A short review of the NSW Government’s “one-punch” alcohol control reforms

shutterstock_372107521

In February 2016, former High Court Justice the Hon. Ian Callinan AC QC was appointed by the NSW Government to review the effectiveness of the “lockouts” and the 3am liquor sales cessation period on the Sydney CBD entertainment precinct, the Kings Cross precinct, and potential displacement areas.

Mr Callinan will also consider the impact of the 10pm closing time for bottleshops, with a particular focus on rural and remote communities.

These are perhaps the best known “one punch” alcohol controls introduced by former NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell’s government following a number of highly-publicised assaults by alcohol-affected persons on Sydney streets.

 

Why did the NSW government act?

In July 2012, 18 year old Thomas Kelly was walking with his girlfriend down Victoria Street, Kings Cross, when he was punched in the face.  It was an unprovoked attack.  He fell back, cracking his skull on the pavement.

His life support system was turned off two days later.

Ralph Kelly, Thomas’ father, told the media his son’s life had been finally taking off”, after difficult times at school, with the good news of a cadetship with a Sydney accounting firm.

The young man who threw the punch, Kieran Loveridge, was sentenced to 4 years for manslaughter.

The Crown appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.  The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal agreed, extending the minimum sentence to ten years.

In December 2014, Loveridge’s application for leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.

Thomas Kelly was not an isolated incident.

For example, Daniel Christie hit the pavement just metres from where Thomas Kelly fell, after being fatally punched on New Year’s Eve 2013.

Fady Taiba spent 19 days in a coma after refusing an intoxicated man entry to Bar 333 in September 2013.

34-year old Brazilian Lucio Stein Rodrigues was killed by a “ferocious” punch outside a pub in the CBD in November 2013.

Between 2000 and December 2013, 90 people were killed in this way, by a single blow to the head.

 

Preventive alcohol controls prior to the “one punch” alcohol laws

According to John Green, from the NSW Branch of the Australian Hotels Association, “It’s not good enough anymore to use hotels as whipping posts…We need to target those thugs in the community who think it is OK to pre-fuel and hit people.”

But how exactly do you “target thugs”, before – rather than after – they become violent, without burdening the service of alcohol?

Three “preventive” controls are worth mentioning.  These controls were already in place when Thomas Kelly, Daniel Christie and others like them hit the pavement.

Firstly, s. 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) authorises police to give “move on” orders to people who are drunk in public.

In 2011, Parliament introduced the offence in s 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW).  This is an offence for continuing intoxicated and disorderly behaviour, following a section 198 order.

According to the NSW Ombudsman, over a 1 year period (October 2011-September 2012), NSW police issued 110,949 formal orders to intoxicated persons. 33,580 were orders issued under s. 198.

Secondly, under s 206 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, police can detain an intoxicated person who is behaving in a disorderly manner, or in need of physical protection due to their intoxication.

Finally, the NSW Government had already introduced “three strikes” legislation, which imposes “strikes” when a licensee or manager commits one of a number of serious offences in relation to an alcohol licence.

After a third prescribed offence, the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority can decide whether to impose a third strike, and thereafter to cancel, suspend or impose additional conditions on a liquor licencee’s license.

Preventive laws have taken different forms since 2014.

 

The NSW Government’s “one punch” alcohol reforms

Five reforms are worth noting; for a broader discussion of the government’s response, see here.

Firstly, the Government introduced sections 25A-25B into the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).  Section 25A is a new statutory offence for an assault causing death.  Section 25B imposes a minimum mandatory custodial sentence of 8 years for this offence if the accused had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 (3 times the legal driving limit).

Amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (s. 138G) authorise police to detain and require a person to undergo breath testing (within 2 hours of the alleged commission of this offence), or to give a blood or urine sample at a hospital, within 4 hours of the alleged commission of this offence.

In 2014, a Bill (the Crimes Amendment (Intoxication) Bill 2014) was introduced to create a number of additional aggravated intoxication offences, with a minimum period of imprisonment for each offence.  However, it was never passed.

