After years of research and surveys, Dunedin still has a drinking problem. Who would’ve thought? But never fear, the DCC are here. The Dunedin City Council has just put forward its draft changes to the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) for feedback from the public. That’s you.
The proposed changes are intended to strengthen the LAP by reducing alcohol availability in “high-risk locations”, limiting exposure of “young people to alcohol marketing”, supporting safer drinking environments and aligning licensing decisions with “community preferences”. Shit yeah.
In a dangerously small nutshell, the changes include making it so bars and clubs that are not in the Octagon will need to shut up shop at 1am, and that off-licence venues (liquor stores) can only sell alcohol between the hours of 9am and 9pm. However, things are a bit more nuanced than that (and surprisingly quite interesting) – so keep reading. We know Dunedin students are pretty key stakeholders in the sale and supply of liquor, and there’s a bit of history, public health research and criminological behavioural theory involved. Critic Te Ārohi says ‘wow’.
It’s worth understanding why the DCC intends to make some changes, and their statement of proposal opens with some pretty sobering (haha) statistics. Between 2012 and 2021, Dunedin had the highest age-standardised rate of hospitalisations wholly attributable to alcohol in the country, and 40% of urban Dunedin is in the highest 20% of alcohol harm related crime in New Zealand per population over the 2022-2025 period. And that’s just a couple of stats. Dunedin’s drinking culture creates a massive social cost, basically – and it’s not just because of the students. It’s a drinking problem, full stop.
For some background, local alcohol policies became a thing following a Law Commission report back in 2008. Anecdotal evidence had pointed to increasing alcohol abuse, especially from young people. As such, the Law Commission reckoned some changes should be made, such as putting up alcohol prices through taxation, regulating advertising and sponsorship, whacking the drinking age up to 20 and reducing bar opening hours. Only some of those recommendations were actually adopted, and we ended up with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, the Local Government (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Act and the Summary Offences (Alcohol Reform) Act that were passed into law in 2012. For better or for worse, the drinking age stayed at 18 and alcohol prices weren’t increased through tax (yet).
However, the changes we still have today are that parents must give consent for minors to be supplied with alcohol, on-licence premises (bars, clubs and restaurants) must close between 4am and 8am and off-licence premises (supermarkets) must close between 11pm and 7am. The most exciting of these changes was that local councils are empowered to make policies on opening hours and ban liquor outlets from certain areas. So we ended up with the LAP. Thanks, Law Commission!
Okay, so there’s a LAP. Sweet! The DCC’s proposing to change it. This has actually been an ongoing thing, with the DCC trying to get some changes off the ground a couple of years ago. However, when that was initially proposed for review, a lot of the proposal was focused on the student area. According to Dr Kim Cousins, a senior teaching fellow at the University of Otago specialising in alcohol-related harm, “some of us – myself included – pointed out that alcohol related harm isn’t only a student issue.” As such, the changes were criticised for a lack of broader community consultation, and now we’re here. According to Kim, the current proposed changes reflect a wider response to community concerns.
So, what are some of the changes? Well, town is largely safe. On-licence venues in the CBD (ie. town clubs) will still be able to trade until 3am, but there will be a one-way door at 2:30am. However, all other zones will now need to close at 1am. But don’t expect any new liquor stores to be opening up in North or South D anytime soon – those are under freeze for high deprivation areas. The New Zealand Deprivation Index is a small‑area socioeconomic deprivation measure that ranks neighbourhoods into deciles from 1 (least deprived) to 10 (most deprived), using Census variables such as income, employment, housing, education, and living conditions. North D is a 10 – probably thanks to the low incomes, renting, unemployment and shit flats. And the lack of education, though students are working on that. South Dunedin is also really high on the index. In Dunedin, there is more than twice the off-licence density in areas of higher deprivation compared to lower deprivation areas. There are 0.81 off-licences versus 0.36 per 1,000 people, and the DCC says research shows a “strong relationship between outlet density and alcohol-related harm, particularly in higher deprivation areas and among younger populations, both relevant to Dunedin.” Yikes.
Additionally, new off-licences or on-licences in the CBD or Centre Zones (pretty much everywhere else) won’t be granted if they’re close to a ‘sensitive facility’: “places likely to attract young people under the legal purchase age, or where certain parts of the population may be vulnerable and so exposure to alcohol should be minimised.” That looks like proximity to the new bus hub, and whether there are addiction services, places of worship, or marae nearby. For the Central Business District and Centre Zones, the distance restriction for new on-licences will be 100 metres and the distance restriction for new off-licences will be 200 metres. Applications for other types of new on-licence premises, like restaurants or cafes, will be considered on a “case-by-case basis” in line with the proposed LAP.
In terms of other changes that students will definitely notice, the DCC wants to have some discretionary (meaning that they can do it if they want) conditions for off-licence suppliers. Unless there is a “good reason not to”, the District Licensing Committee should consider imposing limits on single-unit alcohol sales and put restrictions on "buy now, pay later" purchasing schemes (no more Afterpay on the box). Furthermore, they’d be able to restrict sales in glass containers “where there is evidence of alcohol-related harm involving broken glass in the locality, a sufficient evidential link between the licensed premises and that harm, is likely to reduce the harm, is proportionate, and that the benefits outweigh the impacts on consumers and licensees.” Bit of a mouthful, but we get it. Critic dreams of an Ōtepoti where we can roam barefoot.
