They [18-year-olds] can do everything else. There are two sets of rules," he said.
Cr Bruce Graham wanted a stronger approach and argued for the drinking age to either be raised to 20, or left at 18.
"It's one or the other. Don't pussyfoot around," he said.
In the end, the submission was changed to oppose the split purchase age, leaving the purchase age of alcohol for all premises at 18.
The submission's main concerns were focused on the issue of supply controls and how they could be worked in rural areas.
Among other things, the council opposed the retention of licence exemptions for the armed forces, police or fire service.
It also believed licence applications, which complied with the local alcohol policy, should be able to be dealt with under delegation, rather than by the licensing committee or authority, as it would create logistical difficulties in a rural area.
Another topic of debate was a requirement to seek a response from both police and the medical officer of health for all liquor licence applications.
It was deemed this view was too restrictive and would mean licences would not be issued for many events in the region, which were often organised in a matter of days.
The council believed approval from the medical officer of health should not be required for special licences, unless they were for major events.
