Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 23 March 2021 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Gambling Venues Policy Review Hearing Report

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Gambling Act 2003
Document ID:	1295892
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rachael Horton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides an analysis of submissions received on the Gambling Venues Policy review.

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and make decisions on the Gambling Venues Policy review.

Officer’s Recommendations

That Council:

a. Consider the public submissions on the Gambling Venues Policy and determine whether any changes are required to the proposed Policy.

b. If no changes are required, adopt the Gambling Venues Policy with the reduced cap option as proposed, and retaining the following Policy conditions:

i. A cap on the number of class 4 venues at 20;

ii. A cap on the number of machines at 298;

iii. A cap of 3 venues in the Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone;

iv. A cap on TAB venues at 2;

v. Ability for licence holders to relocate machines from both class 4 and TAB venues;

vi. Ability for incorporated clubs when amalgamating to merge machines within set limits;

vii. Limiting new or relocating venues to locations within the following zones – Inner City Commercial Zone; Art Deco Quarter; Fringe Commercial Zone; Ahuriri Mixed Use Zone; Main Industrial Zone; West Quay Waterfront; Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone (3 max.).

1.2 Background Summary

The Gambling Act was introduced in 2003 to balance the potential harm from class 4 gambling against the benefits of using gaming machines as a form of community funding.

Territorial Authorities have a particular role under both the Gambling Act and the Racing Act to control the impacts of class 4 and TAB gambling on its community. The mechanism for this is through the Gambling Venues Policy (Policy) to determine whether class 4 and standalone TAB venues can be established in the territorial authority district and, if so, how many, and where they can be located.

Both the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003 requires territorial authorities to review their Policy on class 4 gambling and TAB agency venues every three years.

Following the 2003 commencement of the Gambling and Racing Acts, Napier City Council adopted its first gambling policy in 2004. At this time Napier City had 38 Class 4 venues and 492 machines. The first policy was a ‘sinking lid’ policy, which meant that no new venues were permitted and every time a gaming machine was removed or a venue closed, the number of machines decreased.

The policy was reviewed without change in 2006.

In 2010, the policy changed from a sinking lid to a ‘cap’ policy where numbers were restricted to 26 venues, 350 machines and 2 TAB venues.

The 2013 policy review lowered this cap to 20 Class 4 venues and 320 machines. The cap on two TAB venues remained.

The 2017 policy review retained the cap policy of 20 Class 4 venues and 320 machines and 2 TAB venues. Council at the time held the view that accessibility increases opportunities to gamble and that low socio economic areas are disproportionally affected by the harmful effects of gambling. To ensure that the location of class 4 gaming venues stayed outside of neighbourhood centres they introduced policy clauses around where new venues could be located together with a specific cap in Taradale to three venues.

The additional controls introduced were:

· A new cap of three class 4 venues in the Taradale Suburban Zone (the current number of venues in this zone), and

· A limit on the location of new or relocating venues to the CBD, Fringe Commercial, Ahuriri Mixed Use, Main Industrial and West Quay Waterfront zones in the District Plan.

As part of the 2020 review, officers held two workshops to determine Council’s policy direction for consultation. Policy direction by Council during workshops held was to reduce the cap to the current number of venues and machines.

Then followed a meeting of the Maori Committee (13 November 2020) who recommended to Council that they should consider adopting a sinking lid policy as the preferred option for consultation.

The Future Napier Committee met (3 December 2020) and recommended to Council to approve the Statement of Proposal for public consultation that included the “reduced cap” as Council’s preferred option.

At the Council meeting on 17 December 2020, Council considered the options in the officer’s report and resolved to approve a revised Statement of Proposal for public consultation proposing the reduced cap policy (Option 2) i.e. capping the number of machines to 298, venues to 20 and TAB venues to 2; which was the current number of machines and venues at the time of the decision. All other previous policy clauses are retained under this option.

