I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 9 February 2016

9.30am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert Street
Auckland

 

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Denise Krum

 

Members

Cr Bill Cashmore

 

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

 

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

 

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

 

Cr John Watson

 

 

Member Glenn Wilcox

 

 

Member Karen Wilson

 

 

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Ex-officio

Mayor Len Brown, JP

 

 

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Jaimee Maha

Democracy Advisor

 

3 February 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8126

Email: jaimee.maha@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee will be responsible for:

 

·         Considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including  to Local Boards);

·         Regulatory fees and charges in accordance with the funding policy;

·         Recommend bylaws to Governing Body for special consultative procedure;

·         Appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters;

·         Review Local Board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and recommend to Governing Body;

·         Set regulatory policy and controls, and maintain an oversight of regulatory performance;

·         Engaging with local boards on bylaw development and review; and

·         Exercising the Council's powers, duties and discretions under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

 

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

 

Local Government Act 2002;
Resource Management Act 1991;

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009;

Health Act 1956;

Dog Control Act 1996;

Waste Minimisation Act 2008;

Land Transport Act 1994;

Maritime Transport Act 1994;
Sale of Liquor Act 1989;

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012; and
All Bylaws.

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·         Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·         Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·         Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Proposed amendment of Auckland Council's Food Safety Bylaw 2013                 9

10        Report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed fees under the Food Act 2014   67

11        Temporary alcohol ban for the Auckland Lantern Festival                                    83  

12        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Cr LA Cooper and Deputy Mayor PA Hulse have 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 Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 9 December 2015, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 


 

7          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.”

 

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

Proposed amendment of Auckland Council's Food Safety Bylaw 2013

 

File No.: CP2015/17140

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek a decision on whether to amend the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 to ensure consistency with the Food Act 2014 (as proposed in Attachment A), or to revoke the Food Safety Bylaw 2013. This decision will then be referred to the Governing Body for approval.

Executive Summary

2.       On 23 May 2013, the Governing Body adopted the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”). The Bylaw is aligned with the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974, which will be replaced by the Food Act 2014 (“the Act”) over a three year transitional period from 1 March 2016.

3.       The Act requires every local authority with a bylaw that is inconsistent with the Act to amend or revoke the bylaw to remove the inconsistency (Section 446). Once the Act comes into effect on 1 March 2016, any bylaw clauses deemed inconsistent with the Act will no longer apply.

4.       Staff have reviewed the Act and have identified inconsistencies between the Bylaw and the Act. Staff have identified the following two options to address this:

Option 1:            Amend the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 as proposed in Attachment A, to achieve alignment with the provisions of the Food Act 2014 (recommended option)

Option 2:            Revoke the Food Safety Bylaw 2013.

5.       A full account of changes to the Bylaw required under Option 1 can be seen in Attachments A and B. A summary of changes to the Bylaw include:

·     revocation of clauses regarding closure of unsafe food premises and the restriction of food sales to private premises - these matters will instead be regulated by the Act

·     clauses regarding the training of staff in food premises and the registration of food stalls will automatically expire at the end of the three year transitional period (28 February 2019) - at this time, all food businesses will be subject to the Act, which covers these matters

·     clauses added in order to maintain the mandatory display of food safety grade certificates for businesses registered pursuant to the Act.

6.       An alternative option would be to revoke the Bylaw (Option 2), which would result in a regulatory gap and remove the requirement to display food safety grade certificates.  

7.       Staff recommend Option 1 as this would:

·   ensure there is no regulatory gap regarding staff training and the registration of food stalls through the transitional period, and

·   maintain the mandatory display of food safety grade certificates for public information.

8.       This report requests that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee recommend that the Governing Body amend the Bylaw as proposed in Attachment A (Option 1). 


 

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a)      approve:

EITHER

i)        Option 1: to amend the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 (as contained in Attachment A of the agenda report) to ensure consistency with the Food Act 2014 and recommend that the Governing Body approve this decision.

