In context, the LAP means that any new applications to sell alcohol in 24 areas of Auckland will be rejected over the next two years. Neighboring areas could also be affected, and existing licenses (we’re talking about pubs, bars and clubs) may be subject to special conditions when they are reviewed.

The second wind of the policy will begin in December, when bottlers and supermarkets will no longer be able to sell alcohol after 9:00 p.m. Bars and restaurants in the city center will be able to sell alcohol until 4 in the morning. Those outside the CBD will have a 3am cut-off Sports clubs and RSA 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 the change comes with a pushback.

According to information published under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Auckland Council spent $451,946 on legal costs associated with the Alcohol Licensing and Regulatory Authority between 2015 and 2017. The additional costs in the ARLA amounted to $5,490 in 2018 and to $81,952 between 2023 and 2024.

High Court proceedings cost Auckland Council $36,502 in 2017 and $355,227 between 2018 and 2019.

The most significant of these cases reached the Court of Appeals ($206,978 between 2020 and 2021) and then 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 a LAP. Trading hours would be reduced to 9:00 p.m. and the granting of new licenses in certain areas would be frozen. Sound familiar?

Major supermarket chains Foodstuffs and Woolworths launched court proceedings, putting the policy on hold.

They claimed the restrictions were unreasonable in light of the purpose of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to minimize harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. The question was whether introducing the new 9:00 pm time (two hours less than the 11:00 pm limit) would significantly minimize the damage.

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

“Given the evidence as a whole, it might be thought to be beyond dispute that there was a reasonable possibility or probability that the closing time restriction would reduce alcohol-related harm,” the ruling said.

The Supreme Court case ended the legal uproar in Auckland and beyond. For example, Wellington City Council attempted to implement a similar policy in 2013, but gave up in 2016 after facing similar legal obstacles. Christchurch City Council and Hamilton City Council also took over.

“In many ways, the multiple cases involving Auckland Council’s Local Alcohol Policy were test cases about the development and content of Local Alcohol Policies made under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and will have a national impact,” said Auckland Council’s 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 also came into force this year. The amendment removes the ability for parties to appeal interim alcohol policies, meaning we will hopefully see an end to legal fees being borne by taxpayers.

The question remains whether the literal legal cost has been worth it. Research dating back to 2018 estimated that alcohol caused 901 deaths a year, 1,250 cancers, 29,282 hospitalizations and 128,963 ACC claims. It has been reported that alcohol damage costs the country around $7.8 billion a year. By comparison, Auckland Council’s $1.28 million in legal fees is just a drop in the ocean.

Rather than emphasize the importance of valuing profits over people, I 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 difficult to think of any other legal product available in our society that contributes so much to so many social ills.

“While alcohol abuse is only one of several risk factors that contribute to these harms, alcohol is distinctive because, unlike many other factors associated with crime, injury, and social dysfunction, the harmful use of alcohol It is a modifiable risk factor. In other words, as a society we can modify our alcohol consumption.”