Summary
Proposed amendments to the law governing the sale of alcohol will increase alcohol availability and reduce community influence over local alcohol decisions, leading to greater harm in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).
Alcohol is NZ’s most harmful drug, with wide-ranging impacts on individuals, whānau and society, and disproportionate harm experienced by Māori. The current legislative framework already contributes to these harms.
If passed, the recently introduced Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill would unpick already weak alcohol legislation, making alcohol even more available in our communities. It would reduce public voice and free expression of community views.
The Bill has been welcomed by the alcohol industry, raising questions about who the Bill serves, and who will benefit from the proposed changes to the legislation.
Consultation on the Bill is underway, with submissions open until Thursday 14 May 2026.
This Briefing outlines concerns about the proposed legislation to amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The changes would make alcohol easier to sell and access, while also making it harder for communities to have their say on the local provision of alcohol. Taken together, these changes will lead to increased alcohol harm in NZ.
Alcohol is NZ’s most harmful drug
Alcohol is intoxicating, addictive, toxic, and causes cancer, but its use is embedded in many of our cultures and widely accepted or normalised. Alongside its social roles, alcohol is responsible for a wide range of physical, psychological, social and economic harms to consumers, their families and wider society. Overall, it is NZ’s most harmful drug.1 The impacts of alcohol use are experienced disproportionally by Māori in NZ, who are twice as likely to die from an alcohol-related cause as non-Māori.2,3.
Despite our sustained high level of alcohol harm and inequity, the use of effective alcohol policies in NZ compares poorly to many high-income jurisdictions.4 The package of evidence-based alcohol policies to reduce alcohol harm and inequities promoted as ‘best buys’ by the World Health Organization (WHO) includes improved controls on availability of alcohol (see the Appendix for more detail). WHO also strongly advocates for the exclusion of industry from policymaking.
New Bill unpicks already weak protections against alcohol harm
The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill introduced by Associate Minister Nicole McKee on 16 March 2026 proposes many changes to NZ’s alcohol legislation.
Viewed on its own, each proposed change may seem minor. However, taken together, they undo the already meagre protections currently offered by our alcohol laws to restrict the availability of alcohol in our communities.
How the Bill increases alcohol availability
- Allows certain restaurants to obtain an off-licence (ie, to sell takeaway alcohol of any kind and quantity).
- Allows clubs to obtain an on-licence to serve the public, not just members.
- Allows hairdressers and barbers to serve alcohol without a licence.
- Allows extended trading hours for ‘major televised events’.
- Fails to require all alcohol companies to check ID and intoxication on delivery of alcohol.
How the Bill silences communities
- Limits objections to licence applications or renewals to only those living or working in the same council area, or within one kilometre of the proposed licensed premises.
- Allows licence applicants to respond to objections.
- Makes it very difficult for communities to reduce the number of licences in their neighbourhood, through diminishing the power of local alcohol policies.
Increasing availability leads to increased harm
NZ already has very high levels of alcohol availability.5 Allowing certain restaurants to obtain an off-licence will further increase proliferation of off-licences in our neighbourhoods. The criterion for a restaurant being able to apply for an off-licence would be the sale of food or non-alcoholic drinks prepared onsite. This low barrier to entry may mean we see more and more restaurants viewing this as a lucrative option, particularly if the primary business is struggling. For example, there are approximately 8,174 on-licences across the country compared with around 3,914 off-licences.6 Each off-licence would offer takeaway alcohol to be consumed away from monitored environments – in people’s homes, public spaces, and other private settings. Every off-licence can also automatically deliver alcohol anywhere in the country.
The proposed changes would also require identification (ID) and intoxication checks only for rapid delivery companies (ie, alcohol delivered within two hours from being ordered), leaving most deliveries unregulated. Currently, there is no requirement to verify ID or ensure alcohol is handed to a person. Research from Auckland shows that almost 73% of alcohol deliveries involved no ID check and of these, almost half were left unattended.7 Rapid delivery companies performed better, with UberEats and DoorDash checking ID on every delivery. Other providers, including supermarkets, showed lower compliance, indicating broader regulation is needed. The proposed changes will not address this gap.
