Docstoc

RESPONSIVE REGULATION THEORY

Document Sample
RESPONSIVE REGULATION THEORY Powered By Docstoc
					                         "RESPONSIVE REGULATION" THEORY
                           AND THE SALE OF LIQUOR ACT 1

                                                                     Linda Hill and Liz Stewart
                                                          Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit
                                                       Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
                                                                         University of Auckland


                                         INTRODUCTION


Moderate and safe enjoyment of alcohol by those over 20, sold through a range of
responsibly managed licensed businesses, is the policy ideal embodied in the Sale of
Liquor Act, 1989. The Act liberalised New Zealand's traditionally restrictive licensing
regime, and the number of on- and off-licensed premises and clubs selling alcohol has
doubled. The Justice Department Review of the Act (Liquor Review Advisory
Committee 1997) has recommended further liberalisations, including lowering the age of
purchase to 18; Sunday trading by bars, bottleshops and supermarkets as well as
restaurants; and permitting beer and spirits to be sold in supermarkets alongside wine.
Amendment of the Act also provides an important opportunity to improve provisions on
administration, monitoring and enforcement, and the way licensed businesses operate.
Eight years of case law and regulatory practice under the Act provides the experience to
fine tune the legal framework to ensure a system that works well for licensees as well as
regulators, while addressing policy objectives.

As a contribution towards review of the Act, the Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit
was funded by the Health Research Council to investigate regulatory theories based on
research in a range of industries for insights relevant to their common concerns with the
liquor licensing legislation 2 (see ALAC 1996a,b; Hill and Stewart 1997; Liquor
Licensing Authority 1996, 1997). This paper draws primarily on "responsive regulation"
theory (Ayres and Braithwaite 1992) to suggest changes to the Sale of Liquor Act that
could encourage compliance by licensees, and contribute to cost-effective monitoring and
community satisfaction.

Understanding arising from theoretical debates on regulation, illustrated by this example
of theory applied to legislative practice, will also be relevant to other regulatory law that
addresses public health risks and costs arising from business activities. Reviews of

1
  This research was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. We would like to express our
thanks to ail the informants who contributed their expertise and experience to this project. We also thank
Prue Taylor, Department of Planning, and Jo Manning, School of Law, University of Auckland, for acting
as legal advisers on the project.
2
  The full report "Responsive Regulation" and Liquor Licensing in New Zealand is available free on request
from the Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland, PB 92019, Auckland 1. See also
http:/ /www.aphru.ac.nz for a summary of the project, Conclusions and Recommended Amendments, and
for APHRU's Submissions to the Liquor Review 1996 and to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill.
regulation or future legislative design in areas such as food hygiene, "workplace health
and
safety, and environmental protection could benefit, in the authors' view, from
consideration of some of the concepts and strategies reviewed in this project.


                                     BACKGROUND


As Judge Holland noted (Hayford AP201/92), "the holder of a liquor licence...is granted a
privilege [that] permits him to sell liquor when others are not permitted to do so." The
1989 Act represents a shift from limiting the number of licences and the hours of trading
to using regulation to require good management and "host responsibility" on licensed
premises. The new policy direction is stated by Parliament in the Act's object (S.4) of "a
reasonable system of control contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse, so far as that is
possible by legislative means".

Theorists make the point that market liberalisation and privatisation have frequently been
associated with increased regulation (Ayres and Braithwaite 1992:7-12). This has also
been New Zealand's experience (Sharp 1994:2). Governments may shift control to less
interventionist forms of regulation but they remain politically accountable for "market
breakdown" or, at very least, may require information (Ogus 1994). The protection of
public health and safety and the provision of health services are a responsibility of
government that is brought home at every election. "The harm and hazards of... alcohol
use" have been prioritised as a health policy issue (Ministry of Health 1998) because of
high social and fiscal costs resulting from intoxication (Hall 1997, Easton 1997). That is,
despite the liberalisation of liquor licensing, the government remains accountable for the
"externalities" of the market in alcohol.

The liquor industry points to a decline in overall consumption since the late 1980s (Beer
Wine and Spirits Council 1998 and website). However, at 8.9 litre per adult aged 15 and
over (year to 31 March 1998, Statistics NZ 1998), this average remains high compared to
pre-war levels and to the three litres or less that represents the lowest risk for population
mortality levels, cirrhosis and certain cancers (Anderson 1996:280). Patterns of drinking
within a population are associated with harm to communities and families (Edwards
1994:33-40). In New Zealand the personal characteristics highlighted by statistics on
heavy drinking are gender and age. Heavy drinking by males, particularly young males, is
reflected in statistics on breath alcohol and road injuries (Land Transport Safety
Authority 1996). Young men aged 18-24 are most likely to drink heavily and for this
group drinking large amounts in hotels, taverns and clubs is an important predictor of
alcohol-related harm, such as getting into a fight or drink-driving (Casswell et al. 1993,
Wyllie et al. 1996, Dacey 1998).

