“First, Do No Harm”
Hello, I am from Justice For All.
“First, do no harm” is our foremost message.
When responding to the proposed changes in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, we remind you: First, do no harm. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. Put people before profit.
In our view, the status quo is better than the proposed changes.
Today, we expand on our written submission in which we rejected this bill’s proposed amendments.
We are concerned that these amendments do not include:
- A health and safety plan
- Public education about alcohol
We believe this omission will lead to unintended consequences.
However, we would endorse legislation that:
- Reduces the harm caused by alcohol
- Reduces the number of people hauled into the justice system because of alcohol-impacted behaviour
- Acknowledges that alcohol affects everyone differently
- Understands that alcohol is a mitigating factor and an aggressor drug
- Facilitates more drug and alcohol courts focused on treatment rather than punishment
- Provides effective safeguards to protect vulnerable people
Increased Availability Means Increased Harm
This bill makes alcohol more available — more accessible both in time and place.
This is undesirable, as evidence shows that increased availability increases alcohol-related harm.
The amendments claim to boost the economy by making licensing:
- More streamlined
- More simple
- More modern
…while also limiting alcohol harm.
But how much of a gamble is this? What are its chances of success?
Current Licensing System
We currently have four distinct alcohol licences:
- The on-licence
- The off-licence
- The club licence
- The special licence
Each licence has conditions designed to reduce alcohol harm around the sale and supply of alcohol.
Licence holders must abide by these regulatory conditions in order to keep their licence, while licence inspectors enforce these regulations.
This is a simple regulatory process.
It is easy to implement and easy to understand. While not perfect, it appears to work.
The exception is the club licence.
In our view, it poses the greatest risk of alcohol harm.
There is no manager present. Members are expected to monitor themselves and look out for each other.
Rural clubs — especially rugby clubs — have a history of risky intoxication and modelling poor behaviour in front of children.
Additionally, drunk driving poses a serious risk in rural districts. Unnecessary and tragic accidents caused by alcohol consumption linger in people’s collective memory.
Regulatory Confusion
We need better policy than what these “improving regulation” amendments provide.
Contrary to the stated intent of simplicity, we believe these changes will create regulatory confusion.
In a quest to increase government revenue, different licence types can now be combined.
This raises important questions:
- How will licensing conditions be enforced?
- How will this reduce alcohol harm?
Traditionally, restaurants are places where people go for a meal in venues operating under host responsibility rules.
However, under these amendments, restaurants could hold both on- and off-licences. They could serve meals while simultaneously functioning like bottle stores selling takeaway alcohol.
This creates:
- A new regulatory burden for businesses
- Increased risk of alcohol-related harm
- Additional social and economic costs
The Normalisation of Alcohol
We are deeply concerned about how the normalisation of alcohol is embedded within these amendments.
Examples include:
- The free glass of wine at the hairdresser
- The Governor-General’s stamp of approval on prolonged after-hours public drinking sessions during televised events
These measures further shape and normalise our drinking culture.
They create the illusion that if you “drink responsibly,” there is no harm.
This messaging has become so embedded in our collective psyche that many people believe:
- We must drink to belong
- We must drink to have a good time
Alcohol corporations and their satellite businesses use this messaging to groom the next generation of drinkers.
We strongly advise legislators not to reinforce these same narratives.
Communities Struggling to Be Heard
The amendments continue to disadvantage local communities attempting to prevent new liquor licences from being established. Revoking existing licences also remains extremely difficult.
My firsthand experience during 2020 highlighted just how difficult this process can be.
More than 100 people from our community objected to an off-licence liquor store opening in our area, yet the application eventually succeeded.
Initially, only a handful of objectors within a 1km radius had the legal right to oppose the application. Because so few people lived within that area — and because the number of official objections failed to reflect the depth of community feeling — the Mayor used her discretion to extend the standing radius to 5km.
As a result, objections flooded in.
Yet ordinary people still struggled against the alcohol industry’s well-funded legal representation.
The industry lawyer framed the process as democratic by pointing to the limited number of objections, while ignoring the restrictive legal boundaries that prevented many affected people from participating.
The hearing became a distortion of reality, where serious concerns about alcohol harm were minimised through legal technicalities.
Even when objectors initially succeeded, the victory was temporary.
The industry appealed the decision to the High Court. Three judges visited our township, conducted a walk-through, and ultimately decided the community could “afford” another liquor outlet.
The off-licence was granted its licence and opened for business.
The voices of local people were ignored.
A Serious Piece of Legislation
Amending the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 is a serious matter.
It must be approached with due diligence and assessed holistically.
This process:
- Must not be rushed
- Must allow time to analyse the best path forward
- Must include effective regulations limiting alcohol availability
There must also be a strong public education campaign addressing:
- Alcohol as a drug
- New Zealand’s unique alcohol history
- The Law Commission’s 2010 call to dismantle alcohol marketing
Historical Warnings from Māori Leaders
To conclude, we give voice to Māori leaders who recognised alcohol harm long before alcohol became heavily commercialised.
1856 — Letter from the Waikato and Waipa Chiefs
“Do not let intoxicating drinks come to this land, to Waipa, but let it be kept there (Auckland) at the inns.”
“Let Māori law, which has been asserted to by all the chiefs of this place and Waikato, be sacred — namely that the natives be not allowed to drink spirits.”
“This alcohol is the worst thing hitherto brought to New Zealand.”
1874 — Haimona Te Aoterangi and 167 Others Petition Parliament
“Our children are not born healthy because the parents drink to excess, and the child suffers.”
“If you have regard for us, the Māori people, send away this evil which you brought to this island to destroy us, our lands, our people.”
1879 — South Island Tribes Petition for Total Alcohol Ban
All South Island tribes petitioned for a total ban on alcohol.
Sadly, today Māori remain disproportionately represented in prisons and are among those most impacted by alcohol-related harm.
Final Request
Our final request is this:
Amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 in a way that empowers communities and prioritises:
- Public health
- Wellbeing
- Keeping people out of the justice system
Put people before profit.
And above all:
Justice for All 
Leave a comment