Secondly, changes to the Liquor Act 2007 and its regulations introduced the idea that a geographic area can be declared to be a “prescribed precinct” (s 116C).  The Act then sets out the kinds of restrictions the regulations can impose on premises within a “prescribed precinct” (s. 116I).  These may include:

  • Restricting use of glasses or breakable containers;
  • Prohibiting or restricting sale of certain kinds of liquor;
  • Prohibiting patrons from entering licensed premises at certain times (ie “lock outs”);
  • Requiring incident registers to be kept;
  • Requiring licensees to contribute to the costs of measures to prevent violence and alcohol-related harm in the precinct.

Additionally, the Liquor Act 2007 and Liquor Regulation 2008 set out a number of specific controls that apply to the Kings Cross Precinct, and the Sydney Entertainment Precinct, respectively: these take effect as licence conditions applicable to licencees within each precinct.

The most significant controls that apply to the new CBD precinct are the “lock out” and liquor sales cessation periods.  These are discussed separately below.

Thirdly, the Liquor Act authorises a police officer to issue a temporary banning order that prohibits a person from entering or remaining on specified licensed premises within a prescribed precinct for up to 48 hours (s. 116F).

Fourthly, the Act provides the basis for payment of risk-based licence fees by liquor licensees.  Fees are set by taking into account the location of the premises, its trading hours, patron capacity, offences committed, and compliance with licence requirements (s. 58A).

Click here for an overview.

The final control included in this short review is the 10pm closing time for bottle shops and other take-away retail liquor establishments: s 12(1C) of the Act.  This was discussed in a previous post.

 

Lock out and liquor sales cessation controls

There are 7 categories of liquor licence in NSW.  Taking the Sydney CBD precinct as an example, under ss 53Y-53Z of the Regulations, the lock out and liquor sales cessation restrictions apply specifically to hotels, clubs, high-risk venues (including large hotels which operate after midnight), and premises to which a “level 2” licence applies (due to previous incidents of violence).

The “lock out period” is defined in s 3 of the Regulations to mean after 1.30am until the beginning of the standard trading period the following day.  During a lock out period, new patrons may not enter the premises, although patrons can remain on the premises, and leave at any time.

During a liquor sales cessation period, hotels, clubs and high risk venues must not sell liquor.  The liquor sales cessation period” is defined to mean between 3am until the beginning of the following day’s trading period.

Additional controls apply to after midnight trading (the general late trading period) in respect of declared venues with a history of alcohol-related violence.  For example, glasses must be removed from patrons and drinks cannot be sold in glasses during the late (after midnight) period.

During the general late trading period, venues within the Sydney CBD Entertainment Precinct are also prohibited from selling certain kinds of alcoholic drinks (see Regs s. 53ZB).  These include:

  • Shots (any drink designed to be consumed rapidly);
  • drinks containing more than 50% liquor;
  • any ready to drink beverage containing more than 5% alcohol by volume, and
  • drinks containing more than 30ml spirits.

However, these restrictions do not apply to cocktails.

During the late general trading period, no more than 4 alcoholic drinks, or the contents of one bottle of wine, may be served to the same patron.

This requires licencees to keep tally of the number of drinks sold to any one patron.

Under s 53ZE, licencees of premises within the CBD Precinct must keep a “round the clock” incident register.  Where a violent incident does occur, the licencee must preserve and keep the area where the incident occurred intact (s 53ZF).

S 53ZG also requires licencees to exclude entry to people wearing clothing or symbols of a number of motorcycle clubs such as the Bandidos, Gypsy Jokers, or Rebels.

 

Are NSW’s one-punch laws working?

One man who has seen it all is Dr Gordian Fulde, head of emergency at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, who was named Senior Australian of the year in 2016

Decades ago, nobody would punch a nurse”, he says.  But these days spitting, punching and kicking are common occurrences.

Dr Fulde is the lead author of a recent paper in the Medical Journal of Australia comparing emergency presentations to his hospital’s emergency department before and after the one-punch reforms.   The study confirms that presentations for alcohol-related serious injuries are much higher during the “high alcohol time” from 6pm Friday to 6am Sunday.

This study also found that after the introduction of the one-punch laws in 2014, there was a 25% reduction in patients presenting with serious alcohol-related injuries during the high alcohol period.  The authors note: “The reduction was most marked in the period after midnight, which corresponds with the main thrust of the changed regulations”.

