The MP is asking councils around the country to help get the bill to the debating floor by lobbying for the support of 61 non-executive members of Parliament (non-executive members of Parliament are MPs who are not ministers or under-secretaries).
This would bypass the lottery of the ballot process which draws members' bills from Parliament's famous biscuit tin once a fortnight.
Swarbrick asked the Whanganui council – "as a local authority with ... substantial experience in the failings of the current law" – to help progress the bill without leaving it to chance.
"As councillors you know the problem intimately because you've seen it in your communities but you also know ... the cost and the waste of time for council, and totally unsatisfactory outcomes as well for your communities."
Whanganui introduced a LAP in 2019, six years after starting community consultation and two years after defending appeals by Foodstuffs and Liquorland to its provisional LAP. The appeals resulted in the council extending off-licence closing hours from 9.30pm to 10pm to end the legal costs and risks of continuing the appeal process.
The council's community wellbeing manager Lauren Tamehana said the council had called for review of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 a number of times in the past year with letters to ministers and a remit to Zone Three of the local government association of councils, Local Government New Zealand.
"I acknowledge that the amendment doesn't have everything on our wish list but it is a start, and once the process gets through the ballot we will have a chance to submit and raise our concerns, particularly the concerns we have over the District Licensing Committee [DLC] and their ability only to 'have regard to' and not be required to 'give effect to' our LAP," Tamehana said.
Last year, the DLC granted a 15th off-licence, overriding the council's LAP which set a cap of 14.
Swarbrick said the removal of special appeals processes would allow communities to make their own rules about where and how alcohol is available.
"As far as I'm concerned that's basic democracy. Too often local government is the recipient of law from central government that is totally unworkable. On the issue of alcohol harm, my member's Bill seeks to give power back to fix this."
Cr Rob Vinsen was one of four councillors who voted against backing the private bill, saying sponsorship from alcohol companies contributed significantly to the Whanganui community, including a brewery's donation of $200,000 to the development of one of the city's sports facilities, Cooks Gardens.
"This is the sort of income that has come from these so-called ogres of society. They're not ogres of society.
"Ninety per cent of people handle their alcohol very well and it's a very enjoyable part of our lifestyle. It's not all bad and don't let people go round and tell you that you need to be controlled about how you can handle alcohol."
But Deputy Mayor Jenny Duncan said a presentation from a Whanganui medical chief during her time on the District Health Board had opened her eyes to alcohol harm.
"There were three causes of the issues we were facing in our community and they were: alcohol, alcohol and alcohol. And that was quite a surprise and an eye-opener for many of us. We didn't realise it was that far ahead of any other issue.
"Yes, there are a large number of people who enjoy their drink and drink responsibly but there are a huge number of people destroying their own lives, and the lives of other people around them, because they aren't drinking responsibly.
"This is not about spoiling the party, this is about reducing the supply of alcohol later into the evening in inappropriate and often more poverty-affected [parts] of our community."
Duncan said a council seeking to introduce a LAP would be up against some "pretty hefty" funded entities who could block restrictions and that was not appropriate.
The council's LAP was written after community consultation and was "our community speaking", she said.
"I don't think that an alcohol supplier or chain should have a louder or stronger voice than our community, and that is the current situation."
A motion by Cr Kate Joblin and Duncan to support the Amendment Bill and delegate the mayor to advocate for the bill among MPs on behalf of the council was passed, with Crs Vinsen, Brent Crossan, Charlie Anderson and Graeme Young in opposition.
Mayor Hamish McDouall told Local Democracy Reporting the appeals process was one of several issues with the 2012 Act.
"Once a LAP has been put out, people who have submitted to the LAP can appeal. It makes the appeals process much more difficult and complex than it should be, much more expensive and delays implementation of the LAP.
"It happened here. It's been an issue right around the country.
"The act has brought some of the decision-making closer to council because prior to that a liquor store opened here almost right next to a high school and councils were shut out of any control. We weren't asked, there was nothing we could do but complain in the media.
"So provisions of the act that have allowed us to put in a LAP were a good thing. However, you've got these hurdles in the way. If a policy can be overridden, that suggests that local voice has been somewhat diluted."
McDouall said he didn't know if the private member's Bill would address that.
