By Nigel Pinkerton*
I spent another enjoyable New Years at the family batch in Tairua this year, the main attraction being a fireworks display that always seems to punch above its weight for a small community.
Leading up to the main event, there are often people letting off their own fireworks and, like at Guy Fawkes time, I enjoy a little bit of freeloading watching other peoples’ fireworks.
At some point in the night, with a look of resignation and inevitability, a friend leaned over to me said "so I wonder how long we have until they ban these things".
I’m often dismayed by the poor quality of public debate that seems to surround these sorts of issues.
Typically around early November each year we get the same stories trotted out about people kept awake at night, hurt and scared animals, and injuries or property damage from fireworks. The message from this side of the debate seems to boil down to one main argument: Fireworks sales to the public come with some level of social and/or economic cost so we should ban them.
Everything we do has a cost, but it also has a benefit – otherwise we wouldn’t do it.
The problem is, however, that the costs of an activity don’t always all fall on those who are enjoying the benefits.
Aside from fireworks, passive smoking, pollution from cars, noisy concerts and consumption of alcohol are other examples where some of the cost falls on people other than the primary users. In these cases various tools are employed, including regulations and taxes, to help even out the equation and minimise the "collateral harm".
Fireworks provide a lot of fun and entertainment to many New Zealanders, the majority of whom are largely responsible and considerate consumers.
The millions spent on fireworks each year is testament to the value many people place on them.
So rather than having the same tired debate about "to ban or not to ban", let’s have some more intelligent debate about the harm caused by fireworks and the most appropriate regulation to minimise that harm.
We should start by having a good look at the current regulation, answering questions such as:
- Is there a way to objectively measure the 'harm' caused by fireworks each year, rather than relying on anecdotes and stories in the media?
- Are the current age restrictions and short period of sale effective in minimising this harm?
Short of a complete ban, the two vehicles for minimising harm caused by fireworks are tax and regulation.
I do not to favour a tax. Although a tax would be relatively easy to collect, it would be hard to know how to distribute the money raised. Do you set up a pool so if your pets are injured or your car shed burnt down, your can apply for compensation? In my view a tax of this nature should not be punitive but instead go to the people affected by an activity. However in practice compliance and administration costs are likely to be prohibitive.
Anecdotally most harm appears to come from a few users, such as the idiot who sets fireworks off at 1am or sets an old lady’s letterbox on fire. A tax on all users to punish the few in this case seems inequitable.
Before parliament moves toward an outright ban, they should consider trying a new regulatory approach.
After researching overseas examples and similar legislation in New Zealand (such as the Arms Act), I have come up with a suggested course of action.
My strategy borrows heavily from overseas examples and is divided into three parts:
- Removal of restrictions on when fireworks can be sold, to prevent the 'mad rush', while simplifying the legislation, and compliance costs for retailers and enforcement personnel
- Classification of all explosives into three categories: uncontrolled, consumer pyrotechnics, and controlled explosives
- A licencing system to control access to the latter two categories.
This system hinges on the three categories that explosives are classified into. The system should not be too difficult to devise as it can build on the existing system to classify fireworks and other explosives based on their power, noise potential, and other attributes.
The first category is uncontrolled and anything in this category would be able to be bought and sold freely without a licence. In my view it should include very low-powered devices such as “party poppers”, Christmas crackers, sparklers and perhaps some smaller fountains as well. If anyone wants to cause mischief with these products they would sooner do it with a lighter and an aerosol can, or a can of petrol.
The second category is where things get interesting.
This category could include almost all fireworks currently sold at Guy Fawkes time, but a licencing system could also allow for a relaxing of the restrictions to include some more powerful devices and sky rockets. To be able to buy these you would need to be a registered consumer and obtain a licence to show sellers.
Becoming a registered consumer would require a 'fit and proper person' background check, an interview, and passing a competency test. You would need to have your details on a register and have agreed to use fireworks responsibly, within a set of rules that could include an 11pm curfew (except New Year’s Eve). Penalties would apply and the licence could be revoked if the holder was found misusing fireworks or supplying to unlicensed persons. The cost of the licence would cover the administration costs.
The third category would require endorsements to your licence, which would effectively replace the current Approved Handler Certificates for Explosives and the requirements for obtaining this level of licence would be the same as its predecessor.
A licencing system can’t stop every unsuitable person from obtaining fireworks.
But what it does do is put a strong burden of responsibility on the person who buys the fireworks to use them responsibly, as it is tied to their licence.
Everything we do has a cost, and sometimes part of that cost falls on other people.
