The Act’s object has two parts. It seeks that the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly. It also seeks to minimise the harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol.
The Act regulates the sale and supply of alcohol, so tries to achieve both outcomes through the licensing tools that it has available. But harms are defined very broadly. And many of those harms are better handled by measures other than licensing and supply conditions.
Some existing measures outside of the Act certainly help. Prohibitions on driving while intoxicated reduce the risk that would otherwise fall on other drivers. But additional targeted measures could take some of the burden off of licensing conditions.
Let’s first go through the government’s proposed amendments to the Act, submissions on which are due later this week. The proposed amendments are fairly modest – and many of those modest changes are long overdue.
The Bill would let barbers and hairdressers offer a small drink as part of a haircut without seeking an alcohol licence. And, really, sensible places had always viewed this kind of thing as being below the threshold for any reasonable policing action. Overzealous policing action against harmless activities winds up requiring legislative changes.
If the legislation results in barbershops stealthily turning into uncontrollable speakeasies, the measure could be reversed. But in the more likely case that giving a client a single small drink as part of a service does no harm at all, Parliament should be willing to extend the same logic to similar low-risk services like spas. Hopefully the measure, if implemented, will be evaluated.
The Bill would also allow zero-alcohol drinks to count in licensing situations where low-alcohol drinks are required. And it would give licence applicants a right of reply when objectors oppose them. Those are sensible changes. They recognise that not every glass of wine is a public health emergency.
But the Bill does not go as far as it could in improving the licensing process. It fails to appreciate the cost that official objectors can impose on applicants.
The current process weighs objections heavily. There is official guidance and publicly supported assistance available to assist those wishing to object to licence applications. Health New Zealand even provides a helpful guide. But those who would welcome a neighbourhood pub, a new restaurant licence, or a more convenient shop have no comparable formal channel.
Police and Medical Officers of Health have important roles in alcohol licensing. They should be able to raise genuine problems: poor compliance history, unsuitable applicants, unsafe premises, badly designed systems, or real local risks.
But the current process gives reporting agencies enormous leverage. If Police or a Medical Officer oppose an application or renewal, the applicant can face delay, legal cost, uncertainty and a hearing.
The power to impose costs like that can sometimes turn into a de facto power to impose conditions that are not present in local alcohol policies. A “voluntary” condition can be accepted by an applicant wishing to avoid a police-contested process. Fighting it costs more than living with it.
That means licensing conditions can be ratcheted up venue by venue without ever being properly tested. A condition may be agreed not because it is necessary or proportionate, but because the applicant cannot justify the cost of resisting it. In practice, a determined official can achieve something like a different local alcohol policy through individual licensing pressure.
That is not good regulation.
The Bill’s new right of reply to objectors is welcome. But it should be extended clearly to official reports from Police, inspectors and Medical Officers of Health. Those reports should have to state the statutory ground relied on, the evidence supporting it, the condition sought, and why the condition is reasonably necessary and proportionate.
For renewals, the test should be tighter again. Opposition should be tied to the premises’ conduct, compliance history, suitability, or material changes since the last licence. General arguments about outlet numbers or alcohol availability belong in a local alcohol policy process, not in a coercive negotiation over each shop’s renewal.
Parliament could consider allowing licensing committees to award costs against official objectors in cases where a report or opposition is materially unsuccessful, withdrawn late, or seeks conditions that are substantially more restrictive than what the committee finds reasonably necessary.
The licensing process should also hear support, not only opposition. A new pub, restaurant or bottle shop may improve convenience, competition and local amenity. Those views should count too.
Licensing law is a poor tool for solving every alcohol-related problem. When too much of the burden is put on licensing, regulation becomes blunt and costly. It can punish harmless drinkers, responsible drinkers, and community events while doing too little about people and situations most likely to cause harm.
Some harms are better addressed outside alcohol licensing.
South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety programme targets people whose offending is linked to alcohol, requiring frequent testing with swift, modest sanctions for breaches. Repeat drink-drivers’ probation or parole conditions included a no-alcohol condition, monitored either through regular breath testing or through an ankle bracelet that can detect consumption. Violation of the no-alcohol condition automatically resulted in a night or two in the cells the very next weekend.
The aim is not to fill cells. It is to avoid lengthy sentences for alcohol-related offending by keeping problem drinkers away from the problem, with consequences that are quick and predictable rather than severe and remote. RAND’s evaluation found that counties adopting the programme saw reductions in repeat drink-driving arrests and domestic-violence arrests.
That kind of intervention is far more targeted than simply making ordinary access to alcohol more difficult for everyone.
The same principle applies elsewhere. Where the problem is disorderly conduct on the street, New Zealand already has public-order offences. They should be enforced directly.