Despite a minimum drinking age of 20, a series of Auckland surveys shows a trend
among teenagers of binge-drinking increasingly large amounts (Alcohol and Public
Health Research Unit 1998, Casswell et al. 1998). Among the 18-19-year-old drinkers,
this trend was particularly associated with drinking in nightclubs, most of which have
"supervised" licence designations permitting 18-19-year-olds to drink with a meal. Binge
drinking by the 14-17 years was associated with other people's homes, meaning that the
alcohol came from off-licensed premises permitted to sell only to those over 20 years of
age. However, underage drinkers have reported meeting few refusals when purchasing
alcohol (Wyllie et al. 1996). Longitudinal studies both here and in the United States show
that the age at which people start to drink is predictive of alcohol-related problems in
later years (Casswell and Zhang in press, Fillmore et al. 1991, Grant and Dawson 1997,
Chou and Pickering 1992).

In research on the operation of the Sale of Liquor Act, inspectors, police and public health
officers all reported underage drinking in their area and difficulties in enforcing current law
(Hill and Stewart 1996, 1997; ALAC 1995a,b). There was satisfaction with the general
direction of the 1989 Act, in particular with the profitable new "cafe society" that is
replacing the old style "booze barns". However, local officers reported that resources
limited routine monitoring of off-licensed and on-licensed premises, and efforts to cancel
the licences of "problem premises" had been largely unsuccessful at the time of the
research. There was also dissatisfaction with provisions related to public objection to
licence applications and renewals, and the Liquor Licensing Authority itself feels
"powerless" to respond to community concerns (LLA 1996, 1997). These difficulties are
verified by review of the case law (Hill and Stewart 1998).

Clearly there are aspects of compliance, enforcement and public participation, which are
not yet working as well as they might under the Act.

This paper addresses ways of maximising the "legislative means" by which sale of liquor
policy is addressed. It reports on an investigation of liquor licensing in the light of
regulatory theory. Reviews of recent theory and debate, liquor licensing case law and
available research on licensing and enforcement practices led to a set of suggested
amendments incorporating different ways of increasing "responsiveness". These were
presented to 12 expert informants from both national and local levels of licensing,
included lawyers, police, and policy advisors. Hospitality industry representatives were
also invited to give their responses, but only one organisation accepted, representing
independent off-licences. The amendments that received widest support are discussed
below, and are being submitted to the parliamentary Select Committee and to MPs
exercising their "free" vote on the Amendment Bill.


          COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION MODELS

The "responsive regulation" strategies developed by US law professor Ian Ayres and
Australian National University Professor John Braithwaite aimed to "transcend the.
deregulatory debate" about different models of regulatory interaction developed to
explain why firms do or do not comply with regulations (Burdach and Kagan 1982,
Hawkins 1984, Scholz 1984, Black 1976).

The "enforcement" model takes the rather Hobbesian view that an "amoral, calculating"
firm pitted against a rule-bound policing agency will break the law unless the anticipated
penalties exceed the costs of compliance (Lamm 1992). In response, formal regulations
adopt a "deterrence" strategy with enforcement "going by the book" to apply "sanctions"
for regulatory violations (Grabowski and Braithwaite 1986). These may foster a business
subculture of resistance, particularly if a rule is felt to be unreasonable (Ayres and
Braithwaite 1992).

In fact, most firms do comply most of the time. This lends support for the "compliance"
model in which the agency is "diplomatic" and treats the firm as a "political citizen" who
is ordinarily inclined to comply out of belief in the law as well as long-term self-interest
(Lamm 1992). Cooperation is assumed and compliance is encouraged through informal
strategies of negotiation and conciliation, using the law as a last resort. Advocates note
that large corporations are protective of their reputation, which suggests that informal
pressure or publicity can be effective. This "compliance" model is the most common
approach in actual practice in Britain, North America and Australia (Grabowski and
Braithwaite 1986).

A third model distinguishes the regulator as "consultant" and the firm as "uninformed"-
of requirements or effects, or insufficiently in control of employees. This educational and
advisory role was, for example, emphasised in the Robens Report (1972) which preceded
workplace health and safety legislation in Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

While theorists distinguish between the models, actual practices may combine these
styles of regulation (Sigler and Murphy 1991:15). The three models may be seen as
embodied in the Sale of Liquor Act through the statutory roles of local police, District
Licensing Agency inspector and Medical Officer of Health (although this last role is not
supported by the same powers of delegation, entry and closure as the other two statutory
agencies (Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit 1996)). Officers have reported most
satisfaction with the Act and with local licensed businesses in localities in which all three
agencies are working closely together. As a team, their differing perspectives and
responsibilities enable them to respond appropriately to any infringement or undesirable
management practices by a licensee. The regulation literature puts a theoretical spin on
practices which local officers report to be highly successful (Hill and Stewart 1996).