He said he had already begun lobbying Opposition MPs and had in sight those of the Māori and National parties.
What councillors said
Cr Kate Joblin: I'm really proud of the role that this council has taken in promoting the whole issue of Local Alcohol Policies (LAPs) and the importance of restricting the sale or access to alcohol and preventing harm. Almost 10 years ago we consulted with our community on how they wanted the sale of alcohol to be managed in our community. We took their views and we acted on it. We do this to limit access to drinking, we do this to limit the harm to families. There is a plethora of evidence that supports the reality that access to alcohol has a huge effect on family harm. I'm proud that the Mayor has already started working in this place because this has long been a view of this council. I would like us to support this unanimously because it is such an important issue in this community. Supporting this recommendation is about good evidence-based decision-making. It is about listening to our community and putting their feedback, their wishes into what we follow, what we support. It is a vote for good democracy, democracy in action.
Cr Alan Taylor: I support the recommendation, but the Government deals nationally with drugs of all levels and class [yet] sets alcohol aside and leaves local authorities to deal with it. That creates division in the community ... between retailers and the public and concerned groups. It also creates discrepancies across local government boundaries. This is a matter for the Government.
Cr Josh Chandulal-Mackay: The trend we've seen for so long is that Government tended to centralise and take responsibility away from local government, or they've devolved responsibilities without the necessary and appropriate level of funding. What I like about this bill is it enables local government to make decisions that reflect the unique circumstances of their communities, and removes cost associated with the current process. Right now there is disincentive to engage with these matters on the basis of the cost associated with the appeals process. I couldn't agree with [the bill] more strongly because it's localism in a nutshell, and it's localism for a cause that improves the health of our community.
Cr Rob Vinsen: I'm not in support. If you're going to support this you have to believe in the merits of a Local Alcohol Policy. And I certainly don't. The worst thing that could happen would be all 67 local authorities across New Zealand to have their own Local Alcohol Policy. How confusing would that be for the public? Setting different trading hours to Marton and Palmerston North. How ridiculous it is that we consider we know more than other local authorities, therefore we have to have different hours and different rules around alcohol? This needs to be set at a national level. Banning the appeals process is very challengeable and will be an issue at parliamentary level. Banning advertising of alcohol – there's no evidence that it increases the amount of alcohol consumed. Alcohol advertising is about one brand trying to gain market share and the sponsorship that those companies give to organisations that really need it.
Cr James Barron: The legality of removing appeals is a matter for Parliament not this chamber, as is dealing with alcohol at national or local level. We put up a LAP and came across exactly what this bill tries to address, which is that the appeals process and the "first head above the parapet" effect means that the LAP is very hard to implement and becomes ineffective in making change. I believe change should be done locally as we look toward the four wellbeings and the future of local government. Regardless of that, if we are responsible for change it is imperative that we have the tools to deliver what we say. This bill addresses that. On restrictions to advertising, there is a strong historical echo of arguments for tobacco advertising not being about targeting youth but targeting people to shift brands. I give the repeat of that argument no credence.
Cr Philippa Baker-Hogan: The appeals cost the community financially and in time. The reason most councils haven't progressed a LAP is the legal difficulty. Localism is very important and communities can be very different. I'm wondering why a government that's basically got rid of democracy in regards to health boards, health reforms and Three Waters, and governments that have made legislation around smoking, haven't got into the alcohol space. Our LAP failed at its first test with all that great work behind it and all that evidence. I strongly support Chloe Swarbrick and the Mayor advocating for the Bill.
Mayor Hamish McDouall: I found the LAP process tortuous. The power that the big liquor companies had to appeal and delay the implementation of the policy until their appeals were satisfied was perverse, almost Kafkaesque. I approached the Attorney General four years ago and suggested they look at the appeals provision but it wasn't done. We need to do this. We managed to get a LAP over the line but other councils didn't. Christchurch gave up after the legal bill topped half a million. Maybe communities should be allowed to shape the sale and supply of a drug, albeit a legal drug – we do everything else around place-making, why shouldn't we do this? I'm more than happy to advocate to members of Parliament or anyone who will listen.
Cr Charlie Anderson: I'm all for reducing alcohol harm but this Bill won't make an iota of difference. I also believe right of appeal is part of our democratic right and should not be taken away.
• Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air