There are other courses of action to consider before we impose an outright ban on the thousands of people who buy and safely enjoy fireworks each year.
----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Pinkerton is the lead developer at Infometrics, an economic consultancy and forecasting service. You can contact him here »
38 Comments
My neighbours lawn mower is noisy
My other neighbours chain saw is noisy.
Trucks that drive down the road are noisy
The larger stone chip use on our roads increases road noise
My wifes vaccume cleaner is real noisy.
My power tools are noisy
We have noise polution everywhere.
Shall we ban everytrhing?
Steven - True you cannot walk down a road because of a drunk with a firework.
A woman cannot walk through the park at night for fear she will be raped.
There are areas of the city i cannot walk down for fear of bein beaten up
And so on
There are bad people everywhere.
These are policing problems - NOT banning problems
I kind of agree and kind of not.
We have some pretty damning statistics on fires and injuries caused by fireworks, ergo we could try and "police it" or we could simply do away with private fireworks which saves policing, injuries and cost..
NB Not policing problems, personal responsibility problems.
Now I like fireworks and it would be a sad day not to have them I'll admit but the data on the consquences is pretty compelling.
Steven - Hate to challenge you because i agree with you most of the time.
Read what you said
DRUNKS with fireworks
You gave great detail about the damage fireworks cause
BUT - nothing about the damage and cost DRUNKS cause
Just ban my enjoyment of fireworks and let the piss heads carry on unchecked because the police are busy revenue gathering (speed tickets etc)
We need to look at a problem with both eyes
I dont think I disagree with you, but there are always 2 sides so yes indeed try and look at them with both eyes open. Its not that I dislike fireworks I like things that go bang. My concerns are around how badly they are used/looked after and not just by drunks. "speed tickets" yep I'll agree with you there, this silly season they "cracked down" on ppl doing a little over the limit and achieved diddly for all that effort it seems.
I'll make a broad statement in that I get the distinct impression that allowing everyone the right to do everything and anything isnt a great idea. As an example take Gun control, in the USA a 2yr old just shot her mum, her mum was carrying a pistol in her handbag, as a concealed carry, tragic, pointless and avoidable. Then the huge numbers of ppl dying in the USA due to guns generally, yet here in NZ we can have access to guns if we make some effort to get a licence and yet have very few gun incidents per 100,000 compared to the USA. Now a foil to that is OZ went strict in 1996 yet saw no real improvement ie significantly less incidents from then til now.
I suppose it comes down to stupid ppl need to be protected from themselves and us from them the Q is how.
I grew up with tom thumbs and double happies sold over the counter to school kids for bottle return money and let them off for weeks at a time. They were the best fun and did least harm as they went bang, but were generally not strong enough to do much damage or make huge noise although if deliberately abused, as with many ordinary things like knives, they could present the same problems still described today. At that time misdirected rockets causing fires was the biggest threat. Let's be honest pets are scared by thunder and raised voices, so what?
Having decided these bangers were evil beyond measure, the replacements are roman candles and things that shoot much more powerful shots of flaming balls with large reports and devices which emit fountains of sparks for extended periods. Some pull them apart for the bangers inside, hold or throw them around capable of causing some harm and damage as they explode and burn, I don't see the improvement.
The reason for all this, as a celebration of a failed attack way back when is long lost and it is really only the spectacle we are after. On that basis why any time restriction at all?
My suggestions for consumer use:
Fireworks could be sold anytime, but probably would not be available all year round and better limited in their individual output of sound and effect to suit the style of device they are to limit the chance of abuse causing actual harm or damage.
Treat them like smoking and alcohol with simple age restriction on sale and designated public areas where they may be used at an appropriate time, eg: 6pm-10pm Thurs.-Sat.. If used on private property they should simply conform to current noise restrictions.
When people cause harm with fireworks are not criminals they are sick people. We should re-open the mental institutions and put them in there where they belong.
There are too many people who have become completely smothered with regulations and propaganda that they would like everything regulated. They feel we are all incompetant and need the government to control us and everything we do.
My dog is terribly distressed by the weedeater, lawn mower, dropped kitchen items and raised voices and many other things natural and man made. While I would not put him in a box with fireworks and would respect any animals sensitivities over my own selfish enjoyment by doing what I can to minimise the effects, I don't see how this can be a strong argument for restricting fireworks with blanket type restrictions on normal use.
We have lost sight again of the actual root cause of the problem which is the behaviour rather than the item used or the result of that use. Guns, knives, mountains, cars, horses, coke vending machines all kill and harm people if abused.