                            "RESPONSIVE REGULATION"


Ayres and Braithwaite (1992) reflect empirical research into the regulation of business
activities in a wide range of industries, from mining and nursing, to pharmaceuticals and
finance. They work primarily with the first two models above, using an algebraic
"prisoner's dilemma" game to explore dynamic interactions between regulator and firm.
A punitive strategy alone, they argue, engenders a cat-and-mouse relationship, whereas
informal, co-operative interaction risks regulatory "capture or corruption" should an
officer begin to put business interests before public ones. They hold these two approaches
in tension through regulatory practices that assume co-operation but employ a "tit-for-tat"
response to a firm's actions. This "finesse at dynamic interactive deterrent escalation and
at projecting an image of invincibility" is compared to the "regulatory accomplishments"
of the dog:

     [Firstly]...dogs are delightfully friendly to other creatures who cooperate with
     them...Second, dogs are convincing at escalating deterrent threats while rarely
     allowing themselves to play their last card, They bark so convincingly that a bite
     seems more inevitable and more terrifying than it is...in a way that is strategically
     responsive to the advance or retreat of the intruder. Friendliness can turn to a
     warning bark, then a more menacing growl, posture and raising of the fur transforms
     her...teeth are bared, slightly at first, the dog advances slowly but with a
     deliberateness that engenders irrational fears that a sudden rush will occur at any
     moment. (Ayres and Braithwaite 1992:44)

Such interaction between firm and inspector requires a system that allows flexibility
within a formal framework ensuring enforceability. Burdach and Kagan (1984) suggest
that much of what is considered excessive in protective regulation springs from the over-
inclusiveness of centrally formulated rules.. Instead, Ayres and Braithwaite advocate
systems based on firm-specific agreements to address a more general set of legal
requirements, standards or outputs. They argue that allowing a firm to negotiate the detail
of how the law will be complied with permits responsiveness to differences between
operations and circumstances across an industry. That responsiveness to particulars,
together with the personal involvement in negotiation, will, in their view, increase
commitment to compliance.


                THE LICENCE AS A FIRM-SPECIFIC AGREEMENT


The licence through which the sale of alcohol is regulated provides exactly the kind of
the firm-specific agreement that Ayres and Braithwaite advocate. The application
includes, the licensee's proposals for type of premises, hours of trading, food to be
provided and steps to avoid sales to minors and intoxicated persons. In granting a licence,
the Authority is strictly limited in the matters it may consider, and the conditions it may
set. The Act is more rigid in this respect than similar legislation in countries comparable
to New Zealand in their legal history and drinking culture (Hill 1997). Local officers
report negotiating informally with licence applicants to resolve problems (Hill and
Stewart 1996). Some Authority Decisions document informal agreements between
licensees and neighbours, noting that any breech would be considered to reflect on the
licensee's "suitability" (e.g. Briant LLA 1004-5/95, Runana LLA 1047/95, Vershoor LLA
7114/96). However, the legislation as presently written cannot be used to formalise and
enforce these solutions as a condition of the licence unless they relate to matters
specifically listed, such as hours of trading or age designations.

This reverses the situation under the previous legislation. Under the 1962 Act, a licence
could only be granted if there was a demonstrated community "need". If a licence was
granted, the Licensing Commission could set conditions" as it sees fit". Under the 1989
Act the Authority finds itself unable to refuse a licence except where the applicant is
shown to be "unsuitable" (Liquor Licensing Authority 1996), and has very limited
discretion in setting licence terms. The case law shows that this rigidity is compounded
by unusually wide appeal provisions. These allow the High Court to review Authority
decisions not only on "points of law", but also on the crucial "point of fact" in granting or
renewing a licence, the "suitability" of the licensee.


                              RESPONSIVE SANCTIONS


Once such a firm-specific agreement is concluded, Ayres and Braithwaite take a
"responsive" approach to its enforcement. Drawing on a hierarchy of sanctions, escalating
response to match the seriousness of any infringement enhances the "inevitability" of
compliance. Ability to use the "big stick" should occasionally be demonstrated, they
argue, but if this is the only sanction available, its use may be thought inappropriate not
only by the firm but by the enforcing authority itself.

