Coleman Jonathan: Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill — First Reading 
Coleman Jonathan: Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4866] 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I do not think that it will have escaped those who are listening to or watching this debate at home or who have been following the proceedings in Parliament this evening that there is irony in the fact that the Green members spent the past hour arguing for liberalisation around marijuana and they now after Metiria Turei’s speech sound as though they are on the verge of calling for the prohibition of alcohol. 
The member made a number of good points about alcohol. There is no question that abuse of alcohol in New Zealand is a very serious issue. All Governments around the Western World grapple with the issue; this Parliament grapples with it on a regular basis. A couple of years ago there was a conscience vote here on raising the drinking age back to 20 years from the level of 18 years that was set back in 1999. It is on the record that that vote was lost. But in looking at what we can actually do to address the issue of alcohol abuse in New Zealand I do not think that the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill which calls for a total ban on all broadcast advertising of alcohol will achieve that effect. The bill provides that subject to certain exceptions no person may broadcast or arrange for any other person to broadcast any liquor advertisement in New Zealand. We will have a conscience vote on the bill and I can tell members that I will be opposing it. 
This Government understands that liquor is a major issue in New Zealand. Indeed the current Parliament has a number of bills before it in order to consider the issue in depth. This bill however addresses only selected aspects of liquor management and pre-empts other similar bills currently before the House. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill was introduced to the House in August 2008 and had its first reading in March this year. It deals amongst other things with the advertising of liquor. It is before the Justice and Electoral Committee which will report back in September this year. In addition the Law Commission is currently undertaking a full review of the Sale of Liquor Act. It has been made clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are something that this Government wishes to address and we have asked the commission to produce a report 12 months earlier than the previous Government had directed. 
We believe that this Parliament wants one crack at getting it right so that we do not need to repeat this conversation about liquor regulation on an annual basis. In light of that direction the commission is expected to report back with a discussion document later this month. A full report will follow that—one that responds to this consultation process. Both the aforementioned bill and the review are more comprehensive than the current bill before the House. It is also worth pointing out that another member’s bill the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill was recently defeated in the House by 62 votes to 58. It is crucial that we avoid a piecemeal approach to liquor issues. 
The Government is of the view that the Advertising Standards Authority currently does a sufficient job of exercising control and encouraging self-regulation over certain specified complaints relating to the broadcasting of liquor advertising. It is interesting to note that in 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority received 1240 complaints of which fewer than 5 percent were about alcohol and that most of these complaints were about advertising in media other than television. The Advertising Standards Authority is currently in the public consultation phase of the development of a liquor promotion code. This code will deal with issues such as packaging and promotion which this bill does not even touch upon. 
I say again that the Justice and Electoral Committee is taking a much broader look at the whole area of legislation in this area. It would seem to make sense to see that process through to completion rather than to develop piecemeal solutions that might be superseded by this review in the coming months. 
It is also important to note that this bill would have a significant commercial impact. The television industry is facing serious economic challenges due to an ever-changing broadcasting scene and the ongoing recession. It is on the record that advertising revenue for free-to-air broadcasters has dropped considerably in recent years. It is also interesting that those who have complained the loudest about job losses at Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and problems in that sector are the very same people who would further seek to cut the revenue of free-to-air broadcasters by supporting measures such as this bill and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that was before the House 2 weeks ago. I tell members that the livelihood of free-to-air broadcasters will depend on their ability to continue to advertise and to self-regulate their advertising in a responsible manner. Indeed if this bill is successful the advertising industry estimates that upwards of $16 million per year in television advertising revenues will be lost. This in turn will lead to further job losses in the industry and lower investment in local programming content. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they do not want freedom of advertising on television but at the same time get upset when there are job losses in the television industry where there is damage to that industry on a long-term basis. 
I will certainly be interested to hear what some of the Labour Party speakers have to say about this because I know they supported Brendon Burns’ member’s bill 2 weeks ago. He was very vociferous on the issue of banning advertising on television but at the same time he was very prominent in calling for a stemming of the job losses at TVNZ. He is in quite a difficult position trying to reconcile supporting our State broadcaster with at the same time wanting to ban its ability to advertise as it sees fit in a responsible manner during its own schedule time. 
In the last 4 years the amount spent on alcohol advertising on television has reduced from $24 million a year to $15.8 per annum. Across all media it has gone down from $40 million a year to $36 million a year. As a percentage of annual media spend alcohol advertising on television has gone from 60 percent to 44 percent while in other media it has risen most notably in newspapers where it is up from 16 percent to 24 percent. To impose additional constraints that have unproven benefits will not provide a public good but will have a serious negative effect on the television industry as advertisers of alcohol move to other media most notably the print media. 
Also it would seem that the reason for this bill’s introduction is now obsolete. Although the concerns over negative aspects of consumption of alcohol have risen alcohol advertising is actually in long-term decline. Advertising for alcohol peaked in 1998 and has been dropping steadily ever since. This bill also completely ignores the fact that New Zealand is now in a global media market. A lot of content comes in from overseas yet this bill allows for international liquor advertising—embedded say in coverage of a baseball game from the US via ESPN—but not for Steinlager to be advertised on the billboards of an All Black test match. This bill is bad for New Zealand companies. It is bad for the advertisers. It is bad for the broadcasters. It is bad for New Zealand sport events. But at the same time it will be OK for foreign brands supporting foreign sports events and foreign broadcasters to be beamed into our television screens here in New Zealand. 
Finally alcohol advertising is currently restricted to between 8.30 p.m. and 6 a.m. The broadcasters have generally taken a responsible approach to what they broadcast in terms of liquor advertising and when they broadcast it. Alcohol advertising already has many restrictions designed to ensure that the target audience is not youth and the liquor industry generally acts responsibly to appeal to an adult audience. 
In summary we would say that banning liquor advertising will not really have the desired effect of reducing alcohol abuse in New Zealand; there is no evidence that it will. I also make the point that New Zealanders are starting to watch their televisions in a way that cuts out the advertising anyway. Innovations like personal video recorders and the ability for people to time-shift content mean that a lot of people now do not even watch the ads. I think this legislation is really a solution looking for a problem. A wide range of approaches are currently before Parliament. We want to get right the issue of how liquor is handled by New Zealanders. We want to approach it once and once only; we do not want a piecemeal approach. There are more effective ways to curtail alcohol abuse than through the passing of this bill. The final point I make is that one cannot say that one is for the State broadcaster but that one supports cutting its right to advertise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member the following calls are of 5 minutes and there will be a warning bell at 4 minutes. I call Brendon Burns.