OR

ii)       Option 2: to revoke the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 and recommend that the Governing Body approve this decision.

Comments

Background

9.       On 23 May 2013, the Governing Body adopted the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”) to replace seven ‘legacy council food safety bylaws’ (Resolution Number: GB/2013/47).

10.     The Food Act 2014 (“the Act”) received Royal Assent on 6 June 2014 and will replace the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 over a three-year transitional period from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2019. The three-year transitional period allows for businesses to transition from registration with the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 to the Act as their registration renewal arises. 

11.     The Act introduces significant improvements to the way that food safety is addressed by food businesses across New Zealand, including:

·        new requirements for businesses:

O   to document their procedures

o   that prepare food with a high risk to food safety to operate subject to a Food Control Plan

·        provision for the making of regulations to set up a national grading scheme (Section 385), however the Ministry for Primary Industries has indicated that a national grading scheme is unlikely to be implemented before the transitional period is complete (28 February 2019).

12.     Section 446 of the Act requires the council to amend or revoke its existing bylaw, in order to remove inconsistencies with the Act. The Act explicitly allows the council to make such amendments without the requirement for a special consultative procedure, though these amendments must be for the purpose of addressing inconsistencies with the Act. 

13.     In June 2015, staff advised the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee of the new legislation, and the Committee directed council staff to review the Bylaw to ensure consistency with the Act (Resolution Number: RBC/2015/19).

14.     The Governing Body is responsible for making amendments to the Bylaw resulting from this review.


Options for consideration

15.     Staff have identified inconsistencies between the Bylaw and the new Act, and have identified the following two options to address this:

Option 1:            Amend the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 as proposed in Attachment A, to achieve alignment with the provisions of the Food Act 2014

Option 2:            Revoke the Food Safety Bylaw 2013.

Option 1: Amend the Food Safety Bylaw 2013

16.     Table 1 below outlines the amendments to the Bylaw proposed under Option 1 to ensure consistency with the Act. Attachment A contains the proposed amended bylaw and Attachment B provides a full account of changes to the Bylaw.

Table 1: Summary of proposed changes to the Food Safety Bylaw 2013

Existing Bylaw provisions

Change

Reason

Clause 5 - Terminology definitions

Amendment

·    Consistency – modifying the definitions section of the Bylaw in order to align with terminology used in the Act

Clause 6 - Closure of unhygienic or unsafe food premises

Revocation

·    Avoids duplication – the Act appoints Food Safety Officers with authority to close an unhygienic or unsafe food premises so this clause is not needed in the Bylaw

Clause 7 - Training of staff in food premises

Amendment

·    Avoids duplication – the clauses in the Bylaw regarding the training of staff have been amended to expire at the end of the Act’s transitional period (e.g. 28 February 2019) after which all food businesses will be subject to the Act (which includes appropriate training of staff as part of a Food Control Plan or a National Programme)

Clause 8 - Grading of food premises

Amendment

·    Avoids duplication – Existing clauses amended to expire at the end of the transitional period when all businesses will be subject to the Act

·    Maintain grading system – New clauses inserted to maintain the requirement to display a food safety certificate for those subject to the Act

o Grading would not apply to businesses that were not required to be registered before the commencement of the Act on 1 March 2016

Clause 9 - Restriction of food sales to private premises

Revocation

·    Avoids duplication – These businesses will be subject to a Food Control Plan or a National Programme registered pursuant to the Act so the requirement is not needed in the Bylaw

Clause 10 - Food stalls and mobile food premises

Amendment

·    Avoids duplication – The clauses in the Bylaw regarding food stalls and mobile food have been amended to expire at the end of the transitional period (e.g. 28 February 2019) after which all food businesses will be subject to the Act

 


Option 2: Revoke the Food Safety Bylaw 2013

17.     Option 2 would involve revoking the Bylaw in full and removing the mandatory grading system.

18.     Retaining the status quo is not an option as the Bylaw would then be inconsistent with the Act.

Discussion

Options analysis

19.     Tables 2 and 3 below assess the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with each option, with particular reference to the following objectives of the Act:

·     to minimise and manage risks to public health

·     to ensure operators take responsibility for the safety of food they sell (Section 4).