In its first years under the 1989 Act, the Liquor Licensing Authority demonstrated just such
a reluctance to remove licences and livelihoods, as noted by the High Court (Holland J,
Hayford 1992 NZAR 158,171). Following reports from local officers, the Authority may
decline to renew, or may suspend, cancel or vary the conditions of a licence. However, the
wide right of appeal, an automatic stay of decision pending appeals, and emerging case law
narrowing interpretation and possible action by the Authority, have not made licences "easy
to lose" (Liquor Licensing Authority 1994), as was claimed on introduction of the Act. In
recent years, the Authority has identified and utilised discretions not explicitly intended as
sanctions, such as cutting back trading hours, granting renewal for 12 months rather than
three years, or changing area designations related to age. In September 1996, the right to
continue trading pending appeal of any Authority decision was repealed. In the past two
years, the Authority has demonstrated increased willingness to cancel licences and grant
short suspensions, with adverse effects on profitability. Some local officers report
satisfaction with the response to news of suspensions from other licensees in their area.

Grounds for licence suspension or cancellation include breach of the law or licence,
evidence of licensee "unsuitability", or conducting the premises in a disorderly manner
obnoxious to neighbours. The Authority takes particularly seriously any police reports of
sales to minors or intoxicated people, whether or not prosecutions have been laid.
Auckland police report that more manpower and longer surveillance are required to
obtain evidence of sale to minors from premises, such as off-licences and most
nightclubs, where those under 20 may legally be present although their purchase of
alcohol is prohibited or restricted to dining.


                          THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP


A key element in "responsive regulation" is the value placed on "tripartism", the term
Ayres and Braithwaite use in relation to involving public interest groups in regulatory
decisions. They argue that this can have a number of benefits. Firstly, the "third party" at
the negotiating table changes the dynamics between firm and regulator. Secondly, they
acknowledge the dedication to purpose of most voluntary groups, which makes them
unlikely to be co-opted. "Capture" of the regulator is also inhibited, since the public interest
group will represent a stronger position on control than the regulator, whose position
reflects law that is inevitably a compromise outcome of political processes. Thirdly,
regulatory resources will be used cost-effectively if advantage is taken of the valuable
"watchdog" role that locally based groups can play. In some areas of regulation, such as
environmental pollution, a community group may have considerable technical expertise
and local knowledge. Fourthly, involving the community in a monitoring role is likely to
enhance corporate "citizenship" with a little of what Braithwaite calls "reintegrative
shaming" (Makkai and Braithwaite 1994).

These theoretical points are supported by local practices that are proving successful in
liquor licensing. Reliance on the "community watchdog" is implicit in reports by police
and inspectors of limited resources for routine monitoring and a strategy of targeting
"problem premises" that "come to their attention" (Hill and Stewart 1996). In a number of
localities, community and business groups, well as licensees and statutory officers, are
taking a cross-sectoral approach to problems and events planning through "liquor liaison"
meetings (Alcohol Advisory Council 1996, Stewart and Casswell 1992, Hill and Stewart
1996). "Good citizenship" is encouraged in some areas through use of the local media to
raise issues or to give publicity to licensees receiving a local Host Responsibility Award
(Hill and Stewart 1996). In Queensland, problems of intoxication and safety affecting
tourism are being resolved, not by pitting police against liquor licensees, but by involving
the full range of community groups, businesses and agencies in proposing solutions
(Mcllwaine 1994, Homel et al. 1995).

Ayres and Braithwaite argue that the representation in negotiations of an appropriate
public interest group helps balance the "disorganisation of diffuse interests" in adverse
externalities against the "concentrated interests" of business (pp.76, 81). That
representation should be therefore be funded by the state (p.59). This view may seem
unusual in the current New Zealand context but the involvement of non-government and
voluntary organisations in such processes is supported by the UN "Ottawa Charter" on
Heath Promotion (World Health Organisation 1986), and the further step of state funding
was recommended in " Agenda 21 for Change" to protect the environment (Earth Summit
1992).

Discussion of public interest group representation would benefit from further investigation
of theories of the state and of collective action (e.g. Hasson and Ley 1994, Offe 1984,
Franzway et al. 1992, Watson 1990, Jessop 1979). Ayres and Braithwaite assume that an
appropriate group will be available to negotiations because "statutes that threaten the
interests of business would never have been enacted in the absence of an interest group
pushing for them" (p.59). However, such groups are often ad hoc as well as under-
resourced. They lobby for regulation so as to "throw with the weight of the state" and to
institutionalise political outcomes beyond the life of their own small group (Eisenstein
1986). A group with more institutional continuity might bid for state funding, but it is the
edge provided by directly oppositional interests to the business activity and its externality
costs that will keep a group effective and deter regulatory capture. The industrial relations
and corporatist theory (Lehmbruch and Schmitter 1982, Jessop 1979), from which the term
"tripartism" derives, makes clear that it is the regulating state that is the "third party", the
referee between conflicting interests.

