Why Gisborne Locals Are Pushing Back Against Relaxed Alcohol Rules
The council consulted on excluding 'Sensitive Sites Provisions' in the CBD.
Two-thirds of the public who responded to a Gisborne District Council community consultation have opposed relaxing the local alcohol policy (LAP) rules in the city centre, citing the need to protect schools, marae and sensitive sites from alcohol harm.
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 The application was withdrawn last year.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
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Election meeting to be held
PHOTO: SUPPLIED The Gore District Council is encouraging people to put their hands up for the local body elections and is holding a public meeting to explain what they are all about. Whether you are a potential candidate or just want to understand the process, the council will be hosting an evening tomorrow to answer all your burning questions. Starting at 5.30pm, it will aim to arm prospective candidates with information such as who is eligible to stand, nomination rules, what being a councillor involves and campaign basics. In general, Gore District Māori engagement lead Vanessa Whangapirita (left) and deputy electoral officer Frances Shepherd are also available for any questions regarding October's elections. The council wants to remind the people of Gore: "Don't forget, it's your place. Your vote. Your future."
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
Communities Can't Foot The Bill For Climate Crisis
Te Pāti Māori sends aroha to whānau, and communities impacted by the recent severe weather across Nelson Tasman, Banks Peninsula, Northland and beyond. While dozens of people are still unable to return home, National and Labour are already hinting at a Climate Adaptation plan that would see impacted communities pay for their own recovery. 'These so-called 'once in a lifetime' events are now happening every year. It's only been one year since Wairoa flooded, and a year before that we had Cyclone Gabrielle' said MP for Te Tai Tonga, Tākuta Ferris. 'Communities need more than short-term fixes. They need urgent, sustained investment in both recovery and long-term climate adaption. 'The corporations who are fuelling the climate crisis should be the ones paying for adaptation and recovery – it's not the community's fault that their houses are flooded, why should they have to pay?' Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, says the government's continued failure to resource Māori communities is a symptom of Māori being too resilient. 'What we are seeing today is the perverse consequence of our resilience. When our communities are this resilient, their hardship becomes invisible. 'It is our Māori communities who bear the brunt of these climate disasters-isolated and under-resourced. But despite being the most impacted, they are also the first to respond. 'But this resilience is not new, it is a natural part of our Māori ecosystem, an in-built response born of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and the knowledge that no one else is coming.' Te Pāti Māori will empower Māori to implement our own climate adaptation solutions, we will provide funding to impacted communities, and we will ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Mātauranga Māori form the basis of our climate adaptation strategy. 'Recovery must be driven by those who know their whenua, whakapapa, and communities, not dictated by distant bureaucrats with no connection to the realities on the ground' concluded Ferris.
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights
Every member of the United Nations has pledged to uphold the Declaration. Most have embedded property rights into their constitutions. Property rights are a cornerstone of liberal democracy: a principle of Magna Carta, enshrined in the US Constitution, required for membership in the European Union, affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court and protected in the Australian Constitution. The two major exceptions? Communist states, where the state owns everything – and New Zealand. In 1990, a Labour Government deliberately excluded property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That omission is no accident. It has consequences. Taking property without compensation is not an aberration. It is a recurring feature of New Zealand governance – from settler governments seizing Māori land to modern 'regulatory takings'. Often, Māori land that remains undeveloped is designated as an 'Outstanding Natural Landscape' – in effect, a park – rendering it useless to the owners but still subject to rates. Councils have even sold ancestral Māori land for unpaid rates, often for a fraction of its true value. Now, those who want to continue these regulatory takings urge Māori to oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill – because it lacks a Treaty clause. Yet the bill upholds the Crown's Treaty promise to respect property, restrains the state's claim to unfettered sovereignty, and enforces the citizenship guarantee. It is not only Māori who suffer. Under the Public Works Act, private land is seized for 'public purposes'. Compensation is often delayed or set below market value. Ask the owners of land taken for Transmission Gully or the Waikato Expressway. After the Christchurch earthquakes, homeowners in the red zone were presented with take-it-or-leave-it 'voluntary' buyouts. Those who refused were cut off from basic services. Only years later did the courts rule the red zoning unlawful. These are not historical wrongs. They are present-day injustices. The Regulatory Standards Bill does not create new rights. It simply restates principles that our governments claim to uphold but routinely ignore. Critics say the Cabinet manual offers sufficient protection. But the manual can be amended – or ignored – at the whim of ministers. History shows it often is. The European Union's robust climate policies disprove the notion that property rights and environmental protection are incompatible. The bill should be much stronger. Courts should have the power to strike down legislation that breaches its principles. Governments can ignore it. What message will be sent if the bill is not passed? The critics are not objecting to process. They object to principle. What they oppose is private ownership. Their vision is one of 'collective rights' – where property belongs to the state and citizens live on sufferance. This is not a technical debate. It is a fundamental question: What kind of country do we want to be? The Regulatory Standards Bill proposes six principles that all laws should meet: To most people, this reads like common sense. To the critics, it's dangerous ideology. Our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, sees the bill – as he sees everything – as a management issue: 'Improving the long-term quality of regulation.' But this is not about better drafting. It's about what we believe: individual liberty – or the tyranny of the majority. Opposing the bill are a who's who of the political class: Much of the bureaucracy, a coterie of activist academics and Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Their goal? Unfettered state power. Christopher Luxon wants efficient government. But the real question is not whether government should be efficient. It is whether its power should be limited. If the bill is defeated it will be a licence for the state by regulatory taking to expropriate property; to trample on the principles we helped draft in 1948 and pledged to uphold. It is time we practised what we preach.
