Petition 2011/127 of Charlotte Purdy Report of the Government Administration Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Introduction 2 Background 2 Animal welfare 2 Public nuisance 2 Effect of the amendments 3 Retailers and storage 3 Alternatives to a ban 3 The Australian approach 3 Conclusion 4 Appendix 5 PETITION 2011/127 OF CHARLOTTE PURDY Petition 2011/127 of Charlotte Purdy Recommendation The Government Administration Committee has considered Petition 2011/127 of Charlotte Purdy, and recommends that the House take note of its report. Introduction Petition 2011/127 of Charlotte Purdy was referred to the Government Administration Committee of the 50th Parliament on 13 August 2014. The 51st Parliament reinstated it as an item of business. The petition requests that the House note that 25,000 people have signed an online petition requesting that the private use of fireworks be banned. Background In 2007 and 2008, Government amendments to the Hazardous Substances (Fireworks) Regulations 2001 (the amendments) raised the legal age for purchasing fireworks, reduced the sales period to 2–5 November, and restricted the level of noise that fireworks may make. The petitioner submitted that these reforms did not go far enough and that the private use of fireworks should be banned. To support this argument, the petitioner pointed to the continued negative effect of fireworks, especially animal welfare concerns, public nuisance, injuries, fire, and damage to property. We sought evidence from the petitioner, the New Zealand Fire Service, and the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). We also resolved to accept as evidence eight pieces of correspondence, seven of which supported the petition, and one of which was opposed. We heard from the petitioner and the Fire Service. We received advice from the Ministry for the Environment. Animal welfare The petitioner’s main focus was animal welfare. We heard that the noise of fireworks can distress wild and domestic animals, and cause them to take fright and injure themselves, sometimes fatally. The SPCA was unable to provide us with data on the number of animal welfare incidents caused by fireworks. However, it provided anecdotal information that such incidents occur, which was corroborated by evidence we received from urban and rural animal owners. Public nuisance Many submitters also complained that the noise of fireworks is a public nuisance. Of particular irritation was the random setting off of fireworks, sometimes over protracted periods of time. The Ministry for the Environment advised us that noise complaints about fireworks appear to be consistently negligible within overall noise complaints, although the information that councils provided to the ministry was incomplete. 2 PETITION 2011/127 OF CHARLOTTE PURDY Effect of the amendments Data from the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Fire Service, and the Injury Prevention Research Unit at Otago University demonstrates that, after the amendments, the incidence of fireworks-related injuries, property damage, and fires decreased notably. The petitioner and the Fire Service welcome this decrease. However, they maintain that the continued risk, and the actual number of incidents, is still more than is tolerable and that even one incident is too many. The Fire Service also told us that the rate of decrease has started to plateau. The petitioner submitted that, because the amendments did not limit when private fireworks can be used, public nuisance and animal welfare concerns have not been sufficiently allayed. We heard that fireworks are often let off well into the New Year period and even later. Unlike well-advertised public displays, the unpredictability of private fireworks exacerbates residents’ frustrations about noise and does not give animal owners enough notice to take the steps needed to ensure their animals’ safety. Retailers and storage The Fire Service drew our attention to the growing prevalence of pop-up shops and nontraditional vendors selling fireworks in unexpected locations. This makes it harder for WorkSafe to monitor compliance with fireworks-storage regulations made under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. We were also told of anecdotal evidence of pop-up outlets moving stock at night to locations unknown to the Fire Service. A fire at such a location could have serious consequences for any attending firefighter, who would be unwittingly entering premises filled with explosives. Alternatives to a ban We asked the petitioner and the Fire Service to suggest alternatives to a ban of private fireworks. Both submitted that the private use of fireworks could be limited to one night only or to a clearly defined period. This could be done by amending the fireworks regulations and introducing a penalty for people who use fireworks outside of this time. The petitioner also proposed restricting fireworks that “go bang”, because these cause most of the concerns surrounding public nuisance and animal welfare. This could be done by further reducing the allowable decibels and percussive effect