Since the decision on 17 December 2020, class 4 venues reduced from 20 to 19, and gaming machines reduced from 298 to 289.

Options considered by Council were:

Option One: Status Quo	Retain the cap at 320 machines and 20 venues and 2 TAB venues. Retain relocation policy and club merger policy. Retain restrictions on new/relocated venue locations. Cap of 3 venues in Taradale.
Option Two: Lower Cap amounts	Decrease the number of venues and/or gaming machines. A capped approach means that every time a venue closes, the number of permitted machines remains the same. This means that other venues can apply for additional machines if their permitted number of machines has not been exceeded or if a new venue is established. The Councils current cap is set at allowing 320 machines to operate in the district (currently 298 are operating)
Option Three: Adopt a sinking lid policy	Decrease the number of gaming machines or class 4 venues through natural attrition. It bans any new gaming machines or venues. If a venue closes and the licence is not taken up within six months from the date of closing then the machines in the community are lost. The sinking lid policy does not reduce the number of machines in an existing venue that is operating.
Remove relocations and/or mergers	In addition to the options above, consideration can be given to removing the ability for gaming machines to be relocated and the ability for clubs to merge machines. This would prevent two clubs merging and having a large number of machines at one site. Currently Napier District has four clubs operating 63 machines in total.

1.3 Consultation

At its meeting on 17 December 2020, Council resolved to publically notify the proposed review option as per section 83 of the Local Government Act. The statement of proposal and amended policy were made available for public submissions from 18 January to 17 February 2021. See Attachment A.

The consultation process was advised directly to the following bodies who were deemed to have a special interest in the matter, including those who submitted to the last policy review in 2017:

· New Zealand Racing Board

· Gaming Trusts (as listed on Department of Internal Affairs website)

· Venues who host gaming machines

· Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand

· Te Rangihaeata Oranga Trust (Hawke’s Bay Gambling Harm)

· Te Hiringa Hauora/Health Promotion Agency

· Family support services

· Māori social service and health providers

· Iwi / Hapu entities

The statement of proposal was available on www.sayitnapier.nz, along with a short summary and a submission form. Hard copies of the material were available at the Council’s Customer Service Centre, the libraries and by request.

Council also signalled through the consultation material that it wished to hear from its community on any opportunities Council may have outside this specific Gambling Venues Policy review, to manage and minimise the harm caused by gambling generally.

1.4 Summary of Submissions

A total of 105 submissions were received of which 24 submitters indicated that they wish to be heard. A table summarising the submissions received is attached to this report – Attachment B.

Of the 105 submissions –

· 26 submitters supported the proposed reduced cap – Option 2

Of those 1 submitter supported the proposal without the relocation clause; 1 submitter supported the proposal but with a greater restrictive cap; 2 submitters supported with the addition of a sinking lid policy along with removal of relocation and merger clauses, and 3 submitters supported the proposal without any additional comments.

Officer Comment: By their very nature you can’t have both a cap and sinking lid policy. It’s either one or the other.

· 9 Submitters supported a sinking lid policy – Option 3

· 61 Submitters supported a sinking lid policy plus removal of relocation – Options 3 and 4:

Of the 66 who submitted along these lines, 1 submitter (#66) wanted to add a proximity policy; 12 of the submitters in this category also sought greater restrictive policy clauses to achieve total prohibition, prohibition in areas of a residential nature or high deprivation, all machines in one central location etc. Of these 66 submitters, 36 (#71 to #106) were made in the form of a prewritten submission with hand written submitter details.

· 8 Submitters supported the Status Quo Policy – Option 1

These submissions are from the Gaming Machine Association of NZ, Grassroots Trust NZ, Grassroots Trust Central, One Foundation, Napier RSA and Hospitality NZ and Clubs NZ, Napier Clubs, and Four Winds Foundation.

· 1 Submitter did not support the proposed option (Option 2)

This submitter made no additional comments.

Of the 105 submitters, 62 gave comments supporting their preferred option and 18 attached detailed written information to support their submission.

