Local alcohol policies: What’s the opportunity to reduce harm?

A lack of meaningful regulation of the availability of alcohol contributes to very high levels of harm and perpetuates health inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). This Briefing outlines the potential for LAPs to reduce these harms, and considerations for upholding Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities. 

Alcohol availability and health in Aotearoa New Zealand

Alcohol causes significant harms to individuals, whānau and communities, costing NZ an estimated $9.1 billion each year.¹ The harms are not fairly distributed - Māori are twice as likely to die from alcohol-related causes compared to non-Māori.²

Alcohol is readily available with more than 11,000 businesses selling alcohol in 2020.³ National maximum trading hours are long at 8am-4am for on-premises (eg restaurants and pubs) and 7am-11pm for off-premises (eg supermarkets and alcohol stores). The most socio-economically deprived areas are at greater risk of harm from alcohol, yet are more exposed to off-premises outlets, with three times as many compared to the least deprived areas. Areas with a high Māori population have nearly 50% more outlets.⁴ Māori whānau in Auckland report having too many local bottle stores is a major concern which normalises use and provides overly easy access to affordable alcohol.⁵

High quality evidence consistently shows that reducing alcohol availability across broad areas reduces alcohol-related harm. Closing bars and pubs earlier leads to fewer physical harms including assaults,⁶  injuries and vehicle crashes.^7,8  European studies indicate limiting off-premises trading hours has similar benefits and also reduces consumption.⁹  NZ data shows people buying take-away alcohol after 10pm are more likely to be heavier drinkers.¹⁰  Recent evidence suggests outlet density has a greater impact on high-risk drinking among lower income groups,¹¹  and in NZ, higher off-premises density has been linked to a greater likelihood of binge drinking.¹²  

The Local Alcohol Policy experiment: a difficult beginning

Rather than address alcohol availability nationally, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) gave councils the option to develop LAPs for their districts. LAPs may include guidance on the number and location of alcohol outlets and set maximum trading hours. 

LAPs are intended to give communities more say on alcohol supply, however, early examples were heavily influenced by alcohol suppliers. Their extensive legal appeals resulted in weaker limits on availability, delays and policy abandonment.¹³  Infamously, the alcohol industry took appeals against Auckland’s LAP as far as the Supreme Court where they lost, creating a nine year delay.¹⁴  Some five years after the introduction of the Act, only 24% of the population was covered by a LAP.¹³ 

The quality of councils’ engagement with communities was also concerning. Public involvement in alcohol policy processes did not increase between 2014 and 2017,¹⁵  and alcohol-related industries contributed significantly to submissions. Māori who contributed to LAPs found councils failed to engage in a meaningful and responsive way; failing to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and recognise Māori as tangata whenua. Complex and time-consuming consultation processes, poor communication and undue influence of business owners were cited as barriers.¹⁶ 

Harnessing the opportunity that LAPs now provide

In 2023, the Act was amended to remove the ability to appeal any element of a provisional LAP. In addition, Auckland’s successful defence of its LAP at the Supreme Court resulted in both the adoption of the policy and narrower grounds for appealing any LAP by judicial review; the court confirmed that LAPs can be based on community preference and a likelihood (rather than proof) of reducing harm.¹⁷  As the risk of litigation has been substantially reduced, councils should now be able to adopt stronger LAPs that support equitable harm reduction and better reflect community expectations. Public support for restrictions on alcohol availability is high.¹⁸  In Auckland in 2013, over 90% of the public supported capping or lowering off-licence outlet numbers, and the majority supported shorter trading hours.¹⁹ 

While national restrictions on alcohol availability would benefit more people and provide consistency, LAPs are the only current mechanism to introduce the broad availability restrictions that reduce alcohol-related harm, in consultation with local communities. Modelling has suggested that limiting trading hours and outlet density in NZ will reduce inequities in alcohol related harm for the most socio-economically deprived communities and for Māori.⁴ In communities that are more exposed to alcohol outlets, this will require a long-term sinking lid in the LAP which can gradually reduce density.

In the current policy environment, we recognise several opportunities for councils to develop pro-equity, evidence-based LAPs that reduce alcohol availability and related harms. We outline these in Box 1 below. 

We further recommend closing all loopholes in the Act regarding online sales that may undermine the effect of LAPs²², as detailed in Box 2 below.

Authors details

Steve Randerson, Research Officer, SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, College of Health, Massey University | Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa. Co-chair Rōpū Apārangi Waipiro, Health Coalition Aotearoa. 

Dr Karen Wright, Senior Lecturer, Te Kupenga Hauora Māori, Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland. Co-chair Rōpū Apārangi Waipiro, Health Coalition Aotearoa

Professor Jennie Connor, Professor Emerita, Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago |Otakou Whakaihu Waka. Rōpū Apārangi Waipiro, Health Coalition Aotearoa.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Andrew Galloway and Kristen Maynard for their review of this Briefing.