It's not ONE night of the year that is the problem, it is all of the others, and frankly the effect fireworks has on most dogs pales into insignificance compared to the heartache they can and do cause owners of horses, okay they know to make arrangements for one night and a few others around it, but 3 months later, 6 months later on god only knows what day?
I think a lot of people who have the free for all mentality if they ever get to see the distress of a horse badly injured after being frightened into flight by unexpected fireworks nearby might think just a bt differently.
If the general public can't pull their horns in about fireworks, then they will have to go
Why do we have fireworks in this country, what was the tradition, well, it was Guy Fawkes wasn't it, 5 November for anyone not sure, not even New Year and especially not Harry down the road's birthday, so yes, you can have them, for Guy Fawkes. After that, all over Red Rover. We could consider New Years, Diwali and Chinese New Year, but Harry down the road's birthday or just because - NO, we are entitled not to have our nights disturbed any old whenever, and that is fair enough, I reckon.
Plenty of questions, lots of debates comparing what to ban, whats been banned and what is/isn't working.
I'd vote for a restrcition on the period at which fireworks are allowed to be used by the public. Have the day switch to the following Saturday the day so it doesnt fall on a school night, let people go nuts on friday/saturday night, and possibly the following fri/sat nights then thats all folks.
How I miss double happies and tom thumbs. As children we would set them on ants nests, letter boxes, and GI Joes. Moon rockets were loaded into PVC pipe and fired at eachother as pretend RPG's. Oh yes - how naughty! but such joyous fun for a mischievous child to light the fuse and wait with anticipation. I wonder, have the nanny state and fun police caluclated the "lost enjoyment" in the cost benefit analysis?
your ants nest would get you prosecuted under cruelty to animals.
the letter boxes for vandalism (hardly cared about)
The GI Joe is still far game
PVC pipe launchers are a restricted firearm and IED , although the police might turn a blind eye to your crime if the person reporting you isn't good looking or influential or media.
When I see fireworks, I can't help but wonder what the experience must be like though the eyes & sense's of say a "HONEY BEE". It's hardly surprising that they, along with so many other species are now in decline. If the day comes when our food crops are no longer pollinated, maybe the small minded indivduals that feel they need to be entertained by explosive colours in the sky will be able to look back and reflect. Though if we reach that point, the explosions we hear might be a little more serious with every man fighting for his survival.
Does economic theory have any ideas on how to "control the inevitable idiots" who play music on loud volume?
This fellow paid a high price, a genuinely sad story.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11386890
Unwanted noise comes at a very high cost on "people other than the primary users". Anyone who raises the issue is seen as intolerant. No doubt the "primary users" will continue to play music obliviously, when and wherever they want, as to do so they see as their right.
There is a price to be paid for peace and quiet. It is not something that can be assumed as normal or taken for granted.
It does, as a matter of fact - Coasean bargaining.
First, determine where the right is. Does Mr Noisy have the right to play loud music, or does Mr Quiet have the right to peace and quiet?
That is your starting point. Then the parties negotiate. Either Mr Quiet would pay Mr Noisy not to exercise his right to play the music, or Mr Noisy would pay Mr Quiet not to exercise his right to peace and quiet. Both of them has either to pay, or to forego the opportunity to receive payment, in order to get what he wants.
In this case, it would be likely to suffer the same problem as seems to have been the issue here - the reluctance or inability of the authorities to intervene to make sure that the rights and the bargain were upheld.
If the volume is causing a problem then chances are the people complaining aren't part of the close/intimate friends and family of the music player.
Prosecute the noise maker under copyright laws for Unlicensed Broadcasting, Performing copywrited music without permission of the copyright owner, and violation of contract terms.
Where noise control might get a few visits from an officer who threatens to steal your stereo.
The copyright is years of prision and tens of thousands of dollars fines - and that's after the case finally finishes and your lawyers are paid. Rather than little notices by the council, the copyright infringment might get you a full tactical team with dogs and helicopter!!
Considering the US distributors are going after rental car companies in Europe, for "performing broadcasts" by having a car radio, this sounds like it would work.
The laws are there, it's just whether corporate policing in NZ want to pursue it.
I'm no lawyer; but I am not sure the copyright holders would have a case here. They are not being deprived of rightful income when somebody plays their music to an unwilling audience - the disc jockey is not receiving payment, and the audience is not receiving something that they would otherwise have paid for.
maybe, maybe not, it might depend on the location or building it was played in. ie I read a case some years back where a worker was playing music from her computer out loud while working at service desk / counter in a business. The local NZ copyright sued the business successfully for failing to have a licence to broadcast music.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.