In response to Council’s additional question around any opportunities Council may have outside this specific Gambling Venues Policy review, to manage and minimise the harm caused by gambling generally, 68 submitters offered suggestion which included:

· All machines/gaming rooms should display information around the harm from gambling…

· Ban gambling advertising

· Ensure venues are being checked and comply…

· Reduce the hours…

· Pokies should not be allowed in pubs…

· …petition Government to ban gambling advertising…

· Provide money to community groups so they are not so dependent on gaming machine profits.

· Greater awareness of harm machines cause.

Officer Comment: The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) are the gambling regulator under the Act. DIA Gambling Inspectors are responsible for auditing and inspecting class 4 venues for compliance with the Act. Suggestions from this review relating to how a venue should operate, including venue inspections, what information they display, the hours they are open, are responsibilities for DIA Gambling Inspectors.

1.5 Statutory Implications

Local Authorities have legislative responsibilities under the Gambling Act 2003 to consider the effects of gambling within their district. The purpose and intent of the Gambling Act is to:

· Control the growth of gambling

· Prevent and minimise harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling

· Authorise some gambling and prohibit the rest

· Facilitate responsible gambling

· Ensure the integrity and fairness of games

· Limit opportunities for crime and dishonesty associated with gambling

· Ensure that money from gambling benefits the community

· Facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling

The purpose and intent of the Racing Act 2003 is to:

· To provide effective governance arrangement for the racing industry

· The facilitate betting on galloping, harness and greyhound races and other sporting events

· To promote the long-term viability of New Zealand racing.

In reviewing a policy under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003, Council should have regard to the following:

a. must have regard to the social impact of gambling within the territorial authority district

b. must specify whether or not class 4 gaming venues may be established in the territorial authority district and, if so, where they may be located; and

c. may specify any restrictions on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated at a class 4 venue; and

d. may include a relocation policy for class 4 gaming venues.

e. must specify whether or not new TAB agency venues may be established and, if so, where they may be located

In determining its policy on whether class 4 or TAB agency venues may be established in the territorial authority district, where any venue may be located, and any restrictions on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated at venues, the territorial authority may have regard to any relevant matters, including:

a. the characteristics of the district and parts of the district

b. the location of kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, and other community facilities

c. the number of gaming machines that should be permitted to operate at any venue or class of venue

d. the cumulative effects of additional opportunities for gambling in the district

e. how close any class 4 venue should be permitted to be to any other venue

f. what the primary activity at any class 4 venue should be.

1.6 The Gambling Policy Debate

There is potential for conflict and uncertainties around decision-making on the provision of gambling when communities want to balance the need to minimise harm from gambling with the desire to generate benefits to the community from gambling money. The submissions received reflect this conflict, with a number calling for a tougher stance by requesting Council to adopt a sinking lid policy. Others argue that lowering machine numbers does not in fact contribute to reducing harm, and may negatively impact on the ability of community groups to gain funding.

1.7 Alignment with Hasting’s District Council Policy

A number of submissions have requested a sinking lid policy and this would align with that of Hasting District Council (HDC). HDC traditionally had a sinking lid policy until its 2017 review when they amended their policy from a sinking lid to a cap on machines, based on the number of machines they had in circulation at the time. During their 2020 review, HDC reverted back to the more restrictive ‘sinking lid’ policy which results in no more gaming machines being permitted in the District. HDC’s Policy does allow for machine relocations and club mergers within certain parameters.

1.8 Decision Making

Council has received an excellent number of submissions from individuals, clubs, gambling harm reduction agencies, industry representatives, churches, gaming trusts, community groups and organisations, all of which have expressed views across the policy spectrum from retaining the status quo (existing cap to allow for small growth) to a sinking lid policy together with removal of relocation and merger clauses. Most have articulated their views well and supplied information to support their area of advocacy.

