Criticism ‘breach of our democracy’

Todd Stephenson (left) and Miles Anderson.
Todd Stephenson (left) and Miles Anderson.
PHOTOS: SUPPLIED / ODT FILES
PHOTOS: SUPPLIED / ODT FILES
A liquor control lobbyist says members of Parliament might as well approach judges at murder trials if they think it fine to criticise submissions made to a district licence hearing.

Act New Zealand’s Todd Stephenson and National’s Miles Anderson have criticised Health New Zealand (HNZ) for its submission on a proposed liquor store in Lake Hawea.

The two MPs said the liquor store had every right to apply to build in the area.

Mr Stephenson said HNZ had bigger issues to worry about than wading into a hyper-local decision around a single bottle shop.

Mr Anderson said HNZ should be using its time more effectively and questioned whether HNZ had supplied any new information in its submission.

Keyrouz Holdings Ltd, which operates other liquor and hospitality outlets in Central Otago and Queenstown Lakes, has applied for the Queenstown Lakes District for the store.

There were a record 538 submissions to the application.

M’aider Group senior researcher Steve Stucki, of Dunedin, contacted the Otago Daily Times yesterday and said HNZ under legislation had to act and be part of the process.

"Health New Zealand, if you go look at the [Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012] Act, has a statutory duty to report by the agencies," he said.

"Health New Zealand is simply doing its job. It’s doing what it’s required to under the law."

"MPs Anderson and Stevenson, the question is, would they go and harass a judge for a district court, high court, court of appeal, for a court case that hadn’t been heard yet? Because that’s effectively what they’re doing. The DLC [district licensing committee] is quasi-judicial. It’s got a judicial capacity.

"If there was an upcoming murder trial and the MPs were to badger the judge before the trial had even started, before the evidence had been heard, it would be a major breach of our democracy."

He said the two MPs campaigning against HNZ was the same — a major breach of our democracy.

How was the DLC supposed to weigh up the case if it did not have any input for agencies, he asked.

The object of the Act was to minimise alcohol-related harm and that is what HNZ was doing.

It was another example of the government favouring corporates over community voices.

If the MPs wanted to be heard they could be witnesses for the applicant.

He said HNZ did thousands of DLC applications every year and this was no different. Agencies strengthened the community voice at hearings.

"In most alcohol licensing cases, community objections tend to have little effect if the agencies aren’t involved."

Submissions may lead to conditions put on the operation of the store, which he said many agencies wanted rather than trying to shut the store down.

Mr Stucki had been advising Students for Sensible Drug Policy over the past few years.

A hearing was due to take place from October 8-10 but was called off last Friday because of scheduling conflicts.

The medical officer of health, police and the licensing inspector of the local council were three agencies which must be notified and asked to comment on an application for a liquor licence under the Act.

steve.hepburn@odt.co.nz

 

 

Advertisement