Table 2: Assessment of Option 1: Amend the Food Safety Bylaw 2013

Analysis

Pros

·    Food safety standards will be maintained through the transitional period

·    Minimises risk to public health by continuing a mandatory grading scheme and ensuring food safety information is available to customers in order to make informed choices

·    Mandatory display of a grade certificate can be an incentive for operators to promote food safety and take responsibility for the food they sell

Cons

·    Increased communications requirements for council to ensure the public and operators understand changes to the grading scheme

·    Staff resources required to monitor compliance

·    The council will need to amend the Bylaw again, as and when regulations are made that set up a national grading scheme

Risks

·    Operators that have transitioned to the Act may drop from an A-Grade to a B-Grade with the Act’s new requirements for written procedures on food safety

·    Operators may not be aware of the changes introduced through the Act and the requirements (such as written documentation, etc)  for the new grading system

Risk mitigation

·    Comprehensive public communications on the changes introduced through the Act, changes to the Bylaw and the new grading scheme

·    As businesses transition, temporarily maintain existing grades for businesses that require time to develop written procedures for compliance with the Act

 


Table 3: Assessment of Option 2: Revoke Food Safety Bylaw 2013

 

Analysis

Pros

·    Shifts responsibility to operators to ensure the safety of the food they sell, which in turn reduces council’s monitoring costs

·    Operators will not need to adapt from the council’s grading scheme to a national grading scheme as and when it may be implemented

·    No cost for the council to implement a new grading scheme

Cons

·    Potential food safety risk as there would be no regulation of staff training or requirement for food stalls to be registered until businesses transition to the Act (a regulatory gap)

·    Removal of the requirement to display a food safety grade certificate could mean a potential risk to the health of customers that unknowingly purchase food from businesses with low food safety standards

·    Time between the revocation of the Bylaw and the implementation of a national food grading scheme by the Ministry for Primary Industries is unknown

Risks

·    Potential negative reaction from the public if the mandatory display of food safety grade certificates was removed

Risk mitigation

·    Advocate for the implementation of a national mandatory grading scheme

Community views

20.     A public opinion survey undertaken by the council in June 2015 showed overwhelming support to retain the mandatory display of food grade certificates. Of the 5,040 respondents in the “Peoples Panel Survey”:

·     96 per cent of respondents supported the mandatory display of a food grade certificate

·     88 per cent indicated that on most occasions they look for a food grade certificate before purchasing at a food premises.

21.     The council undertook engagement with nine groups of food industry representatives in October 2015. Those representatives support retaining the Bylaw to maintain a mandatory food grading scheme. The representatives were of the opinion that the new grading assessment method for businesses registered pursuant to the Act will support businesses in conforming with their Food Control Plan.   

Summary of options and recommendation

22.     There are benefits and disadvantages associated with both options, as outlined below.

23.     If the Committee decides to recommend Option 2 to the Governing Body, and the Governing Body accepts this recommendation, the council would cease its food grading scheme. 

24.     Revoking the Bylaw (Option 2) would shift the responsibility of ensuring food safety to operators, and there would be no implementation cost to the council. Also, operators would not need to adapt from council’s grading scheme to a national grading scheme as and when regulations are made.


25.     However, revoking the Bylaw would result in a regulatory gap while businesses transition their registration from the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 to the Act. The timeframe for implementing a national food grading scheme is unknown, and could result in food safety risks. Until the new regulations come into force, which is an indefinite period, there would be:

·   no staff training

·   no food stall registration requirements

·   inconsistency in the display of grading certificates.