Council has also received a plethora of information from officers to support this Policy review through the various workshops and the Future Napier Committee meeting.

Council will also hear a number of verbal submissions from both sides of the gaming venue policy debate which will assist Council’s knowledge and decision making process.

In the end however, decisions on the strategic intent of this Policy effectively require a conscience type vote by the Council. As a result, Officers have focused primarily on the technical aspects of the Policy and submissions rather than recommending one option over another.

The following is the Officer’s response to the main submission points raised.

A sinking lid versus a cap policy

A number of submissions advocated for a sinking lid policy over a cap policy. A sinking lid policy is a restrictive policy that will result in a decrease in venues and machines over time. A cap policy determines the maximum number of machines and/or venues allowed in the district. Where this level is set in relation to existing venues and machines determines whether any new venues can be established e.g. currently the number of machines and venues in Napier is under the cap limit and therefore the current policy allows new venues to establish (providing they meet the application criteria) up to the maximum allowed under the cap. Generally, a cap policy is seen as a softer approach than a sinking lid in that it allows for more flexibility and movement of venues and machine numbers.

Relocations

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Act 2013 resulted in changes to the Acts provisions for relocating venues. The changes are designed to make it easier for venues to relocate by allowing the maximum number of machines permitted at the new venue to be the same as permitted at the old venue (up to a maximum of 18). The purpose behind this change was to encourage venues to move out of unsuitable locations.

As highlighted by some submitters, having a relocation clause actually allows premises with gaming machines in less desirable locations to locate them to more suitable locations. The alternative is venue holders may hold on to them indefinitely.

This scenario occurred recently with the Golden Chance in Maraenui.

Ring fenced funding

Rules around the distribution of funds from Class 4 gambling are determined by national legislation and therefore Council has no control over how funds generated in our district are distributed. The concern raised in some submissions is that all funds should come back to this District.

Trusts have no legal obligation to return funds to the community in which they were generated, although they may wish to do so on a voluntary basis. Some gaming trusts have voluntarily adopted policies that state a certain proportion of funds will be returned to the community in which they are generated. However, the term community is generally not defined and could conceivably be the immediate community or the wider community.

Recent venue changes

At the date of writing this report (10 March) class 4 venues had reduced from 20 to 19, and gaming machines reduced from 298 to 289. This was due to the cancellation of the gaming licence held by Napier RSA for nine machine located at Friends Bar on Marine Parade.

The Windsock Bar with 18 gaming machines on Hastings Street has closed. The gaming machines can be reactivated at this location if a liquor licence is granted, however this is only permitted up to six months from the venue closing (provision expires 4 June). The venues and machines are still counted in the capped numbers for this reason.

TAB venues

There were no submission points raised in relation to TAB venues.

Officers are recommending Councillors consider all of the submissions and either adopt the Policy as proposed or chose to amend the Policy as a result of submissions.

1.9 Attachments

a 2020 Statement of Proposal and Draft Gambling Venues Policy ⇩

b Sub 002 Georgia Dowling Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c Sub 003 Andrew Germann Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d Sub 004 Gaye Herried Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e Sub 005 Ted and Jane Allan Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

f Sub 006 Nathan Monk Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

g Sub 007 Lynda Otter Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

h Sub 008 Dan Nightingales Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

i Sub 009 Christine Miller Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

j Sub 010 Raymond McHalick Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

k Sub 011 Lena Ripley, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

l Sub 012 Susan Jacobs, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

m Sub 013 Rachael Walker, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

n Sub 014 G King, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

o Sub 015 Jay Lamburn, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

p Sub 016 Giles Pearson, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

q Sub 017 John Conneely, Gambling Venue Policy Submission .pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

