The current Sale of Liquor Act exempts Parliament and the canteens of Police, prison officers, the Defence Force and the Fire Service from the requirement to hold a licence to sell and supply alcohol.

The Law Commission has recommended these exemptions be removed on the grounds that the same dangers apply wherever alcohol is being supplied. Therefore, laws designed to reduce potential harms should apply equally to all.

While Parliament, Corrections and the Police have officially agreed to the removal of their exemptions, the Police Association, Fire Service Commission and United Fire Brigades’ Association have argued they be continued. Of these three, the Police Association makes the most compelling argument for retaining an exemption. In this new regular feature, we provide the arguments for and against continued exemptions for Police bars.

Police liquor licence exemptions: Should they stay or should they go? Read the arguments for and against and vote below. VOTING HAS NOW CLOSED.

Why the Police licensing exemption MUST GO

The argument for removing licensing exemptions for Police rests squarely on the principles of natural justice. In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Exemptions for Police bars set a bad example, reduce respect for the law and encourage the perception of unfairness on the part of the public. Why shouldn’t Police be subject to the very laws they are charged to uphold? While Police bars are undoubtedly desirable as places where officers, staff and their families can relax and socialise in safety, they are subject to the exact same risks as any other establishments serving alcohol. Host responsibilities are therefore equally important, and there is no reason why those supplying liquor at these premises should not be subject to the penalties of the Act if they sell to intoxicated patrons or minors.

While some may argue Police are held to higher behavioural standards than the average citizen, there has been a string of incidents at Police bars involving both heavily intoxicated senior and junior officers. Offensive behaviour has included assault with a weapon, male assaults female and drinking in the bar when officers should have been on patrol.

Those in favour of exemptions argue Police bars would not survive without them due to the increased costs associated with licensing and compliance, but that need not be the case. The Law Commission recommends that Police bars should be treated as clubs, which would minimise compliance costs. The presence of a manager would not be required if 20 or fewer people were on the premises.

And one would have to argue that, if Police bars are essential to good policing, then the onus is on the Police to find ways to fund them that do not exempt them from the same laws that apply to every other citizen.

While some other countries do have licensing exemptions for Houses of Parliament and the military, none seems to have them for Police. It is time for New Zealand to get in step with the rest of the world. No one should be seen as above the law, least of all the Police.

Why the Police Licensing exemption SHOULD STAY

The argument in favour of keeping the licensing exemption for Police bars is that, without it, their continued existence would be impossible. This would be highly undesirable because the very nature of Police work makes these bars a necessity.

Police bars are vital in giving officers and their families a safe place to socialise away from those members of society who simply don’t like cops. These people may subject Police staff, and their families, to various forms of harassment and abuse ranging from name-calling to physical confrontation. These situations are more likely to occur when there is alcohol available.

Forcing Police to drink at public bars would also mean they become off duty patrons of the bars and licensees they have to Police while on duty. This could have a number of unfortunate results such as accusations of favouritism or inappropriate dealings when policing a bar they frequent while off duty.

The exemption means Police bars are able to operate relatively inexpensively. They don’t have to pay licensing fees or a certified manager. Removing the exemption would create additional compliance costs, which would impact seriously on their viability.

A further concern is that Police managers will see the removal of the exemption as a sign that Police bars are a thing of the past. If legislation does not specifically mention them, it is inevitable that support for Police bars from area and district managers will decline over time and that their space will be allocated to other purposes whenever a Police station is refurbished.

Nor is forcing licences on Police bars necessary to make sure Police staff don’t misbehave when drinking. The Police Association argues the controversy around drunken behaviour at Police bars has been blown out of proportion by the media, fuelled by a tiny number of incidents involving a few individual Police officers. In at least one high-profile case, the delinquent officer was drinking at a Police bar that was already licensed.

The idea that Police should not be held to a different standard than anyone also misses the point that the behaviour demanded of Police officer, both on and off duty, is already regulated by the Police Code of Conduct to much higher standard than that of the general public.

The argument has never been that Police want the freedom to behave more badly than anyone else. Police bars simply make it easier for the Police to do their job of protecting the public. Removing the exemption would put these bars under serious threat, and that’s not in anyone’s interests.