26.     Amending the Bylaw as proposed in Attachment A (Option 1) would increase communications requirements for the council to ensure the public and operators understand changes to the grading scheme. Changes will be minimal for operators and will involve documentation of food safety practices, reflecting this new requirement of the Act. Option 1 would also require staff resources to monitor compliance and to amend the Bylaw again, as and when regulations are made that set up a national grading scheme. 

27.     However, staff consider that the advantages of Option 1 outweigh the disadvantages. The advantages of retaining and amending the Bylaw are:

·     food safety standards would be maintained through the transitional period by regulating staff training and the registration of food stalls

·     public display of food safety grade certificates would be maintained until regulations are made to set up a national grading scheme, providing consistency for the public

·     mandatory display of a grade certificate can be an incentive for operators to promote food safety and take responsibility for the food they sell.

28.     Public surveys and industry feedback also demonstrate overwhelming support for maintaining a mandatory food safety grade system. For these reasons staff recommend amending the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 as proposed in Attachment A (Option 1).

Next scheduled bylaw review

29.     The legislative five yearly review of the Bylaw is scheduled to commence in 2019. The review will involve a Special Consultative Procedure as required by the Local Government Act 2002. The timing of the review will align with the end of the transitional period (February 2019) and will be informed by the potential implementation of a national grading scheme.    

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

30.     Staff received feedback from 15 local boards in December 2015 on the proposed amendments to the Bylaw. All 15 local boards endorsed the proposal to retain the Bylaw to grade food businesses. In addition:

·    the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards specifically support grade certificates to be displayed in a prominent position in the front window of food premises (Resolution number: MO/2015/221 and OP/2015/217)

·    the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board also support the requirement for businesses that receive an “E-Grade” to be closed until the appropriate food hygiene standards are met (Resolution Number: OP/2015/217).

Māori impact statement

31.     The proposed amended bylaw exempts marae kitchens from needing to display a food safety grade certificate (refer to Clause 6(6) of Attachment A).

32.     Commercial marae kitchens are not currently subject to grading because they are exempt from registration requirements of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 as an ‘occasional premises’. The Food Act 2014 introduces new registration requirements for the sale and supply of food from marae kitchens.

33.     A requirement to display food safety grade certificates for commercial kitchens on marae would be new and is not necessary in order to ensure consistency with the Act. Any changes to this would therefore require the council to follow the special consultative procedure.

34.     Feedback obtained at a hui in November 2015 with mataawaka at Te Mahurehure Marae was that grading would be a significant change and would require further engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka (with particular consideration of tikanga food preparation and potential cost implications where the sale of food contributes to the operational costs of the marae).

Implementation

35.     If accepted by the Governing Body, the amended Food Safety Bylaw would come into effect on 1 March 2016, consistent with the commencement date of the Food Act 2014. Auckland Council Licensing and Compliance Services are responsible for implementing the amended bylaw and a new grading scheme consistent with the Act. This scheme will be administered by the council for businesses registered pursuant to the Act, along with the current grading scheme for businesses registered pursuant to the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 until the end of the transition period (28 February 2019).

36.     The council will communicate key messages about changes to the Bylaw, the new grading scheme, and improving food safety to food businesses and the public through public notices, Our Auckland and media releases in mainstream and ethnic media. Communication with key stakeholders will be ongoing through the transitional period. 

37.     From June to November 2015, the council provided mentoring sessions to ethnic food business owners to assist with their transition to the new regulatory regime. Mentoring sessions were provided to 79 operators in Korean, 55 operators in Cantonese and 36 operators in Mandarin.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

(Proposed Amended) Food Safety Bylaw 2013

17

bView

Comparison of the existing Food Safety Bylaw 2013 and proposed amendments to the bylaw

35

 

Signatories

Authors

Emma Pilkington - Policy Analyst

Belinda Hansen - Team Leader Social Policy and Bylaws

Authoriser

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

 


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 



















Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

































Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

Report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed fees under the Food Act 2014

 

File No.: CP2016/00142

 

  

Purpose

1.       To recommend to the Governing Body a fee regime in accordance with the Food Act 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       The Food Act 2014 was passed into law in June 2014 and enables council to fix fees to recover costs associated with the various functions performed under the Act.

