Sasha Borisenko: New Zealand advice and legal costs to reduce alcohol-related harm

For context, LAP means any new applications to sell alcohol in Auckland’s 24 boroughs will be rejected for the next two years. Neighboring areas may also be affected and existing licenses – we’re talking about pubs, bars and clubs – may be subject to special conditions when they are considered.

The policy’s second wind 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 4 am. Entry for those outside the CBD will be restricted at 3am. Sports clubs and RSA will be open at 1am.

Thanks to the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act 2012, councils have been able to create LAPs for over a decade. But with change comes resistance.

Auckland Council spent $451,946 on legal costs relating to the Liquor Regulation and Licensing Authority between 2015 and 2017, according to information released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. Additional ARLA costs were $5,490 in 2018 and $81,952 through 2023. and 2024.

The High Court proceedings 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 to the Supreme Court ($139,442 between 2021 and 2023).

The Supreme Court case dates back to 2015, when Auckland Council introduced its first version of the LAP. Trading hours will be reduced to 9pm and new licenses will be suspended in certain areas. Sound familiar?

Major supermarket chains Foodstuffs and Woolworths have launched legal proceedings, effectively suspending the policy.

They said the restrictions were unreasonable in light of the aim of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to minimize the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. The question was whether introducing a new time of 21:00 – two hours less than 23:00 – would significantly minimize harm.

Eight years later, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the food giants’ appeals, ordering them to pay $35,000 to Auckland Council.

“Given the evidence as a whole, it may be considered clear that there is a reasonable possibility or probability that limiting closing hours reduces alcohol-related harm,” the decision said.

The Supreme Court case ends a legal turmoil in Auckland and beyond. For example, Wellington City Council tried to implement a similar policy in 2013, but abandoned it in 2016 after facing similar legal obstacles. Christchurch City Council and Hamilton City Council have also dealt with this.

“In many respects, the numerous cases involving Auckland Council’s local alcohol policy have been test cases of the design and content of local alcohol policy under the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act 2012 and will have national significance,” the assistant general counsel said Auckland Council. – Christian Brown said.

Councils across the country were likely to breathe a sigh of relief when amendments to the Sales and Supply (Community Participation) Act 2023 came into force earlier this year. The amendment removes the ability for parties to challenge the temporary alcohol policy, meaning we hope to see an end to legal costs being borne by taxpayers.

The question remains whether the literal legal costs were worth it. According to studies conducted in 2018, alcohol was associated with 901 deaths per year, 1,250 cases of cancer, 29,282 hospitalizations and 128,963 ACC claims. Alcohol-related harm is reported to cost the country approximately $7.8 billion a year. By comparison, Auckland Council’s legal costs of $1.28 million are just a drop in the bucket.

Rather than stress the importance of putting profits before people, I will leave you with the Law Commission’s 2010 review of the regulatory framework for the sale and supply of liquor, led by legal aficionado Sir Geoffrey Palmer.

“It is difficult to imagine any other legitimate product available in our society that contributes so much to so many social ills.

“Although heavy drinking is only one of several risk factors that contribute to these harms, alcohol is different in that, unlike many other factors associated with crime, injury and social dysfunction, harmful drinking is a modifiable risk factor. In other words, we as a society can change our drinking.”