According to a study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the one-punch reforms were associated with an immediate 32% reduction in the number of reported assaults in Kings Cross, and a 26% reduction in assaults in the Sydney CBD.

These reductions suggest that changes to alcohol trading hours – including lock-outs, liquor sales cessation periods, and bans on late-night take-away liquor sales – are part of an effective package for reducing alcohol-related violence.

However, as with tobacco controls, it may be difficult to definitively quantify the specific contribution of each measure and to link it to reductions in violent assaults.  It is the overall impact of the package of controls that speaks.

Recently, a grassroots organisation called “Keep Sydney Open” have opened a petition to the Premier, Mike Baird, to remove the lockout and last drinks laws.

What is their solution to unprovoked attacks by alcohol-affected young men who are angry at the world?

“We demand smarter solutions — a holistic and lateral approach to preventing assaults which examines transport, CCTV, tougher sentencing, density and diversity of licensed premises, venue management, culture as a placating tool and the tendency towards violence among certain groups of individuals.”

CCTV, tougher sentencing, freezes on new licences?  These are not new ideas, as a glance at the Act and Regulations illustrates.

“Culture as a placating tool”?  What do they have in mind here?

The uncomfortable truth is that Australia’s alcohol culture is partly created by the easy availability of alcohol, the ubiquitous nature of alcohol advertising, and the relative affordability of alcohol (availability, advertising, and price).

Lawmakers may find it more difficult than they would hope to meet community expectations about safety from unprovoked, alcohol-fuelled assaults without relying on laws that burden the business of service of alcohol, and impact indirectly on levels of alcohol consumption.

Are you interested in studying health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Graduate Diploma and a Masters degree in health law that is open to qualified applicants.  You do not need a law degree to apply.  Click here for further details.  And click here for more information about Sydney Law School’s health law team.

Upcoming Conferences: Governing Food

Governing Food

Governing Food: The Role of Law, Regulation and Policy in Meeting 21st Century Challenges to the Food Supply

Dates: Tuesday 1st November – Thursday 3rd November 2016

Venue: Sydney Law School

Sydney Health Law is hosting the Governing Food Conference in November this year, in conjunction with the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre and with sponsorship from The George Institute for Global Health.

 Governing Food will bring together researchers and practitioners from a range of disciplines to explore the role of law, regulation and policy in promoting a healthy, safe and sustainable food supply. The conference will be opened by a public keynote address on Tuesday the 1st of November, to be delivered by Professor Corinna Hawkes from the Centre for Food Policy at City University London. The main days of the conference will be Wednesday the 2nd of November and Thursday the 3rd of November.

The call for abstracts and further details about the conference can be found at this address. You can also contact Dr Belinda Reeve in relation to any questions about the conference: belinda.reeve@sydney.edu.au.

We hope to see you there!

 

Could a sugary drinks tax improve Australian diets?

1458191830709
Jamie Oliver celebrating the introduction of the sugary drinks tax in the UK. Source: smh.com.au

The UK tax on soft drink and Jamie Oliver’s call to action

 Today Britain announced that from 2017 it would levy a tax on soft drinks containing more than five grams of sugar per 100 millilitres, as part of efforts to contain rising levels of childhood obesity. The announcement prompted Jamie Oliver to post a video on Facebook encouraging other governments to follow suit, and telling Australia and other countries to “pull your finger out” on soft drink taxes.

Should Australia introduce a sugary drinks tax? Would a tax be an effective obesity prevention measure? Or would it just be a slow and costly way of raising the ire of the food industry?

 Australians drink a lot of soft drink

Around one third of Australians drink about a can of soft drink a day, making Australia one of the top ten soft-drink consuming countries in the world. Soft drink consumption among young people is particularly concerning, with around 47% of children (aged between two and 16 years) consuming sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) every day.

Why is soft drink bad for our health?

A large number of studies show that soft drink consumption increases the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and dental caries, and soft drink consumption has been linked to approximately 184,000 deaths per year globally.

Soft drink has a large of amount of added sugar (when it’s not artificially sweetened), making it a key source of added sugar in our diets. Drinking soft drink displaces the consumption of healthier beverages, and we tend not to compensate for the calories we drink by reducing our food intake. Drinks that are high in sugar have been shown to reduce appetite control, which also contributes to weight gain.