3.       The Finance and Performance Committee approved for public consultation a Statement of Proposal - Setting Fees under the Food Act.  A hearings panel subsequently convened to review written feedback, to hear oral submissions if required, and to make recommendations.

4.       Following consideration of the proposal and review of submissions received, the Hearings Panel recommend that Option 1 of the Statement of Proposal – Setting fees under the Food Act be adopted by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

5.       Specifically, the Hearings Panel recommends that Council fully recover both direct and indirect costs implementing the Food Act 2014, including the registration, verification and monitoring costs.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body the adoption of the proposed fees for all food businesses that interact with Auckland Council under the Food Act 2014, as per Option One of the Statement of Proposal – Setting Fees under the Food Act (attachment A of the agenda report).

 

Background

6.       The Food Act 2014 (The Act) was passed into law in June 2014, replacing the Food Act 1981. A three year transition starts on 1 March 2016. High risk food service businesses with an alcohol on-license such as hotels, restaurants, bars and cafes will be among the first to transition to the new Act.

7.       Council may by resolution set fees under The Act using the special consultative procedure under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. If these are to apply for the current financial year, the territorial authority must be satisfied that the persons, or their representatives affected by the increase in fees or new fees, agree or substantially agree with the alteration or fixing.

8.       On 19 November 2015, the Finance and Performance Committee approved for public consultation the Statement of Proposal - Setting Fees under the Food Act (FIN/2015/120).


Proposal 

9.       The Statement of Proposal included three options:

·       Option One: To fully recover the full direct and indirect costs of council’s functions under the Food Act 2014.  These include the registration, verification and monitoring activities.  All fees were recommended on a minimum charge with additional charges for exceeding certain time limits, for example to verify a business operating under a template food control plan, the minimum charge is $620, and additional charges apply for any time over four hours at $155 per hour.  This was the preferred option.

·       Option Two: To recover partial costs of delivering council’s functions under the Food Act 2014. This option was not in accordance with council’s revenue and finance policy and was not the preferred option.

·       Option Three: Adopt an amended statement of proposal where all fees are charged at an hourly rate with no upfront fees.  This option does not provide any certainty on the expected charges and was not the preferred option. 

10.     The public engagement period commenced on 20 November 2015 and closed on 21 December 2015.

11.     The Statement of proposal was notified as follows:

·        A public notice in the New Zealand Herald

·        On council’s Shape Auckland website and service centres

·        Letters or emails sent to the 9000 currently licensed food premises

·        Engagement with industry groups such as Hospitality Association New Zealand (HANZ), Restaurant Association New Zealand (RANZ) and the Chefs Association.

·        Engagement with mana whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

Hearings and deliberations process

12.     The hearings panel was appointed by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations.  Panel members were Councillors Krum (Panel Chairperson), Penrose, Filipaina and Independent Maori Statutory Board member Mr. Wilcox.

13.     A total of five submissions were received.  One submitter wished to make a verbal submission to the Hearings Panel however was unable to attend the hearing in person.

14.     The majority of submissions were concerned with the possibility of increased costs and complexity of complying with the requirements of the Food Act 2014.

15.     Copies of all submissions were made available.

Comments 

16.     The panel members raised and discussed a number of issues from the Statement of Proposal and submissions.  A summary is provided below of the issues discussed:

·        Can verifications be completed within the proposed 4 hours?

·        Establishment of a fees dispute process

·        Fees – comparing the proposed fee of $155 per hour to the current fee of $141 per hour.

