Why Gisborne Locals Are Pushing Back Against Relaxed Alcohol Rules
However, some businesses and individuals are backing a rule change to help revitalise the city as they fear it is becoming a 'ghost town'.
Gisborne District Council consulted on excluding 'Sensitive Sites Provisions' within its central business district after adopting its current local alcohol policy in June 2024.
Sensitive site rules stop new liquor licences being issued – aside from cafes, restaurants, and special licences – within 150m of sites such as marae, schools, spiritual facilities and recreational areas.
Rongowhakaata Iwi Trust chair Connie Maynard said the proposal to remove the provisions within the CBD was 'disappointing' as marae were protected under the policy.
Rongowhakaata had the mana whenua iwi rights over the land consulted on and opposed the amendments, she told the alcohol policy hearings on Tuesday morning.
For Māori, the issues with alcohol began with the landing of Captain James Cook (his second voyage here) in 1773, Maynard said.
'For whatever reason, we latched on to alcohol and grew to have a dependency on it. It continues to disproportionately and negatively impact Māori.'
The council proposed to either amend and remove the Sensitive Sites Provisions from the CBD or maintain the status quo.
During the consultation, which ran for a month from February 28, the council received 207 submissions - 137 were in support of keeping the provisions, 69 wanted them removed and one submitter was unsure, according to the council hearing submissions panel report.
Kura Kaupapa Māori O Hawaiki Hou moved on to a premise at the end of Gisborne's main road in 2019.
In 2023, the group appealed a new liquor licence granted to Anjuna Beer Garden, a few doors down from the kura. The application was withdrawn last year.
Te Amohare Hauiti-Parapara, submitting on behalf of the kura, said that opposing the application was 'emotionally taxing'.
As a whānau-led kura, she said she represented the kura's whānau, who strongly supported retaining the current rules which were a positive step in the application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
'Particularly the principle of active protection of a taonga and our future tribal base, as defined by the Waitangi Tribunal.'
Under the option to relax the rules, the District Licensing Committee (DLC) would also have the discretion to grant exemptions to the sensitive sites rule for applications outside the city.
Hauiti-Parapara said the proposed change would directly impact their kura and put other kura outside the city at risk.
'Removing the existing protections risks exposing our tamariki to the promotion of alcohol in an environment that should be focused on nurturing their wellbeing,' she said.
Submitter Kristen Maynard, who was in favour of keeping the restrictions, said few licence applications had been rejected under the Sensitive Sites rule.
Robbie McCann, father of Ben McCann, whose licence for Anjuna Beer Garden was appealed by the Kura, also submitted.
He was one of two submissions presenting at the hearing in support of removing the rule.
'Without commercial interest, you won't have a city.'
McCann said there were 34 vacant buildings on the main street.
'We're very close to a ghost town ... it's a crisis situation for building owners and business owners alike'
He noted that during early engagement, 82% disagreed with the provisions while 18% agreed.
This engagement process received 62 submissions and 1067 votes through the council's 'Participate' platform and Facebook page.
McCann said he believed the council had not targeted to get the full spread of people during this round of public consultation.
'I only found out by fluke ... that's why you've got a little bit of a difference this time.'
Off-licences such as bottle stores had a greater risk of creating alcohol harm than on-licences – such as bars – because it was in a controlled environment, McCann said.
During his submission, police officer Isaac Ngatai, who has been the alcohol prevention officer in the region for 14 years, disagreed with off-licences being the main issue during his submission.
'Over 70% of the incidents that we deal with are alcohol harm-related. That's not just from off-licences; that's from people returning home from on-licences,' he said.
Resident John Wells presented his submission in support of removing the sensitive site rules.
Wells said he had nothing against sensitive sites in the CBD, but they should operate under the same conditions and terms as any other business.
'CBD means 'central business district' ... that is where businesses are supposed to be,' he said.
According to the council report, the option to keep restrictions was supported by Tri-Agencies, which encompasses NZ Police, the National Public Health Service and the Chief Licensing Inspectorate.
