An apology from liaison
Councillor LA Cooper, JP for non-attendance has been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Youth Advisory Panel:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Monday, 28 July 2014 as a true and correct
record.
|
4 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
|
Youth Advisory
Panel
11 August 2014
|
|
Local Approved Product Policy for the sale of
psychoactive substances - proposed option
File No.: CP2014/15015
Purpose
1. To seek input from the Youth
Advisory Panel on the proposed content of the draft Local Approved Product
Policy (LAPP).
Executive
summary
2. On 6 March 2014 the Regional
Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of
Auckland Council’s LAPP (REG/2014/34).
3. The LAPP will set rules
regarding where retail outlets of psychoactive substances may operate. The
Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 provides that a policy may regulate the
location of retail outlets by reference to broad areas within a district,
proximity to other premises selling approved products and/or distance from
certain types of premises such as schools, places of worship and other
community facilities.
4. Despite the designation of ‘low
risk’, legal psychoactive substances still cause harm to those that use them
and the communities where they live. Minimising this harm is the key outcome
from a successful LAPP. An effective LAPP will mean fewer
vulnerable people with access to substances, less antisocial behavior from
substance use and improved economic performance for local business.
5. Six options were considered for
the LAPP. Three options were rejected prior to consultation as not being able
to achieve the outcomes for a successful LAPP. The remaining three options
were discussed with local boards, external stakeholders and council staff.
After consideration of feedback and relevant research a preferred option has
been developed.
6. On 3 July the Regional Strategy
and Policy Committee endorsed a preferred option for the LAPP (REG/2014/86).
The preferred option for the LAPP would prevent licences being granted in areas
of high deprivation, near high schools and near addiction and mental health
treatment centres. It would also limit how close to an existing shop a new
shop could open. This option would reduce the availability of these substances
in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for
harm. The prevention of harm is achieved while maintaining the intent of the
government to allow a regulated sale of these substances.
|
Recommendations
That the Youth Advisory Panel:
a) record
their position with respect to the proposed draft Local Approved Product
Policy that will prevent the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the
following areas:
· high deprivation areas as defined by
the Ministry of Health’s Deprivation Index score of 8, 9 or 10 indicating
areas that fall in the bottom 30% of deprivation scores
· neighbourhood centres as defined by the
unitary plan
· within 300m of a high school
· within 100m of a primary school
· within 300m of a mental health or
addiction treatment centre
· within 500m of an existing psychoactive
substance retail licence
|
Comments
Background
The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013
7. The Psychoactive Substances Act
2013 (the Act) sets a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of
psychoactive substances. The Act’s purpose is to regulate the availability of
psychoactive products and to protect the health of, and minimise the harm to,
individuals who use psychoactive substances.
8. The Act banned psychoactive
substances from being sold in dairies, service stations, supermarkets,
convenience stores and places where alcohol is sold. It also restricted the
advertising of products and the sale to those under 18. The Act granted interim
approvals to 42 products considered safe for use and interim retail licences to
around 170 stores across New Zealand with 52 licences granted in Auckland.
The
Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014
9. The Psychoactive Substances
Amendment Act 2014 came into effect on 6 May 2014. This Act ended all interim
approvals and licences previously granted under the Psychoactive Substances Act
2013. This reversal meant there were no psychoactive substances that were
legal to sell and there are no businesses that could legally sell them.
10. The amendment did not change the
intent of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 to allow the sale of low risk
psychoactive substances. The Ministry of Health has indicated it will have
regulations considered by the Cabinet Legislative Committee in early July 2014
to set out the testing regime required for a product to be approved. It is
expected that regulations to allow retail licences will follow early in 2015.
Where the
authority to create a local approved product policy comes from
11. Sections 66 to 69 of the Act
enable territorial authorities to develop a LAPP for their region. The LAPP is
limited to:
· the location of premises from which
approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas
· the location from which approved products
may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved
products are sold
· the location of premises from which
approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to premises or
facilities of a particular kind or kinds.
Previous Council decisions
12. On 6 March 2014 the Regional
Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of
Auckland Council’s LAPP (REG/2014/34).
13. At the 27 March 2014 Governing
Body meeting, staff were directed to consider options for reducing the
development period of the LAPP. Staff advised that the only viable option for
reducing the development time would be to shorten the consultation process to a
single round with local boards. There is no longer a need for this reduced
development period due to the removal of all approved products by the
Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014.
14. On 14 May 2014 council staff
presented a number of options for a LAPP to the Community Development and
Safety Committee. The committee endorsed the option to limit the sale of
substances to specified areas that were evidence based (COM/2014/10). This
option was further developed and then presented to the Regional Strategy and
Policy Committee on 3 July 2014 where it was endorsed as the preferred option
for the LAPP (REG/2014/86).
What is the problem?