·        The proposed $155 is based on a cost to serve analysis which was completed to determine the hourly rate. The analysis included the registration, verification and compliance activities provided by council. Corporate support charges are also included in the $155 hourly rate.

·        The proposed rate is also consistent with council’s hourly rate for other regulatory activities as well as other territorial authorities and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

·        The incentive for food businesses to be compliant which will result in reduced verifications and less costs.

·        The importance of the food grading system in Auckland.

·        The challenges for food businesses complying with the new requirements especially those where English is not the first language.

·        The differences between Food Control Plans (FCP’s) and National Programmes 1, 2 & 3.

Closing statements 

17.     Prior to the meeting closing, the Hearings Panel noted the following:

·        Hearings Panel members have read and understood the document.

·        Hearings Panel members have read and received the submissions.

·        The Hearings Panel held a public discussion regarding the proposal and submissions.

·        The Hearings Panel have had a debate and been provided with staff comments regarding the proposal and submissions.

 

18.     The Hearings Panel forwarded a resolution, moved by Councillor Krum and seconded by Councillor Penrose to adopt Option 1 as set out in the Statement of Proposal – Setting of Fees under the Food Act.  It was carried unanimously. 

19.     The Hearings Panel also noted the following:

·        The introduction of the Food Act and the associated fees are a statutory requirement.

·        There is the possibility of savings to businesses through reduced fees if they fully comply with the legislative requirements.

·        The adoption of a policy to allow “not for profit organisations” to pay reduce fees, similar to their current fees. 

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20.     Local Board views were sought during the special consultative procedure.

Māori impact statement

21.     Active engagement was undertaken with mana whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.  A hui was held on 11 November 2015 at the Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier.  The session included representatives from Te Puni Kokiri.

Implementation

22.     The new fee regime must be in place prior to 01 March 2016 to ensure that council can recover its costs from businesses that transition to The Act.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Statement of Proposal, fee comparative and schedule

71

Signatories

Author

Councillor Denise Krum – Chair of Hearing Panel

Authoriser

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

 


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

Temporary alcohol ban for the Auckland Lantern Festival

 

File No.: CP2016/00099

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval for a temporary alcohol ban for the Auckland Lantern Festival being held at the Auckland Domain between 18 and 21 February 2016.

Executive Summary

2.       The police have requested that the council make a temporary alcohol ban for the 2016 Auckland Lantern Festival.

3.       Temporary alcohol bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified areas for specified times. The police consider temporary alcohol bans to be a useful tool to reduce alcohol-related harm during large-scale events.

4.       The council can make a temporary alcohol ban under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

5.       To put a comprehensive temporary alcohol ban in place at the Auckland Domain, a decision is also required of the Auckland Domain Committee. This decision will be made on 10 February 2016.

6.       In deciding whether to make a temporary alcohol ban, the council must be satisfied that:

·      there is evidence of crime or disorder caused or made worse by the consumption of alcohol in public places

·      the alcohol ban is proportionate and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

7.       Staff recommend that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee make the alcohol ban by passing a resolution. Staff consider making this ban meets the decision making requirements. It will enable the police to deal with intoxicated people and reduce crime and disorder associated with alcohol consumption before and after the festival.

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a)      make a temporary alcohol ban in the part of the Auckland Domain for which it has decision-making power (not including the area marked with a solid red line in Attachment A), pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, to operate from 9am Thursday 18 February until 9am Monday 22 February 2016.

Comments

Background

8.       The Auckland Lantern Festival will be held at the Auckland Domain between 18 and 21 February 2016.

9.       A permanent alcohol ban operates on the Auckland Domain (park, playing fields, car park and roads within the Auckland Domain) from 10pm to 7am during daylight savings and 7pm to 7am outside daylight savings.  Previous festivals have been held at Albert Park where there has been an all-hours alcohol ban in place.

10.     Where a permanent alcohol ban is not in place, a temporary alcohol ban can be used to prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified areas for specified times.

