Editorial: Liquor forum clampdown over the top

An end to the alcohol sponsorship of sports clubs by the likes of Steinlager and Heineken would have a dramatic impact. Photo / Brett Phibbs

Government right to distance itself from calls to end alcohol-sponsored sport, music and cultural events.

The Government has quickly distanced itself from the report of the Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship. That is unsurprising given the heavy clampdown recommended by the advisory group. This would see an end to liquor company sponsorship of sports clubs and ban the advertising of beer, wine and spirits during televised matches. The impact "could be considerable", noted the Justice Minister, Amy Adams. That, by any yardstick, was a substantial understatement, so much so that it is difficult to see many of the forum's recommendations going much further.

The six-person panel, which included former Kiwis rugby league coach Graham Lowe, was established as part of the 2012 alcohol law reforms. Its task was to advise on possible further controls on liquor advertising and sponsorship. The status quo was little disturbed by the legislation even though the Law Commission had proposed a stifling of promotional messages in three stages over five years. It believed there was sufficient evidence of an association between alcohol advertising and sponsorship, early initiation to drinking, and increased consumption patterns to warrant significant additional restrictions.

If anything, the forum's 14 recommendations go beyond what was envisaged by the commission. It justifies this by saying research since the commission's report has strengthened the case against advertising and sponsorship. Its recommendations, however, fly in the face of trends in drinking. These highlight not only decreasing liquor consumption, notably among 15- to 17-year-olds, but a reduction in hazardous drinking. That suggests industry self-regulation has been far from the unmitigated disaster painted by opponents.

The forum is at its best in tackling the exposure of minors, especially young children, to alcohol advertising and sponsorship. This, as it suggests, holds a key to preventing initiation to drinking liquor at any early age. In addition to the ban on television advertising during sports matches, it wants to stop alcohol sponsorship of cultural and music events where 10 per cent or more of the audience are younger than 18, and prevent advertising at the same venues. The hours at which alcohol advertisements could be broadcast would also be further restricted. It is difficult to object to measures such as these which are clearly targeted at preventing the promotion of liquor to the young and the impressionable.

Elsewhere, however, the forum runs awry. An end to the alcohol sponsorship of sports clubs by the likes of Steinlager and Heineken would have a dramatic impact. The forum recommends reducing clubs' reliance on this type of backing through a replacement funding programme. This would support sporting, cultural and music events that "might ordinarily have had access to alcohol sponsorship funds".

This smacks of the Smokefree initiative when tobacco sponsorship was banned, only in the case of liquor the need would be much larger. There would be a significant call on the Government's purse. That is unlikely to happen given the present economic circumstances.

Ms Adams indicated as much when she noted the forum had admitted that it had been unable to assess the full impact of its proposals. Officials will report on this by the middle of next year. They will surely scotch all the recommendations except those limiting the promotion of alcohol to youngsters. At the same time, however, they might put liquor companies on notice that the promotion of moderate and mature drinking is the best way to forestall further complaints about their activities.