15. The Act created a regulatory
framework allowing the supply of psychoactive substances to the public that the
Regulatory Authority has deemed to be low risk. Despite the designation of
‘low risk’ these substances have been linked to adverse health outcomes, crime,
worsening mental illness and aggressive behaviour, especially amongst
vulnerable people. People using these substances in public places are causing
a number of problems for communities. Communities are reporting public
nuisance and disorder, a reduced perception of safety and a decrease in people
shopping in nearby businesses. All of these effects are having a negative
impact on the economic and social health of communities.
Impact on young people
16. Council staff have discussed the
issues associated with the use of psychoactive substances with young people in
the community as well as groups that work with youth with substance use
problems. Both groups have been clear that psychoactive substances regulated
under the Act have been used by young people. One group reported that almost
half of the young people their addiction treatment unit sees were using
psychoactive substances. Another youth worker had a number of examples of
young people she worked with experiencing harm from the use of these
substances. The harm ranged from school suspension to aggressive behaviour and
violence.
17. Staff consider that there has
been a clear message that these substances are having a greater and more
harmful impact on young people than they are having on adults. This disparity
makes minimising harm from these substances especially important for Auckland’s
young people.
Desired outcome for the LAPP
18. A successful LAPP will minimise
harm resulting from the use of legal psychoactive substances. Auckland
Council’s proposed LAPP will reduce access to approved
substances for vulnerable people leading to reduced harm for vulnerable people
and the communities they live in. In addition to harm reduction the
LAPP will be practical to implement and cost effective.
Other considerations in
developing the LAPP
19. There are two trade-offs that
need to be considered when looking at the LAPP. The first is the freedom for
people to buy and sell legal products against the harm these products can
cause. The more freedom people have to purchase these products the greater the
harm that will be experienced. However if the sale of these products is
severely restricted there is a risk of unduly constraining the freedom of
people to conduct a lawful business. Ensuring a balance between these two
principles has been a major component of the LAPP development. It is
considered that the current draft LAPP achieves this balance through using the
best evidence base possible to minimise harm while not being overly
restrictive.
20. The second trade-off is related
to the density of retail outlets. If there is a very low density of outlets
and/or large areas with no access to products and a demand for them there is a
risk of creating an illegal trade in the products with consequent supporting of
criminal enterprise. When the opposite occurs and there is a high outlet
density there is a risk of price competition creating cheap products that lend
themselves to being used in high quantity by vulnerable populations. It
follows then, that these users would experience higher harm from increased
consumption. Ensuring there is an appropriate balance between these trade-offs
has been a core component of the options analysis.
Options for the LAPP
21. Six options were considered for
the LAPP. Three of these were rejected at the first stage of option
development as they were not considered to meet the requirements of a
successful LAPP. The remaining three options were developed further and
presented to stakeholders and local boards for consultation. These three
options were:
· limiting
to the CBD and town centres
· limiting
to industrial zones
· limiting
to specified areas.
22. During consultation there was
almost universal preference for the specified areas option. It was generally
felt that both the town centre and the industrial zone option had more draw
backs than advantages. Even amongst the few groups who preferred another
option, the specified area option was the second choice. It was also
acknowledged by at least one group that while they preferred another option for
their area the specified place option was likely the best for Auckland as a
whole. The preferred option presented below is a result of local board and
stakeholder feedback as well as research evidence.
Preferred option for the LAPP
23. The
preferred option for the LAPP would prevent the sale of approved psychoactive
substances in the following specified areas:
· high deprivation, as defined by the Ministry of Health’s
Deprivation Index score of 8, 9 or 10 indicating the bottom 30% according to
deprivation
· neighbourhood centres, as defined by the
unitary plan
· within 300m of a high school
· within 100m of a primary school
· within 300m of a mental health or
addiction treatment centre
· within 500m of an existing retail
licence.
24. Appendix 1
contains maps showing the areas that would be covered by the above
restrictions.
Why high deprivation?
25. There is a scarcity of
information and research on the impact of psychoactive substances at a social
or group level. In the absence of a body of research, the preferred approach
is to use studies that looked at the effects of similar substances. There is a
significant body of literature on the effect of alcohol, smoking and other
substance use. One effect that stands out from the research is that social
areas with high levels of deprivation experience more harm from substance use
than those areas with low deprivation. When this finding is combined with
availability theory, which states that decreasing the availability of a
substance will tend to reduce its use, there is a strong case that preventing
the sale of psychoactive substances in high deprivation areas will have a
greater impact on harm than in lower deprivation areas.
26. There is a risk that this
approach will create large enough voids in substance availability that it will
become attractive to criminal enterprise to attempt to fill them with illegal
activity.
27. It is considered that this option
would provide a good trade-off between the rights of consumers to purchase
legal products and the intent of the act, to minimise harm.
Why neighbourhood centres?
28. These small groups of shops
within residential areas are locations that are frequently accessed by
vulnerable people. Youth travel to them to purchase goods, and people
struggling with addictions or mental health issues find these locations
accessible. Preventing the sale of psychoactive substances in these locations
will serve to limit the availability to vulnerable populations.