As governments continue to "downshift risk" onto communities (Beck 1992), these issues
are important to explore. However, the purpose here is to draw on theory to improve an
existing Act that does offer one mechanism for community input into licensing decisions:
the right of public objection.


           RIGHT OF PUBLIC OBJECTION IN LICENSING DECISIONS


In the review that led to the 1989 Act a strong theme in submissions was the need for
community involvement. The solution recommended was the devolution of licensing to
local government. However, submissions also expressed reservations and fears about
"local political influences" (Laking 1986). The final Act shifted administration,
inspection and "special" event licences to local level, with national-level decisions made
on the basis of reports from local officers. Devolution of some routine decisions has
again been proposed by the 1996 review of this Act.

However, the current system of administration and enforcement of the Act at the local
level cannot be said to represent community control. Statutory officers, and even the
Council committees issuing "special" licences, represent state power, formally devolved
and prescribed by the Act.

The community input possible under the Act is through objections to the grant or renewal
of a licence by adults with "an interest greater than the public in general" - in most cases,
neighbours. Case law and interviews with statutory officers and objectors document
dissatisfaction with the provisions related to objection (Hill and Stewart 1998, 1996 and
research in progress). New licences, and new licensees in existing premises, may only be
challenged on the "suitability of the applicant", while objections to licence renewal may
only address the limited list of criteria and possible conditions laid down.

The Authority may choose to consider neighbouring land use, but only in setting hours of
trading. Community control over the locality of licensed premises is considered to have
been exercised through the planning consent that must be obtained prior to applying for a
licence. The 1989 Act was intended to focus on the drinking environment and licensee
accountability, not decide matters of locality; the previous licensing system based on
community "need" was considered to overlap with town planning (Laking 1986:18-19).
However, the Liquor Licensing Authority (1996, 1997) has reported to Parliament on
what it considers to be a "gap in jurisdiction" between planning and licensing, in that the
way District Plans regulate land use by zone does not allow consideration of the
suitability of a particular site for licensed premises. Few Plans have addressed the sale of
liquor as a land-use issue. For this reason, the Authority has requested Parliament to grant
it a clear discretion to decline a licence application in response to the reasonable concerns
of communities.


         RESPONSIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE SALE OF LIQUOR ACT


Responsive regulation theory highlights just those aspects of the Act which have been
identified, through research, case law and the Authority's own reports, as giving rise to
dissatisfaction. Amendments were developed with the aim of increasing "responsiveness"
in clauses related to the criteria to be considered and conditions that can be set for each
licence, objection by the public to a licence or renewal, and the powers of sanction open
to the Authority. Responses to these amendments from expert licensing informants are
presented below.

                                   Licence Conditions

Support was given to increasing "responsiveness" in the firm-specific agreement of the
licence by allowing, where appropriate, the attachment of a condition specific to the
premises, in addition to the standard conditions currently listed. This could arise in one of
two ways: (i)through the licensee's own proposals in the application; or (ii) at a public
hearing, required when a licence or renewal is opposed by local statutory officers or by
objectors with an interest "greater than the public in general".

Full support was given to any "host responsibility" proposals formulated by the licensee
being made a formal, enforceable licence condition. These include the current
requirement to propose "steps" to ensure that liquor would not be sold to minors and
intoxicated persons. Also supported was formal requirement of a wider statement of the
licensee's policies for the management of the premises, which could include any proposal
or agreement satisfying objectors. This would also become a condition of the licence.

A current debate in licensing circles focuses on the "host responsibility" concept: whether
it should be included in the Act, with or without definition, or whether some other
wording should be used to link practical requirements to the aim of the Act (S.4).
Informants made the point, however, that tying the licensee's proposals for good
management too closely to "alcohol abuse" (S.4) might preclude "environmental"
changes to resolve an adverse impact on neighbours - sound insulation, limits on use of
live bands or a garden bar, an undertaking to clear litter, etc. The amendment, as it finally
appears, names as "host responsibility" the "steps" and management proposals required of
licensees, without limiting the content of proposals. Once accepted by the Authority,
however, those proposals are listed as conditions on the licence, to be posted at the
entrance of the premises where it is visible to enforcement officers and public alike.

                         Public Objections and Local Policies
The second route to an additional condition specific to the premises is through a public
hearing. A proposal to allow the Authority more discretionary power, as in the 1962 Act
and licensing Acts elsewhere (Hill 1997), was supported by most informants but strongly
opposed by a few. All but one, however, strongly shared the Authority's concern to
provide a better response to legitimate community concerns, and agreed that full right of
public objection should apply on all occasions on which the Authority considered the
grant or renewal of a licence.

