Alcohol advertising in New Zealand
Time for second thoughts on self-regulation?
Linda Hill

In September 2003 New Zealand’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), an industry body representing advertisers and broadcasters, extended alcohol advertising on television by half an hour. The start time changed from 9 pm to 8.30. This was opposed by the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC), who wanted the time pulled back to 10.30, and by the Ministry of Health who recommended the discontinuation of all alcohol advertising on radio and television.

‘Minimising the exposure of young people to alcohol marketing messages’ is one of the Objectives of the National Alcohol Strategy adopted by this government in 2001. Between 8.30 and 9 pm, 26 per cent of 12-17 year olds are watching television. This drops to around 10 per cent by 11 pm. Few alcohol ads are scheduled after 11 pm, so bringing the start time forward extending exposure time by 20 per cent.

Why wasn’t this stopped? Because in 1993, the year after the 9 pm restriction was set, responsibility for standards in advertisements (rather than programming) was passed to industry self-regulation under voluntary codes. In 2003 the ASA asserted its right to self-regulation by declining to meet concerned Ministers prior to release of its revised Code on Liquor Advertising with the new start time.

The government has no current powers to intervene on this issue – although it has the power to create some. At the time, there was other legislation before Parliament prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants, to industry cries of 'nanny state’.

Liberalisation of broadcasting and alcohol advertising
New Zealand has had laws about the sale of alcohol since 1842 but the marketing of alcohol is a modern phenomenon that has received less policy attention. For historical reasons related to donations to political parties, alcohol legislation is decided by the individual ‘conscience’ votes of MPs. This means the health policies of political parties do not include alcohol issues.

As in many European countries, the liberalisation of alcohol advertising paralleled the commercialisation of broadcasting in the 1980s and 1990s. Radio and television were developed by a state department whose in-house rules did not permit alcohol advertising. In the 1970s private radio stations were licenced, in 1987 the first private television channel went to air and from 1989 state broadcasting was required to compete on a commercial basis. In 1981 advertising for bottle stores was permitted on radio and television and from 1987 alcohol companies could broadcast corporate and sport sponsorship ads. Young teenagers thought these simply promoted alcohol. Public concern led to a review of alcohol advertising by a newly created Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) in 1990-1991.

The outcome was a decision that alcohol brand advertising should be permitted with restricted hours of viewing. Part of the deal was that broadcasters would donate free time for alcohol health promotion advertising. This began in February 1992. In 1997, alcohol ad exposure outweighed health promotion exposure by ten to one. In a sample of weekend television in February 2002, one health promotion ad was shown for every five alcohol ads.

Organisations for the broadcasting, print media and advertising industries now support the alcohol industry on alcohol advertising issues. The alcohol market in New Zealand is dominated by a few main players who are major clients for these industries. Being a large client has advantages. For example, in 2002 the alcohol advertising sold by the two state-owned television channels cost 54 per cent less than equivalent time charged at standard rates.

Loss of policy control
The BSA that facilitated the deal on alcohol brand advertising is an independent statutory body under the Broadcasting Act, 1989. It has jurisdiction over both public and private sectors and its functions include encouraging broadcasters to develop codes of broadcasting standards that include, among other things, ‘the protection of children’ and ‘the restriction of liquor promotion’. The Minister of Broadcasting can refer matters to the BSA for its consideration.

Until 1999 the Broadcasting Act gave the Cabinet and Governor- General a standard power to pass regulations, but this disappeared when regulations on household broadcasting fees were abolished. When the BSA was considering the 9 pm decision, it wrote to the Minister of Broadcasting to check that this was ‘consistent with government policy’. The Minister told the media that the matter had been discussed with Cabinet and Caucus colleagues.

At that time, the government was amending the Broadcasting Act to clarify complaints processes. Complaints about programmes would go to the BSA. Complaints about advertisements would go to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that already had a code and a complaints procedure for print advertisements. The effect of this amendment was that all matters related to alcohol advertising on radio and television passed out of any direct or indirect control by government.

