A decision refusing an application by a Queenstown business to deliver alcohol in the same manner as food could have far reaching effects.

Yesterday’s (Tuesday February 9) decision by the Queenstown Lakes District Licensing Committee to decline Drinks on Q’s application to supply alcohol for on-demand home delivery, even though three similar licences have been granted elsewhere in the country, sets a precedent in this district.

Drinks on Q, which was established last year by Food on Q owners Daniel Taiaroa and Daniel Sykes, applied for a ‘remote-sellers off-licence’ with the intention to sell alcohol via a website for instant delivery. 

Food on Q, which offers instant delivery of food from a variety of Queenstown restaurants, receives between 700 to 1000 on-line orders for food a week.

Daniel Taiaroa, who is a director of a number of bars including Lalaland Lounge Bar in Wanaka, told the committee Food on Q received numerous requests from people ordering meals asking for a bottle of wine to go with it.

“Having a restaurant prepared meal with a bottle of locally sourced wine without leaving the house is a fantastic service,” he said.

The application initially attracted opposition from the police and a medical officer of health. The medical officer withdrew her opposition after the application was modified to ensure deliveries were only to homes not public places; the hours of operation were reduced; only locally produced wines and beers would be sold; and there would be more vigorous staff training for delivery drivers.

The police were concerned that issuing a licence would lead to an alternative way for people to purchase alcohol, particularly those who were already too intoxicated to go out and purchase more supplies from an off-licence. 

“We foresee that people at a party or gathering will use this as a means to have more alcohol delivered to them when they have run out of the alcohol….”, the police said. A police representative did not attend the hearing to support this statement, however.

In summing up the application, the committee chairman Judge Bill Unwin said the application required the committee to form a view whether granting the application would increase the risk of alcohol related harm and/or whether the supply of alcohol will be undertaken safely and responsibly. 

The committee’s conclusion was the ability to order alcohol and have it home delivered “on demand” would increase the risk of alcohol related harm and the applicants’ proposal did not go far enough to ensure that such a risk was minimised.

Even though the applicants advised deliveries would only be made to customers who were sober and had legal identification, Judge Unwin said the committee did not believe the supply of the alcohol would be undertaken safely or responsibly.

He said the applicants viewed alcohol as just another commodity; they did not appear concerned about how much alcohol was going to be supplied as long as the person who ordered it was over 18 and sober. 

“If the company was serious about minimising the potential harm as much as possible, it could have suggested conditions such as restricting each order to a bottle of wine or six bottles of beer, and only to be delivered with food. We appreciate that such conditions might well make the enterprise uneconomic but they would certainly minimise the alcohol’s potential harm,” the judge said.     

The committee was also concerned by “the domino effect”: that the granting of this application would open the door to other licencees seeking to make deliveries which would further normalise rather than minimise alcohol consumption, he said.

PHOTO: Supplied