Sports Foundation opposes liquor ban

Press, 22 September 1983, Page 8

Sports Foundation opposes liquor ban

PA Wellington A bin which seeks to ban television advertising of liquor would have a serious financial impact on sport if passed, a Parliamentary select committee was told yesterday. The liquor industry provided sports sponsorship of more than $2 million a year, said the Sports Foundation in submissions to the committee.

The Broadcasting (Television Advertising of Liquor) Bill would have a serious impact on the foundation's finances and, as a consequence, detrimentally affect the performance of New Zealand’s best medal prospects at the 1984 Olympic Games. It would also seriously affect the finances of the mass-participation sports, rugby and cricket, the foundation said.

Other groups who presented sumbissions to the select committee gave views for and against the bill, introduced in Parliament by a Government

member of Parliament, Mr D. M. J. Jones. In its submissions the Sports Foundation said the successes of New Zealand sports people could not have been achieved without a substantial input from the liquor industry by way of sponsorship. It provided sponsorship for sport of more than $2 million a year and if present negotiations were not frustrated by the bill, it expected the amount could rise to more than $2.5 million. The bill before the committee would clearly ban the incidental showing of hoardings or signs advertising liquor or the names of those supplying liquor during sports fixtures held in New Zealand or overseas, the submission said.

However, the committee’s chairman, Mr Jones, said it was not intended that the bill’s purpose affect incidental screenings. The Liquor Industry Council told the committee that the proposed measure, based on two commercials

of dubious taste and approved by broadcasting officials in an error of judgment, provided an extreme solution with dangerous overtones.

It was a use of negative freedom — the power of Parliament to legislate on a narrow issue, it said in submissions.

The removal of liquor advertising from television screens would not prevent young people from being exposed to liquor situations. The bill was supported by the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council which said in submissions that it believed a total ban on all television advertising was warranted. This was because of the powerful impact of the visual media and the difficulty in obtaining suitable regulatory procedures. It said it was concerned that the proposed removal of liquor advertising from television might lead to an unacceptable increase in the volume of such advertising in cinemas. The Alcohol Research Unit from the School of

Medicine at the University of Auckland said in its submissions that from a public health perspective there appeared to be no justification for allowing advertising of alcohol on television. It also felt there was no justification for excluding radio from the bill as it had been included with television in previous alcohol advertising bans, was subject to the same potential controls, and had a similar potential for presenting sophisticated and emotionarousing alcohol promotions.

A further submission suggested that brand advertising should be allowed on television.

Alcohol beverages advertising should be broadcast in adult viewing time — after 8 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, said the Association of Accredited Advertising Agencies.

Television should continue to be used to educate the public, especially the youth group, about the restrained use of alcoholic beverages, it said.