fireworks make when let off. The Australian approach We are aware that other jurisdictions, including all Australian states except the Northern Territory, have banned private fireworks. We also note international research indicating that the most effective way to reduce injuries caused by fireworks is to restrict the personal use of fireworks.1 Quantifying the effect of the bans in Australia is difficult because of a lack of comprehensive data from which to draw conclusions. However, we are aware of an international study from 2000 that compared rates of fireworks-related hospital admissions in the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. Australia, 1 V Puri, S Mahendru, R Rana, M Deshpande, “Firework injuries: a ten-year study”, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Vol 62, No 9, 2009, pp. 1103–11. 3 PETITION 2011/127 OF CHARLOTTE PURDY with its tighter fireworks regulations, had the lowest rate of admissions.2 We also note that annual recorded fireworks-related injuries and fires in New South Wales and Victoria, where private fireworks are banned, are comparable to the number of injuries that occur in the Northern Territory in the single night when using private fireworks is permitted.3 Conclusion We acknowledge the petitioner’s concerns and the issues raised in the evidence before the committee. In our view, deciding whether to ban the private use of fireworks requires competing interests to be carefully balanced. We acknowledge the negative effect fireworks can have, particularly when they are used inappropriately. We also recognise the frustration people feel about the unpredictability of private fireworks use. On the other hand, we note that many New Zealanders value backyard fireworks as a nostalgic family tradition and that most people who use fireworks do so safely and responsibly. Legislation already covers some of the concerns raised in the evidence. For example, setting off fireworks in a manner likely to cause injury or alarm to any person, wilfully or recklessly ill-treating animals, and intentionally or recklessly damaging property through fire or explosives are all offences under the Summary Offences Act 1981, the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and the Crimes Act 1961, respectively. We also note that the regulations on private use of fireworks were amended relatively recently. We are pleased that these amendments have led to a notable decrease in fireworks-related incidents. We were advised that the amendments appear to have struck a good balance between managing the harm created by a minority and the freedoms enjoyed by many to use fireworks safely. Any further extension of the law may raise questions of enforceability. In 2006, Cabinet considered recommending a ban on private fireworks or limiting use to a specified time period. However, these options were not adopted in the amendments because they were deemed too difficult to enforce. The advice we received on this petition indicates that these enforceability concerns still stand. We note that responsibility for enforcement, with all the difficulties it presents, would likely fall to the New Zealand Police. We already have some apprehension about the number of agencies that currently monitor and enforce fireworks regulations, and the gaps and overlaps between them, which may obstruct the efficacy of the regulatory scheme. The issue of excessive noise was raised by the petitioner. We were unable to determine whether this was because the decibel level set by regulations is too high or whether some imported fireworks that breached this level went undetected. We are concerned about the proliferation of fireworks retailers and the growth of pop-up stores. We believe this could present challenges to effectively monitoring how fireworks are stored. In this regard, we note the lack of penalties for breaching storage requirements. We ask the Government to give this matter further consideration. 2 3 Omar Abdulwadud and Joan Ozanne-Smith, “Deaths and hospitalisation from fireworks injuries”, Injury Control and Safety Promotion, Vol 7, No 3, 2000, pp. 187–193. See, for example, Centre for Disease Control, “Firework-related injury survey report 2013”, The Northern Territory Disease Control Bulletin, Vol 20, No 3, 2013, pp. 1–5; Ian Scott and Joan Ozanne-Smith, “Fireworks now only modest problem”, Hazard, Vol 47, No 1, 2001, pp. 2–7; Louisa Jorm, “Firework injuries in New South Wales, 1992–93 to 2001–02”, NSW Public Health Bulletin, Vol 14, No 6, 2003, pp. 110–113. 4 PETITION 2011/127 OF CHARLOTTE PURDY Appendix Committee procedure Petition 2011/127 was referred to the Government Administration Committee of the 50th Parliament on 13 August 2014, and was reinstated as an item of business by the 51st Parliament. The committee received 11 submissions from interested organisations and individuals, and heard evidence from the petitioner and the New Zealand Fire Service. Advice was received from the Ministry for the Environment. Committee members Hon Ruth Dyson (Chairperson) Sarah Dowie Brett Hudson Mojo Mathers Mark Mitchell Adrian Rurawhe 5