The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Bill is meant to give communities a greater say over who gets a licence in their area.
Fair enough — except the Bill, now in front of a select committee, will not do this. In fact, it will probably make it harder for communities to have a say.
At the same time, it could impact legitimate businesses that have been operating lawfully and reasonably in communities for years.
The problem with the Bill started with the speed with which it was pushed through (it was announced on October 30 and in Parliament by mid-December).
Even so, more than 430 submissions were made to the select committee in the few short weeks of (mainly) holiday period before the February 12 deadline.
None of the industry submitters are opposed to the Bill’s stated intent, which is to strengthen community involvement in the sale of alcohol with a view to reducing alcohol harm. And everyone agrees the current legislation, which dates back to 2012, is in need of review, not to mention our inconsistent and cumbersome licensing regime.
The problem lies in the foreseeable consequences arising from some of the proposed changes which, instead of addressing alcohol-related harm, will significantly impact responsible business operators and exaggerate existing problems with the current licensing process.
Most of the Bill’s amendments are focused on the process entities go through to apply for a new licence or renew an existing licence, and are supposedly intended to ensure communities have a greater say in the granting of such licences.
Throughout the country these processes are determined by district licensing committees (DLCs), in keeping with the relevant local alcohol policies (LAPs).
LAPs may limit the location of licences in particular areas or near certain types of facilities such as schools or churches. They may also limit the density of licences and impose conditions on them, such as the ‘‘one-way door’’ condition that allows patrons to leave premises but not enter or re-enter after a certain time.
At present, a myriad of LAPs are decided by 67 different councils around the country. That’s 67 different decision-making bodies. It’s not hard to see how an inconsistency in decision-making arises under that regime.
But the Bill doesn’t propose to alter this structure. Rather, it proposes a mix of changes to the processes DLCs follow, the result being that DLC hearings will probably be longer and more involved.
If a LAP allows for proximity provisions to sites such as schools or health facilities, the changes will enable DLCs to decline the renewal of an existing licence (and with a pen stroke remove the viability of an established business) regardless of the record of the licensee.
The Bill also broadens the category of people who can object to a licence application, the result being that someone with no relationship to the community in question can object.
In a DLC hearing it also restricts who can question and cross-examine witnesses at a licence hearing, and it removes the ability of parties to appeal the LAPs under which their licensing decisions are decided.
If all this sounds a bit procedural, think about a neighbourhood bar that has operated responsibly for years. Under the proposed new regime that bar could be refused a licence renewal because a new pre-school has opened along the road.
Alternatively, someone from the other end of the country could object to that bar’s licence renewal.
The vast majority of on- and off-licence operators act responsibly. Yes, we need to ensure such high standards are adhered to by 100% of licensees, but we also need an effective, fair and consistent licensing regime.
Research tells us that the vast majority of New Zealanders drink responsibly.
Our alcohol consumption has declined by more than 25% since the late 1970s, and since 2010 the number of licences nationwide has declined by more than 23%.
Fixing the unhealthy drinking behaviours of a minority of New Zealanders will not be achieved by tinkering with the licensing system in the way the current Bill proposes.
What we need is an evidence-based approach to the sale and supply of alcohol that addresses unhealthy drinking behaviours while safeguarding the involvement of communities — including responsible licensees.
- Virginia Nicholls is the executive director of the NZ Alcohol Beverages Council.
