Will liquor licensing saga repeat?

DEJA vu. Last year Wests Factory Shop, in St Kilda, lost the alcohol offlicence it had held for 50 years, after the Medical Officer of Health and the Dunedin City Council licensing inspector appealed the decision by the Dunedin District Licensing Committee to renew its licence, and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority upheld the appeal, because alcohol sales didn’t generate at least 85% of turnover.

Now the Brockville Four Square minisupermarket, also with an unblemished record of selling alcohol, has applied to renew its offlicence. The police and the MOH don’t oppose it, but the licensing inspector has objected because, he claims, the store doesn’t fit the legal definition of a grocery store contained in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. That’s where things get complicated.

Section 33 of the Act defines a grocery store as a shop that ‘‘has the characteristics normally associated with shops of the kind commonly thought of as grocery shops’’ and where ‘‘a range of food products and other household items is sold’’ but ‘‘the principal business carried on is . . . the sale of food products’’. A ‘‘food product’’ is defined as excluding confectionary, readytoeat prepared food, snack food, and drinks (other than milk) in containers of 1 litre or less.

When the owners applied to renew the licence the turnover from ‘‘food products’’ was 28.64%, tobacco sales 39.50%, ‘‘convenience foods’’ 12%, alcohol 7.06%, and other items 12.80%, so the inspector says the principal business is tobacco sales.

But 74% of the price of tobacco is government tax.

Parliament clearly didn’t intend tax to be taken into account when deciding, from sales revenue, the principal business of the shop — the regulations issued under the Act exclude GST (and Lotteries Commission revenue) from those calculations. But it seems to have overlooked tobacco excise.

If all tax is excluded, then ‘‘food products’’ revenue is 2.4 times that from tobacco. And some of the socalled ‘‘convenience foods’’ could well be classified as ‘‘food products’’: though the shop sells healthy foods, including fruit and vegetables, for many in Brockville (as one of the owners noted) pies are meals, because they’re affordable.

Section 34 of the Act allows offlicences to be issued in areas where the premises allowed under Section 32 wouldn’t be economic. That’s relevant here.

Civis remembers when the Brockville shopping centre comprised many shops, including a butcher and Post Office. Now there’s a chemist, a fish and chip shop, and the Four Square, and that’s it. Brockville is isolated, not on the way to anywhere, and though it may not appear, to the inspector, to be far from the tavern in Kaikorai Valley, for a pensioner, or the man shopping at the Four Square from his wheelchair when Civis patronised it, to make their way down to the valley, and then up again carrying a carton of beer may be impossible. Why shouldn’t Brockville residents be able to have a beer while they watch the rugby, or a glass of wine with a meal?

Though many have been sold off, Brockville still has lots of state houses. So, given the criteria required to qualify for one, it must have many very lowincome families, some without transport, for whom the Four Square is a vital amenity. Geography means such residents are at risk of physical and social isolation, as well as difficulty buying healthy food, if the Four Square closes.

Margins on such businesses are slim. Civis knows nothing of the finances of the Brockville Four Square, but the loss of 7% of revenue might make the shop unviable. That would be an undeserved disaster for the couple who own it, work flat out to operate it, and are likely to have borrowed heavily (did they mortgage their house?) to buy the business three years ago. And for Brockville.

The Brockville Four Square supermarket is vital for its community. The exception allowed by Section 34 of the Act should apply to it. Why didn’t the district inspector recognise this and recommend the licence be renewed? But his rigidity and lack of insight need not be copied by the District Licensing Committee. Let’s hope it renews the offlicence, and that the inspector has the sense not to appeal such a decision.