KEY POINTS:
It must have been very tempting for the Government to impose a ban on firework sales to the public. This year's Guy Fawkes celebrations were, in too many cases, every bit as mindless as those of the preceding year, when the number of Fire Service call-outs were the
worst in a decade.
Virtually no heed was paid to a Government warning that people had to be more responsible. In the aftermath of a fiery fortnight, the police and the SPCA joined the Fire Service in demanding a complete clamp-down on private fireworks.
That might, indeed, be the eventual outcome if current trends continue. However, the Government has, quite sensibly, resisted a ban at this stage. It has recognised that, while Guy Fawkes is an invitation to mayhem for a small minority, it remains a source of pleasure for children and young families. A sense of fun would drain from the occasion if backyard displays disappeared, to be replaced by public celebrations at parks and beaches.
The Government has correctly identified two of the factors that have contributed to the chaos of the past two years. One was the sale of fireworks for 10 days, from October 27 to November 5. Next year, they will be sold for just three days, from November 3 to November 5. It could be argued that firework enthusiasts will stock up on those days, and that the period of maximum pyrotechnics will merely be shifted from the 10 days leading up to Guy Fawkes Day to the period after it. But the concentration of activity this year probably reflected the ease of accessibility to fireworks. Shorten that and the problem should ease.
Fireworks will also be restricted next year to those over 18. The former age limit was 14. One of the most worrying trends in the past couple of years has been the increasing prevalence of fireworks in schools, and the threat to school buildings. Raising the limit should help reduce that risk. As with alcohol and cigarettes, however, this will work only if it is enforced and if the sellers of fireworks are serious about demanding identification from those at the counter. Given the increasing calls for a ban, and the growing disenchantment of many people with fireworks, it is in their interests to do so.
Similarly, they should be happy to be involved in a regulatory process that will begin with the Environmental Risk Management Authority investigating the design and construction of fireworks. To a large degree, this should centre on noise levels. While extravagant explosions may be much of the attraction for many of those who misuse fireworks, it is an increasing source of neighbourhood angst. The stability of some types of fireworks, too often falling over in backyards and firing directly into crowds and buildings, ought also to be targeted. Families, the group whose fun Environment Minister David Benson-Pope wants to protect, are interested in brilliance, not bangs. Likewise, animals would cope far better, and the SPCA would be far less irate, if noise levels were lower.
One dangerous trend deemed worthy of immediate attention is that of sparkler bombs. The Government has tackled this by dictating that sparklers will not be sold separately, but as part of far larger, and far more expensive, fireworks packs. Arguably, some other of the more annoying and potentially damaging fireworks should have received the same treatment.
The Government's Christmas message on fireworks is not what emergency services wanted to hear. Many, perhaps most, of the public may also have backed stricter controls. Nonetheless, increased sales of fireworks suggest an ongoing attraction, and in an era in which safety concerns have achieved a sometimes unwarranted paramountcy, this is a reasonable compromise. Guy Fawkes, at least, has not fallen victim to the Grinch.