The amendments finally recommended follow the present structure of requiring the
Authority to base its decisions on reports and objections from the local level. However,
they extend the Authority's ability to respond to community concerns by including
neighbouring land use and public objections in the licence criteria to be considered and
the matters on which conditions (not just hours of trading) may be set. Where no
difficulties arise, standard conditions will be decided "on the papers", as at present.
Where there is opposition and no solution is forthcoming from the licensee, a public
hearing ensues, at which the concerns and proposals of all parties are heard by the
Authority. As the specialist decision-making body empowered by Parliament, it may then
arrive at a reasonable solution to be attached as an enforceable condition of the licence.

As an additional way of closing the "gap" between licensing and planning, support was
given to an amendment formalising the Authority's recognition of any policies formally
adopted by local authorities in relation to licensed premises.

                                 A Range of Sanctions

Informants gave support to laying out in a more visible manner the full range of sanctions
currently available to the Authority, including a shortened period of renewal. There was
general support for instant fine for licensees (as well as for minors, as suggested by the
Review committee) but this foundered on discussion of the respective jurisdictions of
Authority and District Court and the practicalities of collecting fines. Short suspensions
of licence were seen as a simpler way of imposing a monetary sanction on licensees, and
considerable satisfaction was expressed with the Authority's increased use of suspensions
and cancellations. Local-level informants reported a high degree of awareness of such
decisions among licensees, which gave them leverage in applying informal pressure for
improved compliance.


         RESPONSIVE REGULATION AND THE IMPACT OF CASE LAW


In the course of this project, examination of enforcement practices at the level of the
national licensing authority and the High Court led to a critique of the way case law has
affected licensing decisions, limiting flexibility and enforceability. This impact is
attributed to restrictions and rigidities in the Act itself, but also to the wide grounds of
appeal to civil law, and the automatic stay of decision pending appeals before September
1996.
The right of review by the High Court, on a key "point of fact" as well as on "points of
law", reflects the influence of debates in fields other than licensing. One was the political
debate on the respective roles of state and market (Roper 1993, Bertram 1993). Those
who see market exchanges as contracts, assumed or actual, between self-maximising
individuals have lobbied against tribunals and courts organised around other principles
and directed by Parliament to address specific policy goals (Brook 1992, New Zealand
Business Roundtable/New Zealand Employers Federation 1992, Wailes 1992, Ryan and
Walsh 1993). The second debate is an international one in law, on whether parliaments or
judiciaries define the law, and therefore the extent to which civil courts should defer to
the expertise of specialist authorities established by parliaments under particular Acts
(Taggart 1997). Differences of interpretation and substantive decision making by the
Authority and by the High Court reflect respectively the specialist understanding
developed by the Authority, grounded in the work of its statutory officers, and the legal
expertise of the High Court and legal profession, harnessed by a few licensees to push
back the boundaries of the regulatory system.

Most liquor licence holders are responsible and cooperative business people; very few
licensing decisions are contested or appealed to a higher court. However, the case law
indicated that the lack of flexibility allowed the specialist Liquor Licensing Authority has
meant it can give only limited backing to local officers' cooperative strategies based on
the "compliance" model. Yet strategies based on the "enforcement" model have been
undermined by difficulties in invoking sanctions.

"Responsive regulation" aims to encourage compliance and cooperation by licensees by
allowing a certain flexibility in the enforceable agreement negotiated with each firm.
Applied to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, this suggests that small changes to allow some
flexibility in setting licence conditions for particular premises would contribute to the
development of "responsive" regulatory relationships with licensees and help resolve
problems with neighbouring communities. Moreover, any discretionary power that was
clearly written into the Act would be recognised and respected in review by the higher
courts.

Such small changes, with a continuing base in local statutory reports but allowing a
national perspective in decision making, particularly on contested licence applications,
would not imply a return to the restrict regime and wide discretionary powers which drew
criticism under the previous Act (Laking 1986).


                                     CONCLUSION


The provisions in the Sale of Liquor Act that theory would suggest are the key
mechanisms for "responsive regulation" relate to just those aspects of the licensing
system that have given rise to most difficulty and least satisfaction for those working to
enforce the law and encourage high standards of management in licensed premises. In
addition, similarities are readily identified between the approaches recommended by the
theorists and informal regulatory practices being developed at local level. This supports a
conclusion that amendments to the legislation along "responsive regulation" lines could
lead to a more integrated and cost effective system for encouraging compliance and good
management of licensed premises.