Several local community groups, as well as Tūrehou Māori Wardens Trust, Te Aroha Kanarahi Trust, Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki Trust and individuals, also gave written submissions in favour of keeping the current provisions.
Several businesses and individuals submitted in support of removing the rule.
Reasons provided included revitalising the CBD, supporting businesses and providing more controlled environments for individuals, the report said.
Council sustainable futures director Joanna Noble said if the hearings committee made a recommendation, the adoption of the amendments would take place at a meeting on May 8.
- LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Watch live: Submitters speak at Regulatory Standards Bill hearing day 3
The Regulatory Standards Bill is up for its third day of hearings at select committee. Among the prominent submitters are the Parliamentary Commmissioner for the Environment, the Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Rail and Maritime and PSA unions, and former MPs Jan Logie and Marian Hobbs. ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says the bill aims to improve lawmaking and regulation, but its critics - who make up the majority of submitters - argue it does the opposite, and ignores Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The process concludes on Thursday, with the select committee public hearings packed into a single week during recess, when Parliament is not sitting and most politicians return to their electorates. Watch today's submissions in the livestream above at the top of this page. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Focus on what youth need and say, not censorship debate
Claims of censorship overshadowed what Youth MPs actually said, Josh Henderson writes. Youth Parliament 2025 involved 143 people from various backgrounds and communities across New Zealand, and it truly shone through with the quality of speeches, questions and input all around the parliamentary premises. Let me be clear, I don't have an opinion about this supposed censorship of our speeches. A lot of us don't. We came here to represent our communities, our livelihoods and future career pathways, and that's what we did. The reality of it is, the claimed "censorship" was realistically just an error on the Ministry of Youth Development's part, which they have now admitted. The error made by the ministry was brought to their attention by the media and they have admitted fault and I am sure they will work to fix that for next time. That should have been the end of it. There was no need to denigrate and bring down the Youth Parliament like a group of Youth MPs did at a press conference. It got so bad, the media were questioning whether they should wrap it up or not. What happened that day on the Parliament steps was not the Youth Parliament most of us were in and saw. We weren't here to engage in a debate on Parliament's steps as to whether or not there was censorship at this event. We were here to listen and speak. We heard some absolutely phenomenal speeches across the chamber, varying from mental health, education, farming, rural communities, Māori and Pasifika rights, and many many more. Young people were given a voice, and they were not heard. An event which was supposed to give young people a say, a seat at the table, a voice for their communities, was turned on its head. The media was focused on an idea of censorship that was simply a mistake. There was no coverage of the important issues affecting young rangatahi today. To clarify the censorship debacle, as I was one of the Youth MPs who did have their original speech edited, I was absolutely confused at first. The changes weren't making much sense to me, and being forced to say "I believe" or "In my opinion" in every sentence was not the power my speech was going to hold. I took it into my own hands, and emailed the ministry seeking clarification. I received the same copy-paste email that was made mention of in the first press conference in return, that told me the changes were not mandatory and instead up to me. I chose to adopt some of the changes they made, and left the rest as it was. The media attention on this issue of censorship really tainted the experience for a number of Youth MPs who wanted to have their voices heard, and put together incredibly powerful speeches in the debating chamber. I put these press conferences to the back of my head, and actually listened to what Youth MPs had to say about what matters most to them. I heard an incredibly impassioned speech on mental health from Taiko Edwards-Haruru, from Gustav Schwind on bullying, Terangitūkiwaho Edwards on Māori environmental rights and Jorja Simmonds on homelessness. Add to that the speeches from Daniel Matthews and Fletcher Brown on education and trades, from Neeve Smith and Sylvie MacFarlane on farming and rural healthcare, and Isabella White on sexual assault, plus so many other great speeches that I'd run out of words to name, you have one of the most talented and passionate Youth Parliaments in history. Do you notice a trend here though? Have you heard about any of those speeches? Have you seen any of them in the mainstream media? No? I wonder why. Youth Parliament 2025 was overshadowed by this overarching idea of censorship, leaving out the speeches that put questions into our heads, leaving out the ideas that made us think, and leaving out the people who put the time and effort into being in Wellington and speaking out about what mattered most to them. Young people have historically never had a seat at the table, they've rarely been represented in Parliament and cannot vote until they're 18. Youth Parliament is realistically their only opportunity to have their say and express what they need to thrive and strive to succeed. If that chance is being overshadowed, they don't get heard. I would hope the media look at this and start to push for coverage of Youth MPs' speeches and move past the censorship issue of an event that has now ended. These Youth MPs are returning to their communities to continue their work, so it's only fair to give them the right coverage on the issues that matter to all of us young people. • Josh Henderson is the Youth MP for Gerry Brownlee.
