Alcohol Sponsorship and Advertising Recommendations

The Ministerial Forum on Alcohol and Advertising and Sponsorship has made 14 recommendations to the Government:

1. Ban alcohol sponsorship of all streamed and broadcast sports 
2. Ban alcohol sponsorship of sports [long-term]
3. Ban alcohol sponsorship (naming rights) at all venues
4. Ban alcohol sponsorship of cultural and music events where 10% or more of participants and
   audiences are younger than 18
5. Introduce a sponsorship replacement funding programme
6. Introduce a targeted programme to reduce reliance on alcohol sponsorship funding
7. Ban alcohol advertising during streamed and broadcast sporting events
8. Ban alcohol advertising where 10% or more of the audience is younger than 18
9. Further restrict the hours for alcohol advertising on broadcast media
10. Continue to offset remaining alcohol advertising by funding positive messaging across all media
11. Introduce additional restrictions on external advertising on licensed venues and outlets
12. Establish an independent authority to monitor and initiate complaints about alcohol advertising and
    sponsorship
13. Establish a mechanism to identify and act on serious or persistent breaches of advertising standards
14. Establish a multi-stakeholder committee to periodically review and assess Advertising Standards
    Complaints Board decisions and pre-vetted advertising

Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 7 would basically cripple most sports in NZ.

Recommendations 4 and 8 may have merit, as alcohol should not be promoted to under 18s

Recommendations 5, 6 and 10 means increases taxes and have taxes spent on sponsoring sports

Recommendation 9 could also have merit, in that advertising should occur later at night

Recommendation 11 could mean anything

Recommendations 12 to 14 look like the Government establishing its own advertising regulator, effectively abolishing the self-regulatory model.

All in all pretty depressing. On a related note, an article from Patrick Basham on plain packaging:

Two years after its implementation, plain packaging’s impact upon smoking and the illicit cigarette trade remains the subject of vigorous debate. No longer debatable, however, is plain packaging’s negative affect upon the alcohol industry and other non-tobacco sectors of the Australian economy.

The unintended effects of plain packaging have the potential to vastly outweigh the legislation’s intended public health benefits, real or imagined. In fact, Australia’s imposition of plain packaging on tobacco opened a Pandora’s Box of potential trade costs with the nation’s alcohol sector set to become the first example of the policy’s collateral damage.

Indonesian farmers recently rallied in front of the Australian embassy in Jakarta in support of their government’s targeting of Australian alcohol. The Indonesian trade ministry is preparing to mandate the plain packaging of alcohol products, including Australian wine, with the respective labelling devoted to warnings of the adverse health consequences associated with alcohol consumption.

Providing political support for these plans are Indonesian business lobbyists seeking to protect their domestic market from foreign competition, as well as global and domestic public health NGOs who support plain packaging on all manner of ‘unhealthy’ consumer products, including alcohol and tobacco.

Such support would not have mattered to the Indonesian government if Australia had not opted for plain packaging in late 2011. But, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Labor government could not resist the temptation to become the global ‘leader’ in tobacco control policy. Consequently, Australia is now embroiled in a messy trade dispute that may spill over into a costly trade war.

Eventually the demand for plain packaging will extend to drinks and to food. It’s a bad precedent.

Political commentator David Farrar posts at Kiwiblog.