Why schools?
29. The youth voice representatives
and a number of treatment providers both considered that the use of these
substances in high school aged youth was a considerable problem. One provider
thought that around half of the youth they were seeing had problems with these
substances.
30. Consistent with the previously
mentioned availability theory, reducing the access to substances is likely to
result in a reduction in use. To achieve this reduced availability the 300m
zone around secondary and 100m zone around primary schools is considered to
strike a good balance between restricting freedoms and protecting vulnerable
people. The smaller zone around primary schools is considered to be
appropriate as the children at these schools are less likely to be able to
purchase substances due to their age.
Why treatment centres?
31. As with schools and high
deprivation areas; limiting the availability of these substances to vulnerable
people is likely to be the most practical approach to minimising harm. Both
mental health treatment centres and addiction treatment centres serve people
who would be considered particularly vulnerable to the effects of these
substances. Many of the treatment providers expressed a strong preference that
they should not be for sale close to any mental health treatment centre or addiction
treatment centre.
32. Treatment centres are more likely
than schools to shift location or for a new operation to open. If a new
treatment centre moved or opened close to an existing psychoactive substance
retailer the shop would not be expected to close. It would be considered far
too onerous an expectation for an existing business to stop trading if a new
sensitive site opened nearby. This decision is not final; with all retail
licences being reviewed every three years there will be an opportunity to
reconsider the suitability of a location. This position is supported by the
Ministry of Health, Psychoactive Substance Regulatory Authority and internal
legal staff.
Why restrictions on how close
a shop can be to another shop?
33. Research in New Zealand and
overseas has clearly established a link between the density of alcohol outlets
and the alcohol related harm experienced by local communities. It is
considered reasonable to assume that there is a high likelihood of a similar
link for psychoactive substances. Thus density control is considered
appropriate to assist other measures to minimise the harm experienced by users
of these substances. Council staff are working on developing a risk rating
similar to the rating used by the Ministry of Health to assess alcohol
licences. This rating would allow licence applications for the sale areas to
be prioritised based on the risk of harm they pose.
Why nothing else?
34. For each area considered for
inclusion as a sensitive site there needs to be a trade-off between the freedom
that is removed and the benefit gained from the decision. There were a number
of areas considered as possible sensitive sites where it was difficult to
reconcile the potential benefit with the restriction required to achieve it. Potential
sites that did not meet the criteria for inclusion were churches, playgrounds,
public spaces, libraries and community centres.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
35. Workshops on the proposed options
were held with all of the local boards except for Great Barrier, Waiheke and
Orakei Local Boards who declined to be involved in the process. Of the
remaining 18 local boards Whau declined to attend the workshop and did not
provide any feedback.
36. Of the 17 local boards who took
part in the LAPP workshops 13 endorsed the specified place option as their
preferred option. Four boards for local reasons preferred either the town
centre or industrial option as they felt it provided tighter restrictions in
their areas. All of these local boards also provided the specified areas as
their second option acknowledging that it was unlikely that all local boards
would opt for their preferred option. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
declined to provide a preferred option.
Maori
impact statement
37. Māori are over represented
amongst the groups of vulnerable people likely to be affected by using approved
psychoactive substances. This over representation has two effects. Firstly
getting the right option for the LAPP to maximise harm reduction will be more
effective for Māori. Secondly, any solutions need to be designed in close
collaboration with Māori to ensure they are workable and support wider
initiatives aimed at improving Māori outcomes.
38. A workshop has been undertaken
with representatives from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui an agency representing
Māori health providers in the Auckland region as part of the initial
stakeholder discussions. Council staff will be working with the Independent
Māori Statutory Board and Te Waka Angamua to set up hui for comprehensive
Māori input into the draft LAPP.
Implementation
|
Step
|
Estimated
timeframe
|
|
1. Stakeholder engagement on draft option
Officers will seek feedback from internal, external and
political stakeholders on the approved draft LAPP option.
|
July –
September 2014
|
|
2. Final draft LAPP for special consultative
procedure
Officers will then present a final draft policy to RSPC
for approval for consultation.
|
9 October
|
|
3. Special consultative procedure
Officers will follow the special consultative procedure
set out in section 83 of Local Government Act 2002. This will include public
submissions and hearings.
|
November
2014
|
|
4. Adopt final policy
Following the hearings the draft will be finalised and
presented to RSPC for adoption.
|
March
2015
|
|
5. Implementation and review
A copy will be sent to Ministry of Health after it has
been completed. The LAPP will then be reviewed every five years in accordance
with section 69 of the Act.
|
Ongoing
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Option Impact North
|
17
|
|
bView
|
Option Impact West and Central
|
19
|
|
cView
|
Option Impact East and Central
|
21
|
|
dView
|
Option Impact South
|
23
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst
Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social
Policy
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
Sarah McGhee - Community Development Programme Manager
SCI
|