The Bill would also allow hairdressers and barbers to serve alcohol, of any strength, without a licence and with little oversight (hairdressers no longer need to be inspected by councils or even registered). This raises safety concerns for clients, staff, and children on-site. For people managing addiction or trying to reduce their drinking, this could create additional barriers in everyday environments, such as getting a haircut. We hear from people struggling with addiction that even buying their weekly groceries and avoiding alcohol is a struggle they have to manage – now, navigating the process of getting a haircut may also need to be a consideration.
Furthermore, this presents an alarmingly slippery slope. Associate Minister McKee has indicated that future changes may include a greater range of businesses.8 Expanding the alcohol environment into further settings will not just lead to modest increases in consumption but to further normalisation of alcohol, where alcohol becomes seen as ubiquitous and a normal part of our lives.
With alcohol easier to sell, who benefits?
It is no surprise that when asked about the feedback to this Bill, Associate Minister McKee only listed high support from the alcohol industry.9 The alcohol industry has been publicly lobbying for the changes proposed in this Bill for some time.10 Their inclusion raises clear questions about whose interests are being prioritised, and whether the resulting legislation will serve public health or further entrench alcohol-related harm in NZ.
Silencing communities and undermining local decision-making
It is communities that bear the harm from alcohol (especially people outside of the drinker).11 Independent polling shows high levels of public support for a range of policy protections.12
This Bill aims to restrict who can object to an alcohol licence, whittling this down to only those living in or with an office in the territorial authority (TA), or within one kilometre of the licence premises. The one-kilometre option is intended to cover licences situated near the border of a TA; however, it might also present opportunities for alcohol industry lawyers to argue that the one-kilometre limit should apply for other licences too.
Under current legislation, only 4.5% of licences are objected to and less than 0.4% are being declined. This change aims to cut that further. For example, it will exclude people who have moved temporarily overseas, people with holiday homes, people sharing custody of a child but living outside of the TA, mana whenua and those with whakapapa links to the area, and national organisations with interests or clients in the area (such as the Salvation Army). Additionally, the task of checking whether each objector meets the new requirements will fall on councils, increasing their administrative burden and compliance costs.
Communities have the option (through a Local Alcohol Policy) to reduce the number of alcohol outlets in a neighbourhood. However, this Bill locks the numbers in at current levels. This weakens local alcohol policies, which under the proposed changes could only be used to decline new licences, and not existing ones, no matter how at odds with community preferences they may be.
Furthermore, given that local alcohol policies are designed to empower local governments and communities with decision-making around the provision of alcohol, this proposed change is another example of central government hindering local democracy and decision-making.
What this Briefing adds
- A newly introduced Bill would further normalise alcohol use and increase its availability if passed. Increased alcohol availability leads to greater harm.
- Proposed changes would further restrict communities’ ability to object to alcohol licence applications.
- Licensing committees will lose their ability to reduce the number of licences in areas in line with community preferences.
Implications for policy and practice, covering policy, practice, surveillance, and research
- Communities should be able to shape their environment, which includes access to and exposure to alcohol.
- Those impacted by alcohol-related harm, especially people living with addiction, children, and young people, need to have their voices heard and be centred in any policies and legislation to do with alcohol.
Authors details
Sarah Sneyd, member of Te Rōpū Apaarangi Waipiro, Health Coalition Aotearoa Alcohol Policy Expert Panel
Emma Shields (NZRD), member of Te Rōpū Apaarangi Waipiro, Health Coalition Aotearoa Alcohol Policy Expert Panel
Dr Hemi (James) Enright, Ngā Puhi, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Ruanui, Public Health Medicine and GP Registrar
Prof Emerita Jennie Connor, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka| University of Otago, member of Te Rōpū Apaarangi Waipiro, Health Coalition Aotearoa Alcohol Policy Expert Panel
Appendix: WHO Best Buys
The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the following approaches as ‘best buys’,13 and more recently as ‘quick buys’,14 recognising their potential to deliver immediate public health benefits.
- Affordability: Increase excise taxes on alcoholic beverages
- Availability: Enact and enforce restrictions on the physical availability of retailed alcohol (via reduced hours of sale)
- Advertising: Enact and enforce bans or comprehensive restrictions on exposure to alcohol advertising (across multiple types of media).