The government’s Amendment Bill gets a lot of small things right. It could stand to be more ambitious. Pursuing complementary measures directly targeting harms would help.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
Some existing measures outside of the Act certainly help. Prohibitions on driving while intoxicated reduce the risk that would otherwise fall on other drivers. But additional targeted measures could take some of the burden off of licensing conditions.
Let’s first go through the government’s proposed amendments to the Act, submissions on which are due later this week. The proposed amendments are fairly modest – and many of those modest changes are long overdue.
The Bill would let barbers and hairdressers offer a small drink as part of a haircut without seeking an alcohol licence. And, really, sensible places had always viewed this kind of thing as being below the threshold for any reasonable policing action. Overzealous policing action against harmless activities winds up requiring legislative changes.
If the legislation results in barbershops stealthily turning into uncontrollable speakeasies, the measure could be reversed. But in the more likely case that giving a client a single small drink as part of a service does no harm at all, Parliament should be willing to extend the same logic to similar low-risk services like spas. Hopefully the measure, if implemented, will be evaluated.
The Bill would also allow zero-alcohol drinks to count in licensing situations where low-alcohol drinks are required. And it would give licence applicants a right of reply when objectors oppose them. Those are sensible changes. They recognise that not every glass of wine is a public health emergency.
But the Bill does not go as far as it could in improving the licensing process. It fails to appreciate the cost that official objectors can impose on applicants.
The current process weighs objections heavily. There is official guidance and publicly supported assistance available to assist those wishing to object to licence applications. Health New Zealand even provides a helpful guide. But those who would welcome a neighbourhood pub, a new restaurant licence, or a more convenient shop have no comparable formal channel.
Police and Medical Officers of Health have important roles in alcohol licensing. They should be able to raise genuine problems: poor compliance history, unsuitable applicants, unsafe premises, badly designed systems, or real local risks.
But the current process gives reporting agencies enormous leverage. If Police or a Medical Officer oppose an application or renewal, the applicant can face delay, legal cost, uncertainty and a hearing.
The power to impose costs like that can sometimes turn into a de facto power to impose conditions that are not present in local alcohol policies. A “voluntary” condition can be accepted by an applicant wishing to avoid a police-contested process. Fighting it costs more than living with it.
That means licensing conditions can be ratcheted up venue by venue without ever being properly tested. A condition may be agreed not because it is necessary or proportionate, but because the applicant cannot justify the cost of resisting it. In practice, a determined official can achieve something like a different local alcohol policy through individual licensing pressure.
That is not good regulation.
The Bill’s new right of reply to objectors is welcome. But it should be extended clearly to official reports from Police, inspectors and Medical Officers of Health. Those reports should have to state the statutory ground relied on, the evidence supporting it, the condition sought, and why the condition is reasonably necessary and proportionate.
For renewals, the test should be tighter again. Opposition should be tied to the premises’ conduct, compliance history, suitability, or material changes since the last licence. General arguments about outlet numbers or alcohol availability belong in a local alcohol policy process, not in a coercive negotiation over each shop’s renewal.
Parliament could consider allowing licensing committees to award costs against official objectors in cases where a report or opposition is materially unsuccessful, withdrawn late, or seeks conditions that are substantially more restrictive than what the committee finds reasonably necessary.
The licensing process should also hear support, not only opposition. A new pub, restaurant or bottle shop may improve convenience, competition and local amenity. Those views should count too.
Licensing law is a poor tool for solving every alcohol-related problem. When too much of the burden is put on licensing, regulation becomes blunt and costly. It can punish harmless drinkers, responsible drinkers, and community events while doing too little about people and situations most likely to cause harm.
Some harms are better addressed outside alcohol licensing.
South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety programme targets people whose offending is linked to alcohol, requiring frequent testing with swift, modest sanctions for breaches. Repeat drink-drivers’ probation or parole conditions included a no-alcohol condition, monitored either through regular breath testing or through an ankle bracelet that can detect consumption. Violation of the no-alcohol condition automatically resulted in a night or two in the cells the very next weekend.
The aim is not to fill cells. It is to avoid lengthy sentences for alcohol-related offending by keeping problem drinkers away from the problem, with consequences that are quick and predictable rather than severe and remote. RAND’s evaluation found that counties adopting the programme saw reductions in repeat drink-driving arrests and domestic-violence arrests.
That kind of intervention is far more targeted than simply making ordinary access to alcohol more difficult for everyone.
The same principle applies elsewhere. Where the problem is disorderly conduct on the street, New Zealand already has public-order offences. They should be enforced directly.
The government’s Amendment Bill gets a lot of small things right. It could stand to be more ambitious. Pursuing complementary measures directly targeting harms would help.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.