For context, the LAP means any new applications to sell alcohol in 24 areas in Auckland will be declined in the next two years. Neighbouring areas could also be affected, and existing licences – we’re talking pubs, bars, and clubs - may be subject to special conditions when they come up for review.
The second wind of the policy will begin in December when bottle shops and supermarkets will no longer be able to sell alcohol after 9pm. Central city bars and restaurants will be able to sell alcohol until 4am. Those outside of the CBD will be capped at 3am. Sports clubs and RSAs will have a 1am cut-off.
Councils have had the ability to create LAPs for more than a decade thanks to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. But with change comes pushback.
According to information released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Auckland Council spent $451,946 in legal costs associated with the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority between 2015 and 2017. Further costs in the ARLA came to $5490 in 2018, and $81,952 between 2023 and 2024.
Proceedings in the High Court cost Auckland Council $36,502 in 2017 and $355,227 between 2018 and 2019.
The most significant of these cases went to the Court of Appeal ($206,978 between 2020 and 2021) and then the Supreme Court ($139,442 between 2021 and 2023).
Setting the precedent
The Supreme Court case dates back to 2015 when Auckland Council introduced its first iteration of an LAP. Trading hours would be reduced to 9pm, and there would be a freeze on granting new off-licences in certain areas. Sound familiar?
Major supermarket chains Foodstuffs and Woolworths kicked off legal proceedings, effectively putting the policy on hold.
They claimed the restrictions were unreasonable in light of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012′s purpose to minimise harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. The question was whether introducing the new time of 9pm – two hours shy of an 11pm cut-off – would meaningfully minimise harm.
Eight years later, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the food giants’ appeals, ordering them to pay $35,000 to Auckland Council.
‘‘Given the evidence as a whole, it might be thought to be clear beyond argument that there was such a reasonable possibility or likelihood of the closing hours restriction reducing alcohol-related harm,” the judgment read.
The Supreme Court case put a stop to the legal hullabaloo in Auckland and further afield. For example, Wellington City Council tried to implement a similar policy in 2013 but gave up in 2016 after it faced similar legal hurdles. Christchurch City Council and Hamilton City Council copped it, too.
“In many ways, the multiple cases involving the Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy were test cases on the development and content of Local Alcohol Policies made under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and will have a nationwide impact,” Auckland Council associate general counsel Christian Brown said.
Councils across the country probably breathed a sigh of relief when the Sale and Supply (Community Participation) Amendment Act 2023 came into force this year, too. The amendment removes the ability for parties to appeal provisional alcohol policies, which means we’ll hopefully see the end of legal fees falling on the taxpayer.
Was it worth it?
The question remains whether the literal legal cost has been worth it. Research dating back to 2018 estimated alcohol led to 901 deaths a year, 1250 cancers, 29,282 hospitalisations, and 128,963 ACC claims. Alcohol harm has been reported to cost the country about $7.8 billion a year. By comparison, Auckland’s Council’s $1.28m in legal fees are just a drop in the bucket.
Rather than stressing the importance of valuing profit over people, I’ll leave you with the Law Commission’s review of the regulatory framework for the sale and supply of liquor in 2010, led by legal aficionado Sir Geoffrey Palmer.
“It is hard to think of any other lawful product available in our society that contributes so much to so many social ills.
“While alcohol misuse is only one of several risk factors contributing to these harms, alcohol distinguishes itself because, unlike many other factors associated with crime, injury and social dysfunction, the harmful use of alcohol is a modifiable risk factor. In other words, as a society, we can modify our use of alcohol.”