r Sub 018 Graeme Chapman, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

s Sub 019 Peter Sapper, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

t Sub 020 Ruth Smithies, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

u Sub 021 Vicki Berkahn, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

v Sub 022 Graeme Etheridge, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

w Sub 023 Renee Berry, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

x Sub 024 Sven van Dulm, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

y Sub 025 John Wuts, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

z Sub 026 Toni-Jane White, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

aa Sub 027 Bryce Croom, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ab Sub 028 Soraya Longtime, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ac Sub 029 Soraya Longtime2, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ad Sub 030 Paul Bailey, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ae Sub 031 Rob Vork, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

af Sub 032 Andrea Plumpton, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ag Sub 033 Edward Peter Timu, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ah Sub 034 Colin Dolley, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ai Sub 035 Aaron O'Neill, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

aj Sub 036 Tanya Piejus, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ak Sub 036 New Zealand Community Trust Gambling NZ Community Trust Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

al Sub 037 Isabel Wood, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

am Sub 038 Jarrod True, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

an Sub 038 Jarrod True, Gaming Machine Association Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ao Sub 039 Kim Maitland, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ap Sub 039 (Patrick Le Geyt) Hawke's Bay District Health Board Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

aq Sub 040 Bruce Carnegie, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ar Sub 040 Bruce Carnegie Gambling Venue Policy submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

as Sub 041 Vicki Berkahn2, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

at Sub 042 Robin Gwynn, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

au Sub 042 Robyn Gywnn Gambling Venue Policy submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

av Sub 043 Mark Cleary, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

aw Sub 044 Maxine Boag, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ax Sub 044 Maxine Boag Gambling Venue Policy submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ay Sub 045 Martin Cheer, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

az Sub 045 Martin Cheer, Pub Charity Gambling Venue Policy submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ba Sub 046 Nan Cowan, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bb Sub 047 Aaron Greaves, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bc Sub 048 Samuel Harvey, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bd Sub 049 Margaret Edwards, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

be Sub 050 Israel McNabb, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bf Sub 051 Mark Burgess, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bg Sub 052 Ryan Kaarsemaker, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bh Sub 053 Joanna Bebarfald, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bi Sub 054 June Bradley, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bj Sub 055 Mike Moriarty, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bk Sub 056 Mari Lamborn, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bl Sub 057 Karmen McGrath, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bm Sub 057 Grassroots Trust Central Gambling Venue Policy Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bn Sub 058 Samantha Alexander, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bo Sub 058 Lion Foundation Gambling Venue Policy Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bp Sub 059 Karmen McGrath2, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bq Sub 059 Grassroots Trust Gambling Venue Policy Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

br Sub 060 Liz Lambert, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bs Sub 061 Jen Harvey, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bt Sub 062 Wenerei Thompson, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bu Sub 062 Wenerei Thompson, Gambling Venue Policy Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bv Sub 063 Tina McIvor, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bw Sub 063 Tina McIvor, Gambling Venue Policy Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bx Sub 064 Kerry Bird, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

by Sub 064 One Foundation Gambling Venue Policy Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

bz Sub 065 Dorothy Paki, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ca Sub 066 Janell Dymus, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cb Sub 066 (Selah Hart) Hāpai Te Hauora Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cc Sub 067 Kerry Bird2, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cd Sub 068 Angela Gay Denby, Gambling Venue Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ce Sub 068 Angela Gay Denby Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cf Sub 069 Larry Graham, Gambling Venue Policy Submission - Late Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cg Sub 070 Randal Godfrey, Clubs New Zealand Submission - Late Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ch Sub 071 Wiremu Waretini Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ci Sub 072 Heath Tito Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cj Sub 073 Rebecca Wanoa Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ck Sub 074 Joy Shaw Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cl Sub 075 Lorraine Tipene Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cm Sub 076 Jane Simpson Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cn Sub 077 Heneriata Edmonds Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

co Sub 078 Cath Healey Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cp Sub 079 Sharon Jenkinson Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cq Sub 080 Chris Chand Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cr Sub 081 Susan McGee Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cs Sub 082 Bella Whata Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

ct Sub 083 Dean Dawson Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cu Sub 084 Ezra Te Huia Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cv Sub 085 Theresa Aranui Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cw Sub 086 Tamati Birch Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cx Sub 087 Chelsea Olsen Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cy Sub 088 Jimmy Ngarotata Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

