The other four thought the proposal too restrictive, but for Mr Reilly, it wasn't restrictive enough. He said alcohol was a factor in a high proportion of crime, serious crashes and family violence in Northland.
It has also become a multimillion-dollar earner for supermarkets and liquor outlets, so you can see why they are not keen for more restrictions on the sale of liquor.
The next round of battle will take place at an Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority appeal hearing at the Turner Centre in Kerikeri on December 13-15, when Mr Reilly, a retired, 83-year-old farmer, will put his case for cutting off-licence hours, including alcohol sales at supermarkets, to 10am-7pm. He also wants off-licence sales banned altogether on Sundays.
But Progressive has applied to have Mr Reilly's appeal thrown out claiming that it is "vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of process". The supermarket giant is also seeking costs from Mr Reilly who has until tomorrow to respond. Progressive did not return calls for comment on the issue.
Mr Reilly, who told the Northland Age he is not anti-alcohol and enjoys the "occasional drop at home," said the problems caused by alcohol were well known but no one was doing anything about it. He also said he was not worried about the possibility of having to pay costs if he lost.
"The community has the right to dictate what it will accept. The industry should play second fiddle, if at all."
He said the only vexatiousness about the issue was that he was threatening the company's profits, and his concerns were far from frivolous.
Any costs, should Mr Reilly lost, could be in the tens of thousands, as the companies will have expensive, high powered lawyers on their side.
"Our campaigner will be assisted by volunteer Jane Johnston, a former council employee and has nowhere near the financial clout or legal help that the others have."
To a large degree Mr Reilly is right and there is research to show that tighter restriction do have an impact on alcohol-related harm.
Back in 2014, when the Far North and Whangarei district councils were working out new Local Alcohol Policies (LAPs) after the Government introduced new liquor laws the previous year, a expert on the issue visited Northland to add his persecutive to the debate.
Dr Peter Rice, chair of the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, said a cap on liquor outlets and a minimum price for booze were immediate things local and central government could do to address Northland - and New Zealand's - appalling alcohol-related harm figures.
At that time Northland had nearly twice as many alcohol outlets per head of population as the North Island average with 15.2 off-licences for every 10,000 of population; nearly twice that of the North Island (8.2).
Statistics New Zealand said alcohol was a factor in more than a third of arrests in Northland in 2013 and 45 per cent of the Whangarei Hospital emergency department injury-related presentations involved alcohol having been consumed in the 12 hours before admission.
Dr Rice said from research carried out in the UK there was a clear link between high rates of off-licences, accessibility and alcohol harm statistics. He said it was not rocket science that the number of liquor outlets and availability of booze was related to harm from alcohol.
He said councils should implement a cap on liquor outlets while the government should introduce a minimum price on alcohol to counter booze price wars as liquor outlets competed for customers.
Dr Rice said both measures were recommended by the NZ Law Commission in its report to the Government ahead of the new laws, but had been ignored.
"It's very clear from the evidence and in fact is logical, that the greater number of [alcohol] outlets the greater the harm caused [by alcohol] in those communities," he said at the time.
The Law Commissions' review of the regulatory framework for alcohol sale and supply - Alcohol in our lives - Curbing the Harm - made a series of recommendations for reducing alcohol harm, but most were ignored by government.
Dr Rice said it seemed politics, rather than what was in the best interest of the public, was driving alcohol laws here.
"The Law Commission made some very good recommendations, and ones that have been introduced by many other countries around the world, and they will help, if they are committed to. The World Health Organisation has come up with the best practice [for alcohol harm reduction] and they are very similar to your Law Commission recommendations."
He said New Zealanders also needed to change their attitude towards alcohol, especially around drink-driving.
"For all the troubles with alcohol in the UK - and there are some very high rates of harm in some areas - drink-driving is not a big issue, because people just don't do it and people don't accept others doing it," he said.
"The [drink-driving] enforcement is very strict and the penalties are fairly substantial and there's a real public disdain with drink-driving considered really shameful in the UK."
So the research is there and Mr Reilly's appeal is a matter of public interest that deserves to be heard.
It would be a shame if such an important issue ends up costing him a small fortune and if those threatening to seek costs from this octogenarian had a social conscience, they would allow the appeal to be heard without that threat.
After all, are they there to take into account the interests and health of their customers and the wider community, or simply to make as much profit as possible and forget about the potential social costs?