With her research background in alcohol-related harm, Dr Kim explained to Critic that alcohol regulation works by targeting three points: availability, price and treatment for addiction or dependency. The LAP changes basically target availability by making consuming alcohol trickier: if the liquor store is open in a shorter window, you’ll need to plan purchasing it in advance instead of spontaneously grabbing it. If a gig now starts at 9pm for a 1am close, you’re less likely to drink so much that you fuck out and don’t make it. The availability window for alcohol to be supplied and harm to occur basically gets narrower. In a study of students carried out by Kim and Emeritus Professor Jennie Connor, the number of drinking locations and getting drunker than expected were strongly associated with risk of an alcohol adverse ‘event’ (unintentional injury, assault, unsafe sex, sexual assault and drink-driving/riding). The total number of drinks, drinking later and into the morning, and drinking with close friends were also associated with increased risk. Basically, a lack of planning (like unintentionally getting too rinsed or ending up at a bunch of random flats when you don’t have plans) can increase the risk of harm. As such, the study concluded that strategies to reduce the duration and volume of alcohol consumption, including earlier closing of licensed premises, should be considered.
Dr Fairleigh Gilmour, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, thought that the answer to reducing alcohol-related harm could be more behavioural. “There is evidence for reducing harm through environmental changes. And those tend to be based broadly on ideas around rational choice theory,” Fairleigh explained. Rational choice theory suggests that if you have motivated actors, attractive targets and a lack of guardianship, you’ll have higher rates of whatever issue is at hand. “For young people, particularly attractive targets tend to be ready-mixed drinks, but also the unsupervised nature, the lack of guardianship, which leads to higher rates of alcohol related harm,” Fairleigh noted. Guardianship doesn’t stop at police presence, but rather competent security staff and bartenders who have responsible service of alcohol training. It’s for that reason that Fairleigh isn’t keen to see anyone out of licensed premises any earlier. “You’re going to have the most harm in unsupervised Castle Street flat parties.”
Dr Kim was also keen to chat about what underpins a proposed discretionary limitations on single-unit alcohol sales. It’s actually a harm reduction tactic that exists already, but with cigarettes. In countries such as Bali, single cigarettes can be purchased, but that’s been banned forever in Aotearoa. Single-unit sales “increase harm because people who drink really heavily [...] or tend to drink more harmfully or hazardously, tend to also be people with less disposable income. Think young people or heavy drinkers. Single-unit sales benefit young people and heavy drinkers the most because they are the ones who are less likely to be able to buy a whole pack of beer,” Kim explained.
However, Dr Fairleigh called that change “classist” and “paternalistic”. “It does mean that working class people who live paycheck to paycheck are unable to buy a beer after work, because they’re seen as less rational, more vulnerable from deprived areas but therefore not able to make decisions like a ‘normal’ adult can. So that is a very classist way of doing harm reduction,” she explained. “I think we should be very wary of reducing the individual freedoms of working class people for a broader harm reduction approach [...] It doesn’t really address issues. It only applies to poorer people.” Fairleigh noted that the single-unit restriction was something that the DCC had tried to bring in a couple of years ago with the proposal that was more focused on the student area.
When approached with that suggestion, Kim conceded that other communities such as South Dunedin weren’t adequately heard when the single-use restriction was originally floated. “So this time round, they’ve done a lot more work to engage with other communities. [Instead of classism], I would argue it’s also about listening to and giving voice to communities that are often disenfranchised and unheard in our systems [...] It’s not a paternalistic [thing]. It’s looking at the research and the evidence and addressing the problem.” Kim understood that people would have different views on the matter, such as those “on the individual level” who might control their drinking through only buying a couple of single drinks as opposed to a pack. “To that I would counter that part of the issue is that we have inadequate funding and systems to support people who have got addiction problems and who need help. Perhaps those coping mechanisms are things people have come up with themselves because we don’t have better ways of supporting them in their addiction.”
Dr Kim and Dr Fairleigh were on the same page about better coordination between the DCC and night-life venues, though. According to Fairleigh, a lot of international studies have shown that if there is something else to do at the bar, people will drink a little less and have lower rates of harm. She pointed to how New South Wales does their liquor licensing, where live music results in less fees going toward liquor licensing from venues. “It doesn’t mean that there won’t be clubs, but having more options where people can drink and socialise does reduce harm.” From Kim’s perspective, “If the council really wants to not kill the nightlife, they need to be really deliberate [in their changes to the LAP]. They need to acknowledge the impact it’s going to have on the nightlife [...] There needs to be other stuff, like investment in arts or music. This is an opportunity to do that, and support the nighttime economy. Otherwise we’re left with a dead centre.”
Overall, the proposed changes to the LAP highlight a balancing exercise between broader public health measures and individual choices. Whether you’re pro or against more regulation on the way alcohol is consumed and supplied, you should have your say alongside Dr Kim and Dr Fairleigh. Submissions on the proposed changes are open until the 25th of September, and you can send things through on the DCC website. Cheers to that.
Residency, Social Club, and Catacombs were contacted for comment but did not respond in time for our print deadline.
