Written by Yeonsoo Son
The Government is fond of telling us that it is ‘tough on crime’. Stricter sentencing laws, harsher bail conditions, and new restrictions on gang insignia all signal a zero-tolerance stance towards disorder and harm (Akoorie, 2025). However, this hard-line rhetoric falters when confronted with alcohol—the very substance that fuels billions in social, economic, and health costs each year in Aotearoa New Zealand. In its latest round of reforms, Cabinet has chosen not to confront this reality but to sidestep it. This article contends that such decisions expose a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Government’s agenda: framing themselves as guardians of public safety while putting profit over people.
The Reforms in Question
The Government has framed the reforms as an exercise in “cutting unnecessary red tape” (McKee, 2025). That politically convenient phrase suggests that what is being removed are trivial bureaucratic burdens with no meaningful consequences. In reality, however, many of the proposed changes read as concessions to industry interests, prioritising convenience and commercial gain at the expense of public safety.
Consider the decision to allow hairdressers and barbers to serve “small amounts” of alcohol without a license (McKee, 2025). At first glance, the idea may seem harmless, even glamorous: a glass of wine with a haircut. Yet, such framing obscures two fundamental issues. First, there is no statutory clarity on what constitutes a “small amount”. Second, without licensing requirements, there is no meaningful mechanism to enforce limits or accountability. Licensing exists precisely because alcohol is not an ordinary commodity like tea or coffee. It is a psychoactive drug with addictive properties and profound social harms. Stripping these safeguards trivialises the very rationale underpinning alcohol regulation and the risks it seeks to mitigate (Public Health Communication Centre, 2025).
Equally troubling is the proposed exemption permitting alcohol to be sold more freely at nationally televised events. While presented as a pragmatic effort to enhance the celebratory atmosphere surrounding cultural and sporting occasions, the reform risks entrenching alcohol as a defining feature of national identity and sporting life. Moreover, the addition of alcohol to an already conflict-prone environment created by large crowds and sporting rivalries only magnifies the likelihood of aggressive and antisocial behaviour (Pradhan et al., 2019). The fact that the government is willing to loosen restrictions in settings where harm is most predictable is deeply concerning.
The Scale of Alcohol Harm
These reforms may be easier to defend if alcohol were a benign consumer product. However, in Aotearoa New Zealand, alcohol is embedded in our culture and comes at an extraordinary social, economic, and health cost (Hapai Te Hauora, n.d.). According to the Ministry of Health, supported by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, alcohol harms drain the country of an estimated $9.1 billion a year. That includes $2.1 billion in societal costs from road crashes, $281 million linked to intimate partner violence caused by alcohol use disorder, and nearly $4 billion in lost productivity, from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder to workplace absenteeism and crime (Hogan, Hamill & Dunn, 2025).
These numbers are not abstractions. They represent children born with preventable health conditions, families fractured by violence, and communities grieving lives lost on the roads. Importantly, alcohol-related harm rarely stops with the immediate victim—it radiates outward, creating intergenerational cycles of trauma. Children raised in households where alcohol misuse is common are more likely to struggle with addiction and violence themselves (Hapai Te Hauora, n.d.). The true cost of alcohol harm, therefore, cannot only be measured in today’s statistics but also in the futures it foreshadows.
Necessary or Contradiction?
Against this backdrop, the Government’s reforms are difficult to reconcile with its proclaimed stance on law and order. Ministers present themselves as champions of victims’ rights, justifying harsher sentences and tougher policing in the name of public safety. On the other hand, they appear to ignore the fact that alcohol is one of the most significant drivers of crime in New Zealand. It accounts for a third of all violence, a third of all family violence and half of all sexual assaults and homicides, with more than 300 alcohol-related offences committed every day (Action Point, 2012). Given this, it is incoherent to demand harsher sentences for offenders while simultaneously loosening the conditions under which alcohol circulates.
Our history further highlights this contradiction. Deregulation in the late 1980s and 1990s—introducing wine and beer in supermarkets, Sunday trading, and 24-hour licensing—dramatically expanded alcohol availability. The Liquor Licensing Authority later reported the “irrefutable consequences” that longer trading hours produced, including migration to late-night venues, heightened intoxication, and intensified strain on policing and health services. The key message is that when restrictions were loosened, harm followed (Casswell & Maxwell, 2005). To repeat this experiment is to ignore the evidence written plainly in our past.
Whose Interests Are Being Served?
At this point, we must ask ourselves whose interests these reforms truly serve. Proponents argue licensing laws are outdated, overly restrictive, and burdensome for businesses (McKee, 2025). They stress regulatory flexibility as essential to supporting entrepreneurship and consumer choice (McKee, 2025). However, can we truly justify prioritising industry profit and administrative convenience over the human costs of violence, trauma, and road deaths? A government exists to protect its people, not profit margins. Citizens are not ‘red tape’. If policymaking is to reflect the public interest genuinely, reforms must place harm reduction and community wellbeing above all else.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this alcohol-related harm is not about partisan politics, but principle. Nor is it a matter of ideology; it is instead based on evidence, and the evidence is unequivocal. The cost borne by Aotearoa New Zealand comes in billions of dollars, families broken, and lives cut short. To dismiss regulation as “unnecessary red tape” is to trivialise the human suffering behind the statistics.
If Ministers wish to claim the mantle of public safety heroes, consistency is the very least the public should demand. Reforms must be guided by the principle that public health and safety take precedence. Anything less signals an agenda focused not on protecting people, but on safeguarding profit and political expediency. This is a contradiction we cannot afford to ignore, and a future New Zealand cannot afford to build.
References
Action Point. (n.d.). Alcohol harm to others. Action Point. https://www.actionpoint.org.nz/alcohol-harm-to-others
Akoorie, N. (2025, June 29). Sentencing reforms introduced cap potential discounts and bring new aggravating factors. Radio New Zealand. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/565463/sentencing-reforms-introduced-cap-potential-discounts-and-bring-new-aggravating-factors
Casswell, S., & Maxwell, A. (2005). What works to reduce alcohol-related harm and why aren’t the policies more popular? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, (25), 118-141. https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj25/what-works-reduce-alcohol-related-harm-25-pages-118-141.html
Hapai Te Hauroa. (n.d.) Government reforms to improve alcohol regulation. Hapai Te Hauroa. https://hapai.co.nz/alcohol-and-other-drugs/
Hogan, S., Hamill, D., & Dunn, T. (2024). Costs of alcohol harms in New Zealand (Report prepared for the Ministry of Health). New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2024-06/costs-of-alcohol-harms-in-new-zealand-2may24-v2.pdf
McKee, N. (2025, August 28). Government reforms to improve alcohol regulation. Beehive. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reforms-improve-alcohol-regulation
Pradhan, S., Lee, N. A., Snycerski, S., & Laraway, S. (2019). Alcoholics Fanonymous: The relationships between reasons for drinking, aggression, and team identification in sports fans. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(4), 626–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1674904
Shields, E., Wright, K., Borland, A., Connor, J., Randerson, S., & Maynard, K. (2025, May 12). New Zealanders strongly support policies to curb alcohol harm – will government listen? Public Health Communication Centre. https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/new-zealanders-strongly-support-policies-curb-alcohol-harm-will-government-listen