Based on the work and arguments described above, a set of recommended amendments
has been submitted to the Justice Select Committee, as part of the Alcohol and Pubic
Health Research's research based submission on the Amendment Bill. They are offered as
a contribution towards achieving a legislative framework that can assist both licensees
and regulators in working together towards the reduction of alcohol related harm.
                                    REFERENCES


Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit (1996) Submission to the Liquor Review 1996.

Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit (1998) "Trends in Drinking Patterns in Auckland
      1990-1996" http://www.aphru.ac.nz/projects/tracksum.htm

Alcohol Advisory Council (1995a) Effectiveness review: Sale of Liquor Act 1989, Stage
      1: Report of Key Stakeholder Survey, Wellington.

Alcohol Advisory Council (1995b) Discussion document on Sale of Liquor Act 1989, Stage 2:

Report of Key Stakeholder Survey, Wellington.

Alcohol Advisory Council (1996) Working together: Guidelines for liquor liaison
      groups, Wellington.

Anderson, P. (1996) "WHO working group on population levels of alcohol consumption"
      Addiction 91(2):275-283.

Ayres, I. and J. Braithwaite, (1992) Responsive regulation: Transcending the
      deregulation debate, Oxford University Press.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk society: Towards a new modernity (trans. M. Ritter) Sage, London.

Beer Wine & Spirits Council of NZ (1998) "Submission" in Advertising Standards
      Authority,   Liquor     advertising review,  Vol.1:45-113.    See   also
      http://www.beerwsc.co.nz.

Bertram, G. (1993) "Keynesianism, neoclassicism and the state" in B. Roper and C. Rudd
       (eds.) State and Economy in NZ, Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Black, D.J. (1976) The behaviour of law, Academic Press, New York.

Brook, P. (1992) Freedom at work: The case for reforming labour law in NZ, Oxford
       University Press, Auckland.

Burdach, E. and R.A. Kagan (1982) Social regulation: Strategies for reform, Institute of
      Contemporary Studies, San Francisco.

Casswell, S. and J.F. Zhang (in press) "Impact of liking for advertising and brand
      allegiance on drinking and alcohol-related aggression: A longitudinal study"
      Addiction.
Casswell, S., J.F. Zhang and A. Wyllie (1993) "The importance of amount and location
      of drinking for the experience of alcohol-related harm" Addiction 88, in Wyllie,
      Millard and Zhang (1996) pp.1527-1534.

Casswell, S., J.F. Zhang and A. Wyllie (1998) "Trends in youth drinking in a
      metropolitan sample in New Zealand 1990-1997" paper presented to the 24th
      Annual Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium of the Kettil Bruun Society for Social
      and Epidemiological Research on Alcohol, Florence, Italy, June 1-5.

Chou, S.P. and R.B. Pickering (1992) "Early onset of drinking as a risk factor for lifetime
       alcohol related problems" Addiction 87: 1999-1204.

Dacey, B. (1997) Te Ao Waipiro: Māori and alcohol in 1995, Alcohol & Public Health
       Research Unit, Auckland.

Earth Summit (1992) Agenda 21 for Change, Section 3 Strengthening the role of major
       groups, Chapter 27: Partnerships with NGOs, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992,
       http:/ /iisd1.iisd.ca/rio+5/agenda/riodocs.htm

Easton, B. (1997) The social costs of tobacco use and alcohol misuse, Public Health
       Monograph 2, Dept. Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine.

Edwards, G. et al. (1994) Alcohol policy and the public good, Oxford University Press.

Eisenstein, H. (1986) "Feminist Judo: Throwing with the weight of the state" Australian
       Left Review, 96:20-22.
Fillmore, K.M., E. Hartka, B.M. Johnstone, E. V. Leino, M. Motoyoshi and M. T.
       Temple (1991) "A meta-analysis of life course variation in drinking" British
       Journal of Addiction, 86:1221-1288.

Franzway, S., D. Court and R. W. Connell (1989) Staking a claim: Feminism,
      bureaucracy and the state, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Grabosky, P. and J. Braithwaite (1986) Of manners gentle: Enforcement strategies of
      Australian business regulatory agencies, Oxford University Press.

Grant, D.F. and D.A. Dawson (1997) "Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with
       DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the national longitudinal"
       alcohol epidemiological survey" Journal of Substance Abuse, 9:103-110.

Hall, T. (1997) "The alcohol excise" Treasury, Wellington.

Hasson, S. and D. Ley (1994) Neighbourhood organisations and the welfare state,
      University of Toronto Press.
Hawkins, K. (1984) Environment and enforcement: Regulation and the social definition
      of pollution, Clarendon Press.

Hill, L. (1997) Regulating the sale of liquor: International perspectives, Alcohol and
        Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland.