Around 60% of Australian adults and 25% of children are either obese or overweight and obesity has overtaken smoking as the leading cause of preventable death and illness. Reducing soft drink consumption could be one way of reducing the burden of obesity and chronic disease, and its impact on Australia’s health care system.

Soft drink taxes are gaining momentum

Public health experts recommend soft drink taxes as one component of a comprehensive obesity prevention strategy, and a number of countries have taken this recommendation on board.

In September 2013 the Mexican congress passed an excise tax on SSBs of one peso per litre – a price increase of approximately 10%. Mexico also introduced an ad valorem tax of 8% on a defined list of non-essential energy-dense foods.

The US city of Berkeley passed a one cent per ounce excise tax on SSBs in November 2014, becoming the first US city to levy a targeted health-related tax on soft drink.

Since January 2015 Chile has levied an 18% ad valorem tax on drinks with a sugar content of more than 6.25 g of sugar per 100 mL, including energy drinks and sweetened waters. Sugary drinks with less than 6.25 g of sugar per 100 mL are taxed at 10%.

These are just a few examples of jurisdictions with soft drink taxes; others include France, Mauritus, and Barbados. Countries are also experimenting with taxes on other unhealthy food products, or on specific nutrients such as fat or salt, often in tandem with taxes on sugary beverages.

Are soft drink taxes effective?

Soft drink taxes are a relatively new initiative, meaning that there’s not much ‘real world’ evidence of their impact. However, modelling studies suggest that tax increases are effective in reducing consumption of SSBs, and a recent evaluation of Mexico’s soft drink tax provides more concrete evidence of the effectiveness of taxes in shifting consumption patterns. The study found that the average volume of taxed beverages purchased monthly was 6% lower after the tax was implemented, with reductions accelerating over time, and reaching a 12% decline by December 2014.

The effects of soft drink taxes on diet-related health are less certain, but there is some evidence for this relationship too. One review of the evidence found a statistically significant association between “substantial” food taxes and weight outcomes, particularly in relation to children, adolescents, low socioeconomic status populations, and those at risk for overweight.

Other studies are more equivocal, but keep in mind that this a recurring problem in public health – the difficulty of showing that one initiative in isolation will lead to significant weight reductions. Experts agreed that a number of complementary measures will be required if we are to see meaningful reductions in obesity and overweight.

What are some of the criticisms of soft drink taxes?

 One of the main concerns about soft drink taxes is that they are regressive. In theory, SSB taxes have a larger impact on lower socioeconomic groups, given that such groups pay a higher proportion of their income towards soft drink purchases. However, the evaluation of Mexico’s soft drink tax found that reductions in soft drink purchasing were greatest among low SES households (averaging 9.1%), suggesting that low SES groups were the most price elastic and thus benefited the most from the tax.

Governments can also take steps to offset the regressive nature of soft drink taxes, for example by targeting subsidies for healthy foods and beverages to low-income households, which could be paid for using the revenue generated by soft drink taxes. Alternatively, tax revenue could be used to address disparities in health or socioeconomic status more broadly.

The effectiveness of an excise tax in reducing SSB consumption hinges on the extent to which the tax is passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. Distributors or retailers may “under shift” the tax by absorbing its cost, thus lowering their profit margins, but sustaining sales. Lower than expected price increases may undermine the tax’s public health benefit. However, evaluations of SSB taxes in Berkeley and Mexico find that manufacturers and distributors have mostly passed on the costs of the taxes to consumers, suggesting that these taxes will have the desired effect.

What’s the situation in Australia?

Australia’s GST exempts many foods that are a core component of a healthy diet, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Sugary drinks are subject to the GST, meaning that there is a kind of differential tax on soft drinks. However, the GST is not intended for this purpose and operates differently to a specific, health-related soft drink tax.

In 2008 the National Preventative Health Taskforce recommended that the government commission a review of economic policies and taxation systems, and use economic incentives to decrease the production and consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages. It cautiously recommended a soft drink tax, given the uncertain impact of these taxes on consumer health.

