|
| Submission by Hospitality Association of New Zealand Introduction Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of Justice’s latest thinking with regard to the amendments to the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act (PISG Act) to include hospitality door staff. The Association wishes to reinforce its earlier stated position that door staff should be included under the Sale of Liquor Act (SOL) and such a measure is likely to do a lot more for preventing minors accessing alcohol from licensed premises and reducing the harm caused by alcohol than having door staff covered by a different Act. The object of the SOL Act is “to establish a reasonable system of control over the sale and supply of liquor to the public with the aim of contributing to a reduction of liquor abuse so far as that can be achieved by legislative means”. The review of the SOL Act combined with the review of the sale and supply of liquor to minors and the review of the PISG Act all occurring simultaneously presents an opportunity to devise a legislative framework that provides appropriate control, training, accountability and liability to deliver the greatest reduction in alcohol harm possible. In the short timeframe provided for comment on this set of draft proposals, the Association has been challenged to do so as thoroughly as we would like. Furthermore there is no clear framework explained with regard to how the registration and/or licensing of door staff will operate and which body will oversee this. The draft proposals refer to a “Licensing Authority” and the “Liquor Licensing Authority” having particular functions but it is unclear to us how this will work so we are unable to comment. In addition to this the draft proposals are also silent on enforcement and penalty provisions further preventing constructive comment from the Association at this time. Not withstanding this we have prepared the following comments and are available and more than willing to enter into further discussions at any point in the future. 1. Which Act should govern crowd controllers? The Association does not accept the arguments that it is impractical for this matter to be covered by more than one Act. Currently hospitality door staff are exempt from the PISG Act and this exemption could continue with any requirements for training and registration for door staff fitting neatly within the SOL Act. Those security firms wishing to operate in the hospitality door staff business would simply need to ensure that those staff were suitably qualified and indeed a system of cross crediting could easily be established. The Association does not believe Victorian data necessarily has any relevance to New Zealand and would like to know whether any research work has been done in New Zealand to ascertain the level of duality between hospitality door staff and other security tasks. We believe that the proposal is driven more by the needs of the security guard industry than the needs of the hospitality industry. This is a serious matter and the industry’s commitment to addressing it can be seen by the fact that an appropriate qualification has already been developed by the Hospitality Standards Institute and is currently being provided as part of the HANZ Training Passport. The New Zealand security guard industry is dominated by large players who will much more easily manage the duality of two pieces of legislation than the hospitality operators who are in the main SME’s. The proposed framework has the potential to create an environment where door staff are too costly to employ so they are not employed at all resulting in an undesirable situation much worse than the status quo. 2. What should the definition of a crowd controller be? Again from the hospitality industry’s perspective the appropriateness or otherwise of these definitions becomes less of a challenge if indeed an exemption is provided for hospitality door staff and they are included under the SOL Act. This would allow for a hospitality door staff special definition under the SOL Act and make it easier to define crowd controllers under the PISG Act. If the hospitality door staff are to be included then there should be an exemption to include anybody holding a General Manager’s licence under the SOL Act. 3. What qualifications should crowd controllers require? All of the options considered appear to be contrary to the fundamentals of the New Zealand education system which is based on competency not time spent in training. All New Zealand qualifications on the national qualifications framework are based on this premise and require those being certified or awarded qualifications to have demonstrated competency. For some competency can be demonstrated very quickly, with others a greater time requirement is involved. The hospitality industry has through its Industry Training Organisation developed an appropriate qualification focusing on the training requirements of those involved as hospitality door staff. This is the only qualification which will be acceptable to the industry whether it’s included under the PISG Act or the SOL Act, which is the Association’s preference. Given that there appears to be some differences in the requirements for training by the security industry it would be better, as suggested for the two requirements to be covered by different Acts, but it could be assumed that somebody that is qualified and registered under the PISG Act is deemed qualified to act as a hospitality door staff person. Commenting on acting crowd controllers, it would be much more convenient and consistent if the appointment of temporary door staff was consistent with the existing provisions of appointing temporary duty managers under the SOL Act. The provisions as outlined are different and complex and in their complexity are likely to either be ignored or operated incorrectly. The whole procedure as set out is almost entirely in conflict with the Government’s wish to reduce compliance costs for New Zealand businesses. 4. Conclusion The Association is very concerned that its previous representations seem to have been entirely ignored and as a consequence an opportunity to significantly enhance the management of licenced premises will go begging. Furthermore the complexity and bureaucracy around the proposals to have door staff included under the PISG Act will lead to hospitality operators either dispensing with the use of door staff or being forced to employ security industry intermediaries at a premium cost. The Ministry of Justice’s current proposals do not meet industry’s needs and nor are they likely to enhance public safety in and around hospitality venues. The Association looks forward to further engagement in an effort to achieve practical changes for the benefit of the industry and the public. |
|
