SUBMISSION ON ALCOHOL REFORM BILL TO THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 lhll KINGSGATE HOTEL TERRACES, QUEENSTOWN 88 Frankton Road, Queenstown PO Box 155, DX ZP95005, Queenstown 9348, New Zealand Telephone: Facsimile: kingsgate.queenstown@millenniumhotels.co.nz Website: 11th February, 2011 Committee Secretariat Justice and Electoral Select Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington 6011 Dear Sir / Madam, SUBMISSION ON ALCOHOL REFORM BILL TO THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE On behalf of Hospitality Services Limited trading as Kingsgate Hotel Terraces Queenstown, we wish to make a submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill to the Justice and Electoral Subcommittee. While we agree with the general object of the Bill as stated in clause 4 (1) (a) and (b), namely the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol and minim!sing the harm caused by excessive consumption of alcohol, specifically, we wish to highlight the following areas within the Bill which give rise to concern to Kingsgate Hotel Terraces Queenstown. Kingsgate Hotel Terraces Queenstown is part of the Millennium & Copthorne chain of hotels in New Zealand. The Millennium & Copthorne chain consists of 29 properties under the Millennium, Copthorne and Kingsgate brands which are located in key tourism centres and gateway cities across New Zealand including Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Queenstown, Rotorua, Paihia (Bay of Islands). All of the Millennium & Copthorne properties currently have on licences as they generally have full service hotel restaurants catering to guests. The Millennium & Copthorne chain employs approximately 1250 full time and part time staff across its network. General comments: We have read through the Regulatory Impact Statement issued by the Ministry of Justice in May n looking at Table 1: Ana/ysis of Levers (pages 10 and 11) therein, we note that the analysis looks primarily at retail outlets (namely supermarkets, off licence premises etc.) and not at hotel and accommodation providers such as ourselves. We understand the key rationales behind the Bill, namely that it address alcohol related harm and the drivers of crime, without impacting unduly on the economy and moderate drinkers. However, while we broadly support the way in which the Bill addresses the social issues it was intended to address, we do have a number of concerns about the commercial impact on our business and its concentrated focus on tighter regulation of off licence retail outlets (arguably at the expense of on licence premises such as accommodation providers). Our submissions therefore focus on the specific impact on accommodation providers such as ourselves. NZ RESERVATIONS: HOSPITALITY GROUP LIMITED TRADING AS KINGSGATE HOTEL TERRACES, QUEENSTOWN

2 Clause 44: Default national trading hours: We note that clause 44(1)(a) specifies that: The default maximum national trading hours (a) are the hours between 8 am on anv day and 4 am on the next day for the sale of alcohol for consumption licensed premises on One effect of these default trading hours would be the inability to host 'champagne breakfasts' whether as part of a wedding booking or another celebration. Nationally, we do receive a good number of such booking annually. As a rule, the consumption of alcohol is limited by practicality, time of day and the cost of the event. Generally, these booking are made to commence before 8.00am in the morning and the proposed clause would therefore make it illegal to sell alcohol to such events. In addition, given the 'one way door restriction' in clause 105, non house guests cannot be served either. We submit that this is impractical and would eliminate a line of business that we have been able to promote for some time. We do not believe that such events contribute to excessive drinking or the irresponsible promotion of alcohol. The alternative is to apply for a special licence each and every time and we submit that this is impractical as the costs of the licence would inevitably have to be passed on the guests and the lead time to get the licences would need to be factored in to each and every booking. We believe that meeting the criteria set out in clauses 130 and 135 and the lead time of 20 working days may be prohibitive anda discouragement for many bookings. We would therefore submit that the default trading hours be extended to 7.00am and 4am the next day. Clauses 45 and 46: Permitted tradinq hours in districts with / without a regional alcohol We query why it is necessary to state that districts need not have a regional alcohol policy. This is puzzling given the intended nature of the act and potentially creates uncertainty and confusion. In addition, should regional authorities take wildly differing views (for whatever reason), the potential effect of having such local variations to the policy may also result in regional inconsistencies throughout New Zealand with some regions having a more liberal approach while others adopt a more conservative approach. We do not believe that this was the intended policy outcome the Bill was supposed to address and we deal with that in our submission on clause 75 below. This is an issue that goes to clauses 75 through 92 in subpart 2 which is addressed below. Our submission on this part is therefore that regions should adopt a local alcohol policy. Clause 48: Sale and supply on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day restricted: on licences We have concerns about the practical application of Clause 48(3) as proposed, particularly on Christmas Day and any functions that are held at the hotel. Monitoring whether guests have been on the premises for an hour prior to dining of an hour after finishing could be a very interesting, if impractical exercise (particularly should a conference or wedding be booked into a function room). We would have to advise guests that they could only arrive at the hotel an hour prior to the function or advise the staff to ask guests to leave a function or restaurant within an hour of finishing their meals. This might, in extremis, require timing the customers. While we can understand the policy rationale for this clause, we believe that it should be amended. We would therefore submit that clause 48c) be deleted.

