1. One Year On - The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 - The Regional DLC Perspective Christchurch Forum 24 th March 2015 Al Lawn Commissioner

2. The New Object! BIG Challenge Penoy Spirits Limited NZARLA PH 697/2014 [19] ……………..The object referred to in s.4 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 is different from that in s.4 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Now the aim is the minimisation of alcohol-related harm; not merely its reduction. Minimisation means “reduced to the smallest amount, extent or degree” (New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).

3. Expectations of New District Licensing Committees  Setting up DLC’s across the nation with one training session was a recipe for inconsistency.  Most people appointed to DLC Chairs roles had very little understanding, or experience of the old Act, let alone the New Act.  The key people, holding the whole thing together, have been the Alcohol Licensing Inspectors. The Here and Now Expectation of Consistency Transitional Period Expectation of Change Introduction of New Act Expectation of Leadership

4. One Year On And How Is the Act Working- DLC’s - Key Learnings:  The Act is very hard to read and interpret.  DLC Chairs needed more training in interpreting the Act, running hearings and writing decisions, as well as the process (What happens before I get it). Memorandums, minutes and ‘inquiries’.  One size definitely does not fit all - Large territorial Authorities with full-time Inspectors, and an Alcohol Team, are very different to smaller Territorial Authorities who often have one Inspector, who may be part- time (alcohol is one portfolio), and very little other support.  95% plus, of applications are dealt with ‘on the papers’. - Some committee members have not been part of any hearings. Some DLC’s have not yet had a hearing.

5. One Year On And How Is the Act Working- DLC’s - Key Learnings:  Most of the work is done during the reporting phase of the process.  Communities expected more power and involvement in the decision making process.  There was a general misunderstanding around caselaw. Some thought there was no merit in SoLA cases. Some had had no training in precedent or general law principles.  Often the principal advisor to the DLC’s are the Alcohol Licensing Inspectors. Isolation is an issue.

6. One Year On And How Is the Act Working- DLC’s - Key Learnings:  The way Christchurch was set up, from my perspective, has been more successful than most. Broad range of experience. 4 Chairs, 8 members (including all chairs). Weekly meetings, Experienced secretary and hearings staff. Experienced agencies.  Applicants still turn up unprepared, even when they have Counsel.  We still have a lot to learn!

7. What are the DLC requirements of the Reporting Agencies and the Community:  The agencies need to work together and bring something from their specialist areas.  Duty to collaborate - s. 295. (Monitoring and enforcement, and Developing and implementing strategies for reducing alcohol related harm).  From both the agencies, and the Community, we MUST HAVE ‘Best Evidence’.  If you want something, a condition, explain why you want it and how it will mitigate issues with the criteria in 105 and 106 of the Act.

8. Advice From ARLA to Agencies. Foodcorp Distribution Limited NZARLA PH 511/2013 [22]…….As the Court of Appeal stated in My Noodle [2009] NZCA 564, the reporting agencies are entitled to consider in their reports a more extensive range of matters than are objectors. Objectors are confined by s.32(3) of the Act to object only to those matters referred in s.35(1) of the Act – the criteria applicable for off- licences. [23]The reports submitted by the reporting agencies are intended to assist District Licensing Agencies and the Authority in determining applications.

9. Advice From ARLA to Agencies. [24]………in Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board v Joban Enterprises Limited CIV-2011-404-007930 [2012] NZHC 1406. At paragraph [32] and following Heath J commented that one of the purposes of obtaining a report from the Police and the Inspector was to ensure that there were no community concerns relating to s.4 of the Act issues. They were intended to provide some basis on which the Authority could determine whether the grant of a licence would meet the statutory object. Heath J did not envisage a lengthy report or detailed research. He pointed out that, for example, Police Officers would know from their daily and nightly observations of the concerns which might be raised in respect of alcohol abuse issues.

10. Advice From ARLA to Agencies. 25]From the foregoing, the Authority considers: [a]That upon receiving an application the reporting agencies must make their inquiries quickly; [b]They must report quickly; [c]After learning if objections have been filed to the application, they must consider the objections and file a report to assist the District Licensing Agency and the Inspector in considering the objections – in particular in relation to s.4 of the Act issues; [d]In all cases the reporting agencies must act objectively and fairly to all parties involved in the application. [26]The failure to automatically disclose to the applicant a detailed report such as that proposed to be produced by Ms Cosgrove contravened the duty to act fairly in this case.

11. Community Objectors [31] Whilst much of the evidence offered on behalf of the Medical Officer of Health was hearsay, the relevant points were confirmed by Mr Thompson’s first hand experiences. He knew the area. He knew the people. He was aware of the problems. He was well qualified to give an adverse opinion on the proposal. Tony’s Liquor Upper Hutt Limited NZARLA 253428/2014 Evidence must be -  Relevant  Factual  Direct

12. Help for DLC’s  Networking opportunities – Face to face opportunities.  Training – decision making / writing, Hearing procedures, Caselaw.  National Consistency via a professional body of some kind.  Some form of ‘go to’ group for specific guidance / questions.