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trying to make official information request add up
It must have been the timing. How else to explain the lack of outrage from our law-and-order-obsessed government about Statistics New Zealand deciding not to fine anyone for not taking part in the 2023 census? The decision was announced a few days after the 2023 election so perhaps our soon-to-be Beehive dwellers had bigger things on their mind. In the normal course of events, between 30 and 60 people are usually prosecuted for refusing to participate in a census, an offence with a maximum fine of $2000. Such prosecutions focused on those who were threatening to census staff and those who actively encouraged others not to participate. But after the 2023 census, it was discovered the requirements of the request for data section of the Data and Statistics Act had not been met, so there was a risk charges would have been challenged. Not a good look for a department we would expect to act with precision at every turn. It was a small illustration of the shemozzle censuses have become here. In 2018 we had the failed experiment of the online census and in 2023 costs ballooned again amid other issues including whether people's privacy was properly protected in some instances. However, taking the step of abolishing the traditional census in favour of, as yet not fully explained (or costed as far as I can tell) gathering of administrative data and surveys, is an extreme response. It might be a relief to some to know they will be no longer obliged to fill out the five-yearly questionnaire. We might have sometimes struggled to find the forms days after they had been delivered and decipher them through the tea/coffee stains, muttered about the purpose of some questions and, in my case, been stumped trying to explain something as basic as the rooms in my house. But do we really know the impact of not having such detailed door-to-door gathering of information? Information from the traditional census has been used to help decide how resources should be distributed in health, education, and other major government agencies, and for determining electoral boundaries. Questions have been raised about the information to be used in the next review of boundaries, due in 2028, when the revamped census will not eventuate until 2030. Authorities on matters statistical, including the redoubtable Len Cook (former chief New Zealand and United Kingdom statistician) and Massey University sociologist Professor Paul Spoonley have expressed serious reservations about the census scrapping and the likely quality of the alternative. Mr Cook has gone as far as calling for an independent review of the census change by the Royal Society of New Zealand to assess the scientific integrity and validity of the new approach. Among concerns are that Māori and Pasifika, undercounted in the last census, and low socio-economic and rural areas will be adversely affected by the changes. We do not know what gaps there will be in the administrative data — information already collected by government agencies. Details about anybody who rarely comes into contact with a government agency will be scant. Will it be a case of "not knowing what you don't know"? Those of us with experience of wrestling information out of government agencies might wonder how good all of their systems are at collecting data accurately and passing it on as might be required. A recent experience of mine at Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, involving the Official Information Act, is a case in point. I have been waiting since early April for information about waiting times for urgent, non-urgent and surveillance colonoscopy waiting times at Southern, after I pointed out they were absent from a web tool listing all other areas' waiting times. In late May I was told the data had not been submitted after issues following transition to a new patient information care system. Late last month, still no joy. I was told responding to my request had "taken much longer than anticipated, for which we offer our sincere apologies. The time taken is not what we aspire to." Good grief. In the new-style census, annual surveys are supposed to fill in some of the blanks from the administrative data, but we do not know what questions these will ask. It is unlikely sample sizes will be large enough to drill down fully into small communities. Will those people reluctant to participate in the census because they did not trust the system, be any more enthusiastic about these surveys? It seems the surveys will be compulsory to complete, if you are chosen, and subject to the up to $2000 fine if you refuse. If the new system turns out to be a dud and about as reliable as commentators trying to guess the score of the next All Blacks' test, what next? • Elspeth McLean is a Dunedin writer.
