Editorial: Finding balance on alcohol outlets

EDITORIAL

Stricter containment of when and where supermarkets and bottle stores can open is being promised in plans announced by the Government this week.

While Justice Minister Kiri Allan would be happy to portray these moves as the Government coming to the rescue of councils, it should be remembered that this is a problem of Wellington’s making.

As with most bureaucratic clusters, this one was born of good intentions. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 10 years ago enabled territorial authorities to create local alcohol policies (LAPs). Under the provisions of the Act, councils could limit licenses in specific areas such as near schools or churches, limit the density of licenses in certain areas and introduce one-way door times when patrons could leave but not enter licensed premises.

Handing such powers to local authorities and, by extension, to their communities, was considered a win for common sense after instances where ridiculous numbers of liquor outlets were setting up shop in often low socio-economic neighbourhoods. The ensuing competition resulted in cut-price booze sloshing generously through suburbs, giving rise to all the problems associated with chronic alcohol abuse.

Illustration / Daron Parton

However, the LAP protocols proved a shooting gallery for liquor providers, with step four in the process specifically set up to publicly notified the proposals and allow appeals.

Auckland Council is among several local authorities trying to limit the availability of alcohol but it has been constantly set back because of appeals by supermarkets and the alcohol industry. The council’s policy was developed seven years ago but is still not in force because it has been appealed to the Supreme Court, with legal costs passing $1 million so far.

The solution, according to the Justice Minister, will be a law in place by the middle of next year under which councils can simply abandon these quagmired LAPs and introduce new alcohol policies as permitted under the fresh legislation. Effectively, the law will pull the rug out from under the liquor industry’s avenues for appeal.

While it may appear a good idea to sweep away obstacles to preventing the harm in communities caused by the proliferation of untrammelled liquor sales, a number of concerns are apparent.

One is pointed out by Spirits NZ chief executive Robert Brewer in the focus on the special appeals process as many council’s policies were being challenged through judicial review, rather than the appeals system.

Another is the principle of removing appeal rights. National Party justice spokesman Paul Goldsmith says such a measure is assuming councils always make good decisions. Might it not be possible that an application for a license is right, while a council refusal was wrong?

All means to achieve moderation and good licensing controls should be explored. But the pursuit of minimising harm must recognise consumer demand and business interests in providing for it.

As we have seen, good intentions do not always amount to good outcomes. Unless balance can be found between these disparate interests, the right to challenge decisions is a principle of natural justice.