Who stands in the way of Dan Murphy’s Territory application
Dan Murphy’s has already been rejected once by the Northern Territory Liquor commission. Here are those who are objecting and what they are arguing.
Business
Don't miss out on the headlines from Business. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Revealed: Reasons behind Dan Murphy’s appeal
- Yet another hurdle laid down in front of Dan Murphy’s
- Dan Murphy’s to appeal superstore rejection
- No time for Dan Murphy’s location change
Dan Murphy’s has already been rejected once by the Northern Territory Liquor commission. Here are those who are objecting and what they are arguing based on documents lodged in court.
Competition
Argument: Dan Murphy’s will attract plenty of customers through the doors if they open in the Territory.
But it could come at the cost of other liquor outlets who are struggling under the current economic climate.
With the BDR, alcohol floor prices and the alcohol reforms already having an impact on their costs of selling alcohol as well as the sales themselves, introducing a liquor giant like Dan Murphy’s would be another blow which many feel could put them out of business.
Counter argument: While Dan Murphy’s offer “cheaper” alcohol, they say these often come when people are buying in bulk, in preparation for a trip away or for a special event or party. Dan Murphy’s believe many people will still opt to use their local bottle shops for a slab of beer or case of wine and would only make the journey to Eaton when it was convenient to do so or when it made sense to.
RELATED
DAN Murphy’s fight to avoid Supreme Court
THE arguments against Dan Murphy’s
Arguing parties: Guy Dunne (Beachfront Hotel), Australian Hotels Association (Now Hospitality NT), Gary Coleman (One Stop Cellarbrations, Pinelands), Darryl Thomas (independent retailer), Andrew Case (independent retailer),
Alcohol Problems
Argument: The Territory is clearly facing an alcohol problem – it’s why no less than 220 recommendations were made by the Riley Review almost two years ago and why many people believe Dan Murphy’s shouldn’t be established in the Northern Territory.
Cheaper, easier to access alcohol will only create more drunk people, more violence and more problems as a result of alcohol.
Counter argument: Dan Murphy’s maintain they have a proven track record in responsible service of alcohol.
Endeavour Drinks head honcho Shane Tremble said he would ensure the company worked with police and the government to ensure service standards.
Arguing Parties: Danila Dilba Health Services, NT Council of Social Services, Association of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies NT, Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT, Public Health Association of Australia (NT Chapter), Foundation of alcohol Research and Education (FARE), Amity Community Services Incorporated
Location and store size
Argument: If Dan Murphy’s application is successful, it will see a liquor license transferred from a former Stuart Park BWS store, a corner-store establishment, into a booze barn factory outlet.
Many say the transferral of the license is not appropriate given the different size of the store.
The fact it is within 500m of the Bagot Community has also raised concerns, as well as the fact it will be built just meters away from Bagot Rd, a six lane road with speed limits of up to 80km – a dangerous hurdle for any pedestrian, let alone those influenced by alcohol.
Counter argument: Dan Murphy’s has argued roaming patrols of security would be able to enforce people from drinking in scrubland and could provide suspect groups to Police or Larrakia Nation.
Key to today’s argument, Endeavour Drinks will also argue they have always been clear about their intentions in building a new Dan Murphy’s store, rather than modifying the former Stuart Park store.
Arguing Parties: Bagot Community, Gwala Daraniki Association
Independent Objectors
Robin Knox, Lesley Alford, Marcelo San Jose, Kate Crawley, Dan Hartney, RAAF Darwin Golf Club