cz Sub 089 Shari Tidswell Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

da Sub 090 Roimata Kapene Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

db Sub 091 Marrian Moeke Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dc Sub 092 Taylor Hita Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dd Sub 093 Sam Carule Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

de Sub 094 Alexia Wineti Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

df Sub 095 Ali Beal Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dg Sub 096 Vanessa Moke Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dh Sub 097 Tracey Takiwa Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

di Sub 098 Tu Haggerty Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dj Sub 099 Kane Matoe Napier Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dk Sub 100 Aaron Killick Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dl Sub 101 Vicki Berkahn Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dm Sub 102 Tyson Leutele Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dn Sub 103 Tipene Kapua-Smith Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

do Sub 104 Apirana Ferris Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dp Sub 105 Kai Jugo Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dq Sub 106 Whitney Wikaire Gambling Venue Policy submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

dr Summary Table of Submissions - Gambling Venues ⇩

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 23 March 2021 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Location of Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy Hearing Report

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Psychoactive Substances Act 2013
Document ID:	1295153
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rachael Horton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

2.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides an analysis of submissions received on the Location of Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy review.

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and make decisions on the Location of Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the Committee:

a. Review the public submissions on the Location of Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy and determine whether any changes are required to the proposed policy.

b. Adopt the Location of Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy as proposed

2.2 Background

In 2013 the Psychoactive Substances Act (the Act) was enacted in response to concerns about the harmful effects of psychoactive substances, which were at the time able to be sold without restriction or regulation.

The Act regulates the availability of psychoactive substances to only those people over the age of 18 and prohibits the sale of these substances from dairies, convenience stores, grocery stores and supermarkets; service stations; liquor outlets; premises that are not a fixed permanent structure^{^[1]}; vehicles or other conveyances^{^[2]}; and any other place or premises specified or described in the Regulations.

The Act also enables a territorial authority to implement a Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy (Policy) relating to the sale of approved products within its district.

While territorial authorities cannot prohibit the sale of approved products, a Policy does enable geographic restrictions to be placed on selling psychoactive products within the district. This includes their proximity to other premises the selling of such substances, and their proximity to premises of a particular kind e.g. kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, or other community facilities. A Policy is required to be reviewed every five years.

Section 66(2) permits a Local Authority’s Policy to:

a. Provide differently for different parts of its district; and

b. Apply to only part (or two or more parts) or its district; and

c. Apply differently to premises for which licences of different kinds are held or have been applied for.

Under Section 68, a Policy may include the following matters:

a. The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas within the district;

b. The location from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved products are sold within the district; and

c. 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 within the district (for example, kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, or other community facilities).

Council does not have a role in either licensing or enforcing psychoactive substances or approved substances under the Act. This is done by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority (Authority) of the Ministry of Health. The Authority license the legal sale of approved products under a pre-market approval scheme for importing, manufacturing, selling, supplying or possessing psychoactive substances or approved products. Under the Act, all psychoactive substances are prohibited unless the sponsor of the product can demonstrate to the Authority that it poses a low risk of harm to the people using them.

There are no products approved for sale in New Zealand, and no applications have been made to the Authority for a licence to sell approved products within either the Napier City or elsewhere in New Zealand.

Having reviewed the policy, officers continue to consider that the existing policy is fit for purpose, subject to any useful suggestions made through the submission process.

2.3 History

Following the 2013 commencement of the Psychoactive Substances Act, Napier City Council adopted its first Location of Approved Psychoactive Products Sales Points Policy on 1 December 2013.

The current Policy is simple in form and function and restricts possible points of sale (premises) to the Inner City Commercial zone and not within 100m of any existing childcare centre, school, library or place of worship. They must also be located a minimum of 300m apart from each other.

As part of the 2020 review, Officers held two workshops to determine Council’s policy direction for consultation. The first workshop was also attended by the Chairperson of the Māori Committee.

