O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I would like to acknowledge the three members who proposed these particular Supplementary Order Papers. I think they are all worth considering and I thank them for the efforts they have put into it. I would also like to acknowledge the Government for its willingness to further examine with an expert panel the law regarding the advertising of alcohol. However New Zealand First does want to see some advertising restriction but we think it must be reasonable it must be practical and it must be effective. So for those reasons we would oppose Supplementary Order Paper 81 regarding advertising and sponsorship and also Supplementary Order Paper 115 relating to TV advertising both of which we see as being too extreme. We would support however Iain Lees-Galloway’s “small measures” proposals in Supplementary Order Paper 91. 
Dealing first with Supplementary Order Paper 81 general advertising prohibitions are not appropriate and that is what it is with four relatively minor exemptions: one relating to price lists another relating to adverts in media from overseas a third one to advertisements in magazines for employees of manufacturers only and another exemption relating to material in museums and art galleries and videos that sort of thing. So apart from that it is a pretty extreme measure in prohibiting advertising at all for alcohol and that is not appropriate. The amendment to prohibit advertising of alcohol in that way is misdirected because it misses the point. It is not about no use of alcohol and it is probably not even about an overall reduction in alcohol; it is specifically about the misuse of alcohol. 
I would have to disagree with those speakers who try to use smoking and tobacco as a comparison because alcohol is not inherently dangerous. It is potentially dangerous if misused whereas tobacco is inherently dangerous no matter how little smoking one does. So I do not see that there is a good comparison between those. 
There is no clear connection between appropriate advertising and the abuse of alcohol. One other speaker adverted to the fact that there is in fact very little evidence to connect the two and we would need to do a great deal more research to know whether more advertising would cause more harm or indeed whether a general prohibition on the advertising of alcohol would actually have much effect at all. 
The restriction on the use of trademarks is another provision that seems inappropriate. That will have very little positive effect unduly restrict commercial interests and would damage unnecessarily commercial operations especially for example wineries. The advertising of wine does not seem to me to be necessarily an encouragement of the consumption of alcohol or the abuse of alcohol. Trademark restrictions are not practical they are not effective and they are not necessary. New Zealand First does accept that some control on sponsorship by alcohol interests is appropriate but not this general prohibition on it. And we do take notice of the fact that such a prohibition would damage the ability of clubs and non-profit organisations to earn income without any correlative worthwhile benefit. 
But New Zealand First does accept that some additional advertising restriction is necessary. So we looked at Supplementary Order Paper 91 and we saw in that some significantly more modest provisions that are capable of support. The first of those relates to the publishing of alcohol products and advertising on posters and billboards within 300 metres of any school or early childhood centre. That seems to us to be perfectly acceptable. Similarly no person may broadcast or arrange for anyone else to do so any alcohol product advertisement before 9 p.m. You can see the logic of that. Young children are not likely to see advertisements after that but are likely to see them before that time of day. And thirdly that no person should screen any advertisement concerning alcohol unless all films screened have been classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as restricted to audiences of 18 years and over. So similarly that is a modest provision that is targeted at the protection of children. It is practical it is effective it is not a great imposition on those who wish to advertise alcohol and it is a modest and acceptable provision we feel. Those are the sorts of provisions that New Zealand First does accept as being appropriate and as being effective but not so extreme that they are unnecessary in terms of a general prohibition. We would support those sorts of provisions. 
We also do not support a general prohibition of television advertising for the same reasons: too extreme unnecessary not well targeted and without any real information being provided that it would make any difference at all. The cost-benefit ratio or the benefit to avoiding alcohol abuse is not demonstrated. For those reasons the proposal should not be supported. 
New Zealand First therefore does want to see the investigation that the Government proposes with its expert panel. We want to see the results of that. In the meantime we feel that those modest provisions proposed by Iain Lees-Galloway should proceed but the general prohibitions are not appropriate are not demonstrated to be effective and should not be supported.