11.     Alcohol bans are enforced by the New Zealand Police. Under the Local Government (Alcohol Ban Breaches) Regulations 2013, the penalty for breaching an alcohol ban is an infringement fee of $250.

Request for temporary alcohol ban

12.     The police have requested a temporary alcohol ban on the whole of the Auckland Domain for the Auckland Lantern Festival. A copy of the police request is contained in Attachment B.

13.     The police have requested that the temporary alcohol ban:

·      operate from 9am Thursday 18 February 2016 until 9am Monday 22 February 2016

·      cover the entire Auckland Domain area.

Making temporary alcohol bans

14.     The council can make a temporary alcohol ban under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014. Decision-making under this bylaw is split between the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee and local boards, depending on the ban area.

15.     The decision-making delegations for making an alcohol ban at the Auckland Domain are as follows:

·      the Auckland Domain Committee has the delegated decision-making over the playing field areas and two community recreational leases (Auckland Bowling Club and Parnell Tennis Club).  This was delegated to the Committee by the Waitematā Local Board

·      the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee can make a ban over the remaining area.\

16.     Previously, staff have requested that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee make an alcohol ban over the whole Auckland Domain.  After reviewing the delegations, staff consider this process is more aligned with the governance arrangements for the Domain.

Decision

17.     The police and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development have recorded evidence of crime and disorder at previous lantern festival events. Issues have included assault and other aggressive behaviours. The police have used the alcohol ban to successfully reduce harm associated with intoxicated persons, including issuing a number of infringement notices for breach of alcohol ban.

18.     Council staff consider the temporary alcohol ban requested to be a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms because of the following factors:

·      the area covered by the ban would be clearly defined

·      the short duration of the ban

·      the improved perceptions of safety that people feel at events in the absence of alcohol.

Risks

19.     There would be a greater risk of alcohol-related harm associated with the Auckland Lantern Festival if a temporary alcohol ban was not implemented.

20.     In order to meet event timelines, the decision cannot be postponed as the event will occur before the next committee meeting.

Next steps

21.     The Auckland Domain Committee will consider making a temporary alcohol ban over the remaining area of the Auckland Domain at its 10 February 2016 meeting.

22.     Staff will be reviewing the delegations for the Auckland Domain to investigate whether future decisions can be made by a single committee.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

23.     The Waitematā Local Board have previously supported the use of temporary alcohol bans, including the following police requests for temporary alcohol bans:

·      AC/DC concert at Western Springs Stadium in December 2015

·      fan trail to Eden Park during the Rugby World Cup 2011

·      Cricket World Cup 2014

·      annual Christmas in the Park event.

Māori impact statement

24.     Managing alcohol-related harm associated with events increases health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. Iwi have been consulted widely on the use of alcohol bans and have previously been supportive.

Implementation

25.     Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development will be heavily involved in the implementation of the alcohol ban. Its proposed alcohol management strategy for the Auckland Lantern Festival includes:

·        standard Auckland Council signage to notify the public of the alcohol control area. This will be in English and Te Reo and will contain the dates and times the temporary alcohol ban will be in force

·        involving the police in the event planning and ensuring sufficient police presence to enforce the temporary alcohol ban

·        advising the type and conditions for on-site alcohol licences granted for this festival

·        asking Auckland Council alcohol licensing inspectors to visit all licensed premises in the temporary alcohol control area prior to the festival

·        applying signage to off-licence premises in proximity to the ban area advising of the temporary alcohol ban

·        sending a notification letter to all local businesses and residents informing them of the temporary ban area dates and times.

26.     Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development will meet the costs associated with implementing the temporary alcohol ban, including temporary signage and any other reasonable requirements of the New Zealand Police.

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Map of the requested alcohol ban area

87

bView

Police request

89

 

Signatories

Authors

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst

Authoriser

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

 


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

09 February 2016

 

PDF Creator