Self-regulation and self-review
The BSA developed the first Code of Liquor Advertising in 1992 but in 1995 the ASA was responsible for a major review of its own new arrangements. The review recommended a committee to prevent ads. Unsurprisingly, it recommended continuation of broadcast advertising, despite opposition from the Ministry of Health, ALAC and public health organisations.

The ASA’s terms of reference limited reviews in 1998 and 2003 to the code itself and to ‘new evidence’ only. The code is mainly about ad content but states the time at which ads are permitted on television. As well as changing the start time, the 2003 review committee decided that one ad with multiple segments within a commercial break would not infringe the ‘saturation’ rule under the BSA’s Code on Liquor Programming.

Non-industry members have been included on review committees, often with marketing rather than public health expertise. In 2003 the review team included a Director of Public Health, however. He did not agree to the time change, but the review report was released without his dissenting opinion.

The time restriction does not apply to all alcohol promotion on television. Alcohol brand logos can appear at the beginning and end of sponsored sports coverage and other programmes at any time of day. In the February 2002 sample of weekend television, 37 alcohol sponsorship logos appeared within a three-hour period of afternoon sports coverage. An afternoon infomercial for a brew kit was recently ruled by the ASA complaints committee to be an advertisement, but not an alcohol advertisement. Beer was depicted and discussed, the kit was made by the largest alcohol producer, the presenter was the manager of the brewery that developed the recipe and viewers were told where that brewery was located. This decision is about to be reviewed by the appeals committee of the ASA.

Reclaiming policy control
Reviews of the Code of Liquor Advertising have been used to deflect efforts to have alcohol advertising policy addressed at the political level. A Private Member’s Bill was taken off the parliamentary timetable on the grounds that the 1995 review would occur. Alcohol advertising was included in the terms of reference of the 1996 review of liquor licensing legislation, but not considered by the industry-friendly review committee on the grounds that the code would be reviewed in 1998. A further Private Member’s Bill is in currently in the ballot box.

On 9 June, the Group on Alcohol Advertising, supported by the NZ Drug Foundation, presented a petition to Parliament. The presenters wore sandwich boards parodying Tui beer slogans. The petition calls for a Health Committee inquiry into alcohol advertising. The Ministry of Health proposed this in 2001 as an option in a paper to the Ministerial Committee on Drugs, but no action was taken. Following the 2003 ASA review, there appears to be some ministerial support for this approach. The Health Committee inquiry can be a focus for public and political debate that may lead on to policy action.

Second thoughts on the drinking age
Alcohol advertising is not the only issue being raised in New Zealand. Since 1989 New Zealand has liberalised liquor licensing, extended hours and days of trading and allowed wine and beer sales from supermarkets, as well as allowing alcohol advertising on radio and television. In December 1999, the age of alcohol purchase was lowered from 20 to 18. A national survey a year later showed 18-19 year olds are now the heaviest drinkers. The most marked increases in drinking were among 14-17 year olds. In 2000-2002 drink driving prosecutions increased among both these age groups. Police in many districts report increases in teenagers drinking in public, too intoxicated to look after themsel ves. In May 2004 the Chair of the Ministerial Committee on Drugs called for the drinking age to be reconsidered. An opposition Private Member’s Bill is on this is in the ballot box, alongside the one on alcohol advertising from the third largest party. A recent public opinion poll gave 75 per cent support to putting the age of purchase back up to 20. This is 5 per cent higher than support for 20 before Parliament lowered the age in 1999. It appears that New Zealanders are willing to learn from Parliament’s mistakes.

See www.tui.co.nz for a marketing campaign that targets students and young males with juvenile
humour, branded clothing and photo competitions.

Barb Lash (2004) Young people and alcohol: Some statistics to 2002 on possible effects of lowering the
drinking age. Final Report. Ministry of Justice. May.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2004/youth-alcohol/2-drinking-behaviour-of-young-new-zealanders.htm