KEY POINTS:
We report today the beginnings of a backlash in some communities around the country against sales of liquor in their locality. The number of outlets has more than doubled since the law was liberalised in 1989 but resistance to new licences seems to have greatly intensified since the shooting of a Manurewa liquor store owner, Navtej Singh, six months ago.
That crime raised many questions that seem more important than the proliferation of liquor stores, not the least being, why did the police take so long to act? But the Clark Government preferred to question the proliferation of liquor stores rather than the hesitation of police at the scene, and a bill was subsequently introduced to Parliament restricting liquor licences to shops of 150sq m or larger.
This bizarre rule, designed to get beer out of "convenience stores", was supported by National, and Justice Minister Simon Power says the new Government will allow the bill to proceed for public hearings early this year. Meanwhile, people who do not want alcohol sold in their communities have mounted protests against recent licence applications for Mairangi Bay, Oranga and Roskill South in Auckland and Cannons Creek in Wellington.
The bill before Parliament would also give local councils power to draw up alcohol plans controlling the hours, location and density of liquor outlets in their districts. The stage is set for a return to the days of "dry" electorates - Roskill was one of the last - when liquor polls held in conjunction with general elections allowed local preference to override national consistency.
There is much to be said for allowing each community to decide many of the terms on which all forms of commerce are permitted in its district. But those who would use that power need to be responsible with it. They should ask themselves what is really gained by forbidding liquor sales in their own backyard, so to speak.
An absence of liquor outlets certainly would not mean an absence of liquor in the locality, unless all districts adopted a ban and it is doubtful that many of those with a Nimby view would want that. Alcohol is going to be drunk locally, whether it is bought from a nearby shop or elsewhere. If the problem is under-age drinking or binge-drinking by those entitled to buy liquor, the solution is not to force them to drive farther for their supplies.
Our reports today reveal that Auckland's suburban cities, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore, have some of the country's lowest numbers of liquor outlets per head of population, because much of the region's thirst continues to be sated by the bars, clubs and liquor stores of the central city. Even on the isthmus, Roskill-Avondale has a lower density of outlets than the more affluent Eastern Bays or Eden-Albert.
The solution to problem drinking in this country remains what it always has been: to make wine and beer a normal, unremarkable part of civilised life. That end is not served by restricting its availability to big outlets selling in bulk rather than from one of the local shops.
Regulations usually hit more than their target. The bill before Parliament threatens to remove beer and wine from the sales cabinets of well-run corner dairies (which call themselves convenience stores to get around current law) as well as the rougher trade. It will inconvenience the sensible consumer probably more than the binge element who buy larger quantities.
The law could give local communities greater power to influence the character of all commercial activities without forbidding any sector its right to trade in their neighbourhood. Let councils have more say over the quality of liquor outlets but not to unreasonably prohibit them. They are not the problem.