3 Clauses 75 92: Local alcohol policies As a nationwide chain, we are familiar with the operation of the current Sale of Liquor Act 1989 provisions and their operations in various regions around New Zealand. As a general comment, we would say that the current regime has worked well for accommodation providers such as ourselves. We do not comment directly on whether the current regime has worked well for off licence premises but we again submit our view that the proposed Bill as a rule is more targeted to the increased regulation of such premises and our view is that this is clearly evident in these clauses. In relation to clause 75, we would query why it is no_jt the Bill's intent that each regional authority must have a local alcohol policy. While we would expect most regional authorities to enacta policy on adoption of the Bill, we would have thought that one of the Bill's intended consequences was to create certainty as to regulation of premises. We submit that a local alcohol policy should be made compulsory in order to provide certainty of intent for licenced premises operators. This is also a relevant consideration when considering whether a special licence application is to be granted or refused as dealt with under clause 133. Clause 76 is interesting in that two territorial authorities can adopt the same local alcohol policy and be treated as one territorial authority / one district. While it is unlikely that a territorial authority in the North Island could join forces with another in South Island for example, we believe that the intent of the clause was for two contiguous authorities to join forces and adopt a single policy so that there would be greater certainty in a wider area. But on current wording, two completely different regions could adopt the same policy. We do not believe that this was what was originally intended and we submit that this clause should be amended for clarity. We submit that in addition to the requirements set out in Clause 77 as to what should be contained in a local alcohol policy, the policies need to address the circumstances and criteria that determine when a licence will not be issued as specified in clause 102. This is important when considering that clause 100 states the issues and criteria that need to addressed in order to get a licence and objections to a licence can only be made with regard to matters contained in clause 100. Further, we also query whether it is appropriate that clause 88 provide for more restrictive policies that those that appear in a territorial authority's District Plan. Given the critical policy nature of both and the importance of creating policy certainty, we would suggest that it would be more appropriate for the Bill to state that the District Plan and the local alcohol policy must be aligned at all times. The inconsistency is magnified when looking at clause 89 which states that the local alcohol policies need to be consistent with the general law. We therefore submit that local alcohol policies should be made compulsory, that clause 76 be amended to provide for contiguous regions, that the criteria for refusing a licence should be set out in local alcohol policies and that clause 88 be amended to ensure that the District Plan and the local alcohol policies are aligned at all times. Clause 105: One way door restrictions: We have already commented on the potential impact caused by clause 44(1)(a) above and this clause and reiterate the same submissions with regard to clause 105, specifically that guests that are not staying in the hotel cannot be served if they are attending a champagne breakfast event prior to 8.00am (if the default trading hours are adopted as proposed).