Hill, L. and L. Stewart (1996) The Sale of Liquor Act 1989: Local perspectives, Alcohol
        & Public Health Research Unit.

Hill, L. and L. Stewart (1997) "The Sale of Liquor Act, 1989: Reviewing regulatory
        practices" Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue Eight.

Hill, L. and L. Stewart (1998) "Responsive regulation" and liquor licensing in New
        Zealand, Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit.

Homel, R., M. Hauritz, R. Wortley, G. Mcilwain and R. Carvolth (1995) "Preventing
      alcohol-related crime through community action: The Surfers Paradise Safety
      Action Project" Crime Prevention Studies, 7.

Institute of Alcohol Studies (1998) "Early Drinking said to increase alcoholism risk" The
        Globe, 2. See also National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism
        http:/ / silk.nih.gov / silk/ niaaal / releases / aging.htm

Jessop, B. (1979) "Corporatism, Parliamentarism and Social Democracy" in Philippe C.
        Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch (eds.) Trends Toward Corporatist
        Intermediation, pp.185-211, Sage, London.

Laking, Sir G. (Chair) (1986) The Sale of Liquor in New Zealand, Report of the Working
       Party on Liquor, Government Printer, Wellington.

Lamm, F. (1992) "Persuasion or coercion: Enforcement strategies in occupational health
      and safety" in J. Deeks and N. Perry (eds.) Controlling interests: Business, the
      state and society in New Zealand, Auckland University Press. Land Transport
      Safety Authority (1996) Motor accidents in New Zealand, Wellington.
      Lehmbruch, G. and P. Schmitter (1992) Patterns of corporatist policy-making,
      Sage, London.

Liquor Licensing Authority (1994, 1994, 1996, 1997) Annual reports, Department of
       Justice, Wellington.

Liquor Review Advisory Committee (1997) Liquor review: Report of the Advisory
       Committee, March 1997, Wellington.

Makkai, T. and J. Braithwaite (1994) "Reintegrative shaming and compliance with
      regulatory standards" Criminology 31(3) 361-385.
Mcllwain, G. (1994) Report on the Surfers Paradise safety project, March-December
      1993, Gold Coast Surfers Paradise Safety Action Project.

Ministry of Health (1996) National Drug Policy, Part I: Tobacco and Alcohol, Ministry
       of Health, Wellington.

New Zealand Business Roundtable/New Zealand Employers Federation (1992) A study of
      the Labour/Employment Court, Wellington.

Offe, C. and H. Wissenthal (1986) "Two logics of collective action" in C. Offe (ed.)
       Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary transformations of work and politics,
       pp.170-220, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ogus, A.I. (1994) Regulation: Legal form and economic theory, Clarendon Press.

Roper, B. (1993) "The end of the golden weather: New Zealand's economic crisis" in B.
       Roper and C. Rudd (eds.) State and economy in NZ, Oxford University Press,
       Auckland.

Robens, Lord (1972) Report of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work, HMS
      Stationery Office, London.

Ryan, R. and P. Walsh (1993) "Common law versus labour law: The New Zealand
      debate" paper presented to the Industrial Relations Conference, Auckland.

Scholz, J. (1984) "Deterrence, cooperation and the ecology of regulatory enforcement"
       Law and Society Review 18: 179-224.

Sharp, A. (1994) Leap into the dark: The changing role of the state in New Zealand since
       1994, Auckland University Press.

Sigler, J .A. and J .E. Murphy (1991) Corporate lawbreaking and interactive compliance:
        Resolving the regulation-deregulation dichotomy, Quorum Books.

Statistics NZ (1998) "Alcohol available for consumption, year ended 31 March 1997"
         Hot off the press, 25 May, Christchurch.

Stewart, L. and S. Casswell (1992) "Community control and liquor licensing: A public
       health issue in New Zealand" Journal of Drug Issues 22:743-755.

Taggart, M.B. (1997) "The contribution of Lord Cooke to scope of review doctrine in
       administrative law: A comparative common law perspective" in P. Rishworth
       (ed.) The struggle for simplicity in the law: Essays for Lord Cooke, Butterworths,
       Wellington.
Wailes, N. (1992) "A critique of R.A. Epstein's Common law for labour relations" paper
       presented to the Industrial Relations Conference, Auckland.

Watson, S. (ed.) Playing the state: Australian feminist interventions, Verso.

World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa Charter. Division of Health Promotion,
      Education       and      Communication,         CH-1211 Geneva       27.
      http:// www.ens.gu.edu.au/eberhard/vl/top/ ottawa.htm

Wyllie, A., M. Millard and J.F. Zhang (1996) Drinking in New Zealand: A national
survey 1995, Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit, Auckland.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:38
posted:4/28/2010
language:English
pages:18