It seems connected to the “culture of saying no” which Prime Minister Chris Luxon used his recent state of the nation speech to rail against. In it he singled out the planeloads of New Zealanders who’ve taken their dollars to Australia to see concerts which couldn’t play in Auckland due to capacity constraints at Eden Park. But he could just as easily have been talking about Laneway, which has let under 18s into its Australian shows for more than 10 years, but cannot provide the same experience here.
The Spinoff has obtained the decision of the Auckland District Licensing Committee that denied Laneway and its youngest fans the opportunity to attend the 2025 festival. It runs to 21 pages, and involves a three-person committee hearing arguments from eight people from five organisations in favour, and eight people from three organisations opposing. What follows is the anatomy of a single “no” – one that illustrates both the complex set of factors which go into making such a decision, but also revealing how difficult it can be to make something original and fun happen in New Zealand.
The document starts by laying out what St Jerome’s Laneway NZ Limited, to use their legal name, were seeking to do.
“The Applicant wishes the event to be R16, with the bar areas designated as restricted, and the remainder of the site undesignated.” Basically they wanted all patrons to access the vast bulk of the site, with only the bar areas restricted to those aged over 18. This required a special licence under 2012’s Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.
Under the act, relevant agencies are asked for their perspective on the proposal, which would then be decided by the district licensing committee. These include an alcohol licensing inspector, police, and Medical Officers of Health (MOH). This is decided in a hearing with both the applicant and those opposing the licence speaking to a three-person committee.
Read more: Laneway 2025: Everything you need to know before the Auckland festival this Waitangi Day
The case for ‘yes’
Up first was Rowan Ashton, the lawyer acting for Laneway, who tried to address the broad range of objections raised by those in opposition. He pointed out efforts to ensure under-18s would be highly visible to event staff, through the use of double wristbands, and that there would be a 1:100 security guard ratio, along with 13 “roaming teams” assessing intoxication. He concluded by saying that the agencies “appear to be philosophically opposed to allowing [16 and 17-year-old] attendees at this festival”.
Various members of the festival production then spoke to specific arguments they believe supported letting 16 and 17-year-old patrons in. Data showed that over three-quarters of Laneway attendees are women and 60% aged 18-24. St Johns reported 354 incidents across the day in 2024 – almost exactly the 350 they planned for, and comparable to other festivals. These were spread across almost 20,000 attendees. Most pertinently, just 11 incidents were due to intoxication, there were only 38 all-cause evictions and zero arrests across the day.
More specific data around alcohol consumption showed the festival – one largely attended by Gen Z women – mirrored global trends for that cohort. Studies show that Gen Z drinks around a third less alcohol than prior generations. The average Laneway attendee had 2.54 servings of alcohol during the 10 hours the bar was open, which compared favourably to other all-ages shows at the venue.
The promoter also pointed out that in Australia, 16 and 17-year-olds have been attending Laneway for more than a decade. Of 115,000 youth who’d attended in that time, just five were formally reported as intoxicated. The same company assessed Auckland’s plans for under-18s and suggested that their plan would “effectively prevent youth alcohol procurement”. They also reduced bar frontage, added more duty managers and alcohol wardens, increased shade coverage and staff training.
Finally a representative from Red Badge, the festival’s security contractor, addressed the committee. He stressed changes the company had made based on last year’s festival. The committee quizzed him about widely reported issues at Juicy and Listen In – two festivals in different venues, with different promoters and different audiences.
The case for ‘no’
All three opposed the special licence, picking various criteria under the act. All cited the object of the act, which centres around safe alcohol consumption and harm minimisation. The inspector and police had the narrowest range of objections, largely associated with systems, staff and training and the lack of designated areas – which was the big change from 2024. The MOH had more objections than the other two agencies combined, including the “nature of the event” and the “suitability of the applicant”.
The opposition were first represented by Michael O’Flannigan, an alcohol licensing specialist working for Auckland Council. He painted a very different picture of the 2024 event, based on observations from agencies in attendance. He described attendees “taking alcohol outside designated zones”, “significant preloading” in streets around the venue, “intoxicated patrons” with “inadequate water and shade”, resulting in long queues for water. This resulted in Laneway receiving two infringements for failing to meet licence conditions.
Two police officers spoke next. They rejected the comparison of music festivals to sporting events, saying “sporting events do not typically involve large groups of unsupervised teenagers”. They backed up the concerns about pre-loading, and raised further questions about Red Badge’s ability to perform security at the event, citing unreliability and casual staffing. They believed that the current plan could not prevent “social supply” of alcohol to minors.
Finally the Medical Officers of Health (MOH) spoke. These are people designated under the Health Act 1956 to represent the public health perspective. One disputed the formal identification of 11 intoxicated people provided by St Johns, saying they saw “a lot more” people intoxicated. They acknowledged the increase in shade, water supply and systems changes, but remained opposed, joining the police in singling out the danger of under-18s accessing alcohol through “social supply”.
The committee decides
The three members of the committee then went through the various objections point by point, with reference to the sale of liquor act. They dismissed a number of the agencies’ objections, including the officer of health’s issue with the “character of the applicant” and the “nature of the event”. They raised the “amenity and good order of the locality”, despite none of the agencies having flagged that problem, based on “abundant details and photos” of preloading, “alcohol litter” and urination. However, they cautiously concluded that it would not be overly impactful on the local community.
They accepted, over the objections of the MOH, that opening the venue up to the Western Springs lakeside provided a large increase in natural shade, making a “chill zone”, while acknowledging that Laneway has quadrupled the available shade for 2025.
The longest and most contentious area related to Red Badge. “[The agencies] do not trust that Red Badge has the capability to provide adequate security services … We concur,” said the committee. This was based on Red Badge providing a similar security plan to one they failed to deliver on in 2024. They chided the company for its denial that alcohol was passed out from restricted areas, despite photographs and video evidence they said contradicted the position.
The committee again made reference to issues at Listen In and Juicy Fest, despite Red Badge’s assertion that Listen In had a challenging layout, and Juicy Fest attracted a different audience.
Most of all, though, they cited preloading as “the major issue to manage. It happens at all events and seems part of the New Zealand culture. It is not the applicant’s fault, however it is its responsibility to manage the alcohol-related harm it creates.”
The committee ultimately declined the application based on two grounds. One was persistent doubts raised about Red Badge. The second was siding with the agencies over intoxication at the event. They acknowledged that St John’s assessment of just 11 people treated for intoxication was a low number, but believed the agencies’ reports of many more intoxicated people who didn’t seek treatment.
A delicate balance
Reading the account of the hearing, it’s hard not to sympathise with both the promoter and the agencies. The promoter clearly wants to put on a great event, and has made meaningful changes in response to issues raised the previous year. The agencies have a very specific view of the event – one based not on pleasure or amenity but on the potential for – and actual – harm.
This is a microcosm of New Zealand as a whole, the one Luxon sought to describe in his speech. There is an inherent tension between those who want to bring new events, businesses and experiences into the country, and those who deal with the consequences when something goes wrong. This was starkly laid out during Covid-19, with the debate over the undeniable public health win of keeping the virus out, balanced against the equally undeniable economic and social cohesion costs of the length and severity of lockdowns and mandates.
One line sticks out from this decision above all others. The committee did not permanently close the door on opening doors to under-18s in future. However, it sought to see “faultless security and intoxication management” before agreeing to do so. It seems an incredibly high bar, perhaps one which can never be reached. It begs a question which cuts to the heart of a perceived culture of no: can you give 30,000 young people the night of their lives, and be faultless?
