Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6080. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 During the select committee process of the Alcohol Reform Bill there was a significant voice from the submitters that Parliament needed to have a look at how we regulate the advertising and sponsorship of alcohol. In fact 79 percent of those who submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee advocated for a complete ban on sponsorship. There was considerable discussion around the Health Sponsorship Council proposal which is what was done with tobacco where tobacco sponsorship was removed and the Government stepped in and in a sense I suppose weaned those organisations that received sponsorship from the tobacco industry off that sponsorship. Today of course Smokefree is still around but it does not do as much as it used to and those sports and arts and other groups that relied on tobacco sponsorship have moved on from that. That was the thrust of many of the submissions to the select committee. 
There is no doubt that in trying to find an appropriate position on advertising and sponsorship this is a balancing act. It is true that many organisations rely heavily on sponsorship and it is also true that much of the advertising of alcohol that does exist is I suppose done in a good-natured way. It is certainly not on the face of it designed to encourage binge drinking or the irresponsible use of alcohol. So it is a delicate issue for Parliament there is no doubt. It is also true that this is one of the issues that the alcohol industry least wants Parliament to move on. Although there are plenty of other measures that are or could be addressed in this bill that the alcohol industry has stated that it is reasonably relaxed with this is one that it is not relaxed about at all and I can understand that such a level of opposition from an industry as large as the alcohol lobby does make Governments nervous. However that is not a reason for us not to act. 
The Alcohol Reform Bill is certainly very light on the issue of advertising; in fact it really does not tackle it at all. So what we have seen is a range of proposed amendments from members. I would like particularly to address my own which I believe does strike a reasonable balance between those who are at the front line who deal with alcohol-related harm and who want to see alcohol-related harm reduced and their desire to see a reduction or even an elimination of alcohol advertising and those who rely on alcohol sponsorship and those who support the continuation of the advertising of alcohol. All the measures in my Supplementary Order Paper 91 are lifted directly from the Law Commission report so these have not been dreamt up. These have come from a very strong evidence base. These have come from the months of consultation and the screeds of evidence that has been gathered around alcohol-related harm and they come from a position where these are the points that have been pulled out as the things that need to be done to actually address advertising’s role in the harm related to alcohol. So what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is initially a few things that are targeted and that are easy to achieve in the short term. It would then set up the mechanism by which the Government and Parliament can take a longer-term approach to what is the appropriate way to tackle alcohol advertising and sponsorship and to see whether we might eventually reach the point where we have the Health Sponsorship Council model or whether we might reach some other point. But it would be done in a logical and considered manner over a number of years because what we are trying to achieve here is something that is lasting something that will last the change of Governments and something that will not need to be revisited again in the future. My concern is that if we move too far too quickly then there will be a temptation to reverse that quickly or indeed measures that go too far too quickly will not succeed in this House at this time but also if we do absolutely nothing then we are not taking the opportunities that we have to address issues related to alcohol advertising. 
So what I propose is a number of small measures mostly directed at children. One measure is to have a zone round schools in which alcohol advertising cannot exist. I think particularly of some of the areas that I visited in Auckland where very very close to schools we see huge alcohol advertising—particularly advertising of extremely cheap alcohol—all in full view of children day after day after day as they are travelling to and from school. What that does is it normalises the idea that alcohol is an important and everyday part of life. In fact the advertising of alcohol at very cheap prices reinforces the idea that you should get as much of it as possible and that when it is cheap you should buy as much alcohol as you possibly can. That is an environment in which I do not think we need our children to be growing up in. It is an environment that encourages an unhealthy attitude to and relationship with alcohol and it can easily be nipped in the bud with that simple measure. 
The second measure is simply to shift the television advertising watershed to 9 p.m. It is not a big shift but a recognition that many young children are awake to a much later hour and are watching television to a much later hour. The measure will remove—as is already the intention from having a watershed in the first place—that advertising from television at a time when young children are likely to be able to see it. 
The third measure is to remove alcohol advertising at cinemas where the film being shown is not an R18 film. Again there is no need for young people to be bombarded with alcohol advertising. There is no need for parents to have to put up with taking their kids to a film—you know a genuine kids’ film like  
Finding Nemo 
 or any of the number of kids’ films that are on during the holidays—and to have themselves and their children bombarded with advertising for alcohol or alcohol outlets at those films. 
The fourth measure is to ensure that price and the discounting of alcohol cannot be included in any advertisements. I know from the commentary from people who take an interest in the Alcohol Reform Bill that it is the one aspect of this Supplementary Order Paper that people are particularly interested in because they know that the advertising of discounted alcohol and cheap alcohol encourages the purchasing of large volumes of alcohol and that is something that we want to discourage as well. This is all about trying to create the right environment and send the right signals to people in terms of how they develop their alcohol purchasing attitudes and what their relationship is with alcohol. 
 Finally what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is to set up an alcohol advertising reform committee as envisaged by the Law Commission which would operate over a period of 5 years to look at the bigger picture—whether or not we want to continue with alcohol advertising in New Zealand whether or not we want to continue with the sponsorship of things like sports groups or teams like the All Blacks. Do we want that close relationship between alcohol and our greatest sporting heroes to be something that children grow up with in New Zealand? What we create through alcohol advertising and sponsorship is a belief that alcohol is closely related to success and social normality. That is something that we want to uncouple. We want children to grow up in New Zealand believing that it is possible to be successful socially it is possible to engage in sport and it is possible to go to school without alcohol being all-pervasive around them. That is what my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to achieve. I know that there are other members who want to move faster who want to see this happen now but I believe my Supplementary Order Paper strikes the right balance.