Policy direction was given to strengthen the purpose and clause relating to the distance required from sensitive communities to ensure that the exposure to the selling of approved products and their potential harm is minimised across all ‘vulnerable’ and sensitive sections of our community’.

Amendments to the current Policy were marked up in the draft Policy that went out for consultation.

2.4 Consultation

At its meeting on 17 December 2020, Council resolved to publically notify the proposed reviewed policy as per section 83 of the Local Government Act. The statement of proposal and amended policy were made available for public submissions from 18 January to 17 February 2021. See Attachment A

The objective of the consultation was to provide the community, and those with a special interest, with the opportunity to provide their feedback on the Policy.

The consultation included the draft amended policy with wording changes to the location of Psychoactive Substances Sales Points to not be permitted within 100 metres of any existing area where vulnerable or sensitive sections of our community congregate and includes childcare centres, schools, libraries or places of worship.

The consultation was advertised in print and digital media and the following bodies who were thought to have a special interest in the matter were directly notified:

· Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

· Primary Health Organisations

· Family support services

· Industry

· CBD based places of worship, schools, childcares centres, library and other community facilities

· Māori social service and health providers

· Iwi / Hapū entities

1.5 Summary of Submissions

A total of tweleve submissions were received with no submitters indicating they wish to be heard.

Eight submitters supported the proposed policy as consulted on (status quo) whilst four were not in support.

Of the four submitters who did not support the proposal, two questioned the need for the Policy when there are government controls, one wanted them banned completely and one wanted the separation distance from sensitive communities increased from 100m to 300m.

Officers note that while there are tight government controls around which products are approved to be sold in New Zealand, a local policy is required to control where those products may be sold within Napier.

Submission #12 from Hawkes Bay District Health Board gave an excellent overview of the current situation regarding these psychoactive products along with recommending Napier City Council continues with its current Policy including adding a definition for the newly introduced term ‘vulnerable’.

Officers recommend that the term ‘vulnerable’ should have its own literal meaning as defined in the oxford dictionary and that examples of those types of vulnerable communities, as given in the Policy, is sufficient to assist Council to determine vulnerability. To try and define the term would be problematic, and potentially limiting, as would trying to list every example of a community that may be vulnerable now or in the future.

A table summarising the submissions received and officer comments is provided in Attachment B.

1.6 Decision Options

If Council (and the Napier community) wish to directly influence where the Authority will permit such premises to be located within our city, Council must have in place an operational Policy as it will provide clear guidance to the Authority on what the people of Napier have determined is appropriate for the city.

The alternative is to let the Policy lapse and run the risk of a licence to sell Psychoactive Substances being approved anywhere in Napier.

Council has received submissions in relation to the Policy, the majority of which support what Council has proposed.

Officers are recommending Councillors consider the written submissions and adopt the Policy as proposed.

2.5 Attachments

a Final 2020 Statement of Proposal Psychoactive Substances ⇩

b Summary Table of Submissions and Officer Comments ⇩

c Sub 01 Ronald Lane, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d Sub 02 Susan Mackie, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e Sub 03 Gaye Herries, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

f Sub 04 Lynda Otter, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

g Sub 05 Peter Sapper, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

h Sub 06 Michael Bradshaw, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

i Sub 07 John Porter, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

j Sub 08 Kathleen Law, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

k Sub 09 John Conneely, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

l Sub 10 Mark Burgess, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

m Sub 11 Connie Moroney, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

n Sub 12 Kim Maitland, Psychoactive Product Sales Points Policy Submission.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

o Sub 12 Hawke's Bay District Health Board Psychoactive Location Submission Attachment.pdf (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 23 March 2021
Time:	9.00am
Venue:	Large Exhibition Hall Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier

Council Members	Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor, Wright
Officer Responsible	Chief Executive
Administrator	Governance Team
	Next Council Meeting Thursday 8 April 2021