4 Clauses 114 to 120: Renewal of licences There is an argument to say that renewing a licence will be harder than actually getting one. Our view is governed by the provisions of clause 120(b) in particular which currently refers to: whether (in [the licensing committee's] opinion) the amenity and good order of the locality would be likely to be increased, by more than a minor extent, by the effects of a refusal to renew the licence: While the interpretation clause (clause 5) defines "the amenity and good order of the locality" as being: in relation to an application for or for the renewal of a licence, means the extent to which, and ways in which, the locality in which the premises concerned are situated is (or, in the case of a conveyance, the localities where the conveyance is likely to travel are) pleasant and agreeable. The term 'locality' is not defined and could be interpreted broadly. We would assume that it is meant to encompass the immediate area of the licenced premises and therefore submit that some guidance needs to be provided in the Act to provide certainty. We also question whether the test for whether something 'pleasant and agreeable; should be an objective one rather thana subjective one. More worryingly however, there exists a further possibility that a licence may not be renewed despite the flawless conduct and performance of the licence holder due to other licence holders in the relevant locality performing badly or being the source of alcohol related trouble. For example, if it determined that there are too many off licence premises in the area concerned or if an area is seen to be a source or frequented area for alcohol related crime and the local licensing committee take the view that it would improve 'the amenity and good order of the locality" that the licences for all premises should not be renewed, then it is entirely possible that based on the way the Bill is worded, a renewal may not be granted despite the licence holder being blameless. We do not believe that this was the intent of Clause 120 and we submit that it should be amended to make it clear that in respect of on licence renewals in particular, the performance of bad on licence or off licence premises should not be taken into account when determining what helps the "amenity and good order of the locality". In other words, as now, each renewal application should be dealt with on its own merits. We therefore submit that a definition of 'locality' be provided to assist with the interpretation of clause 120 and that a distinction be made so that the conduct of other licence holders, particularly those who have flouted or breached the Act, should not be taken into account when assessing renewals of licences held by premises who have kept to the law and would otherwise be granted a renewal. Clauses 125 to 138 Special Licences: We believe that there may need to be an increased number of applications for special licences if the proposed provisions with regard to trading hours are adopted. If there is no flexibility within the Act and if a territorial authority adopts trading hours that are less than the maximum proposed, then the process to obtain a special licence appears to be as onerous and potentially cumbersome as getting an on or off licence. While we do not object to the nature of the information required to be provided to meet the criteria under clause 130, we would submit that given that the applications need to be submitted at least 20 working days prior to the event for which it is needed, there need to be two additional provisions the first being a defined timeline by which the application may be considered (or heard) and then a decision rendered and secondly an ability to either expedite the timeline or bring an urgent application for a special

5 licence. This scenario is not covered by the proposed clause 124 in respect of temporary licences. From what we can determine, there is no guidance as to what constitutes a 'large scale event' as specified in clause 131. So that there is no misunderstanding and that all premises can comply, we submit that some guidance in the statute, for example a specified number of people attending or the duration of an event, would be appropriate. Again, we note that the "amenity and good order of the locality" consideration is been included in the criteria to be used in granting special licences and we reiterate our submission that it this clause should be amended to make it clear that in respect of on licence renewals in particular, the performance of bad on licence or off licence premises should not be taken into account when determining what helps the "amenity and good order of the locality". In other words, as now, each renewal application should be dealt with on its own merits. This is particularly important given that under clause 132 the licensing committee can, on its own motion, decline to issue a special licence despite no objections having been received and no negative health of Police reports having been received. The power granted to the licensing committee is therefore broad and should only be exercised on proper grounds with legitimate reasons provided. We therefore submit that provision should be made for the filing of urgent or expedited applications for special licences as these appear to fall outside the current provisions. Guidance needs to be provided as to what constitutes a 'large scale event'. And we further submit that a definition of 'locality' be provided to assist with the interpretation of clause 120 and that a distinction be made so that the conduct of other licence holders, particularly those who have flouted or breached the Act, should not be taken into account when assessing renewals of licences held by premises who have kept to the law and would otherwise be granted a renewal. Clause 220: Irresponsible promotion of alcohol: While we generally support the policy rationale behind this clause, we would express reservations about proposed clauses b) and c). Our hotels have engaged in promotions whereby we may offer guests a complimentary glass of wine or beer with their meals at the hotel restaurant and on some occasions we have offered guests complimentary bottles of local wine for their consumption as a welcome gift (e.g. honeymooning couples) or as part of a special promotion. Should the clause be enacted as it is currently drafted, then it will become illegal for such promotions to be run. We do not believe such promotions in any way lead to excessive drinking or the irresponsible promotion of alcohol and would query whether this clause is supposed to be targeted to off licence premises more than on licence premises. We would therefore submit that clauses 220 b) and c) be amended to allow reasonable promotions such as those detailed above. l do not wish to be heard in support of our submission. Yours faithfully, Hospitality Services Limited Kingsgate Hotel Terraces Queenstown Jackie Guiney Hotel Manager