In its response to the Taskforce, the then federal Labor Government stated that it had already commissioned an independent review of the Australian taxation system, i.e., the Henry Tax Review in 2010. This review did not recommend health-specific taxes on foods and beverages (despite recommending tax hikes for tobacco and alcohol) and the Government said that it would not consider another review. Instead, the Government pointed to voluntary food reformulation efforts taking place through the Food and Health Dialogue.

Should Australia introduce a soft drink tax?

 Jamie Oliver’s right. The Australian government does take a “weak, pathetic” approach to obesity prevention, and we could do better.

The evidence shows that an SSB tax could have a real impact on Australian’s soft drink consumption habits, as does the effectiveness of tobacco taxes and other food taxes such as Denmark’s tax on saturated fat. Soft drink has no nutritional value, making it one of the more uncomplicated food products to tax.

As well as shifting consumption patterns, soft drink taxes could prompt companies to reformulate drinks to reduce their sugar content, or to introduce new, healthier products. Taxes could also generate significant revenue for health promotion activities, preferably targeted at the most vulnerable populations.

The health outcomes of SSB taxes need further research, but this should not stop the Government from “pulling its finger out” as suggested by Jamie Oliver, and introducing a tax on soft drink, as many other countries are doing. An SSB tax would send a clear message that the government is committed to protecting the health of Australians, even if it means taking on the powerful multinational companies that dominate the beverage industry.

 

ABAC Complaints Panel won’t consider complaint about Diageo Australia spamming 3 year-old with Bundaberg Rum video-advert

It’s official.  Spamming children with alcohol advertisements does not breach the ABAC Code, the alcohol industry’s swiss-cheese voluntary standard for alcohol advertising regulation.

The Chief Adjudicator of the ABAC Complaints Panel has ruled that the Panel will not consider a complaint about Diageo Australia spamming a 3 year-old with a Bundaberg Rum video-advert when she clicked on a Dora the Explorer video on a children’s YouTube channel.

The decision by Chief Adjudicator the Hon. Michael Lavarch AO confirms that otherwise unobjectionable alcohol advertisements do not breach the ABAC Code simply because they appear on children’s websites.

IMG_4212 - resizedIMG_4213

I made the complaint to ABAC in September 2015 after the ads shown here appeared on a Dora the Explorer YouTube channel.

Fairfax press reported on the issue here.

Inexplicably, the Advertising Standards Bureau lost the complaint for 3 months, but finally found it again and forwarded it to Mr Lavarch.

Mr Lavarch’s letter can be found here.  He wrote:

“Your complaint is based upon the alcohol advertisement being placed on the YouTube channel prior to your daughter watching a programme that was clearly for younger children. The complaint however does not go to the content of the advertisement but is based solely upon the issue of where the advertisement was found.”

Mr Lavarch wrote that the complaint would “not be referred to the Panel for a determination as it raises only the issue of placement of an alcohol marketing communication rather than its content”.

In explaining his decision, Mr Lavarch referred to a previous determination of the ABAC Panel in 2012 (complaint 118/11)  where the ABAC Panel dismissed a complaint about an ad for Crown Lager appearing on a children’s website aimed at 3-8 year olds.

Despite not forwarding the complaint to the ABAC Complaints Panel, Mr Lavarch indicated that he would raise the complaint with the ABAC Management Committee for consideration.

In my view, this is a test for the integrity of the Management Committee, which is dominated by alcohol and advertising industry associations.

Why did a Bundaberg Rum ad run on a toddler’s YouTube channel?

Mr Lavarch indicated he had made inquiries of the advertiser (Diageo Australia) about how the Bundaberg Rum ad came to be running on a YouTube channel devoted to young children’s content.  This is where it gets interesting.

…Google thought you were an adult

Mr Lavarch’s letter conveys the advice of Diageo that “YouTube only serves this advertiser’s advertisements to users who are logged in to the Google platform that are aged 21+”.

I take this to mean that in Diageo’s view, I was logged into Google, and Google (which owns YouTube) assumed that the relevant YouTube channel was being accessed by an adult.

In fact, at the time, I was logged out of Google, and out of YouTube.

Even so, why should that make a difference?  Many computers used by children will be logged into Google or YouTube 24 hours a day.  Wouldn’t it be smarter for alcohol advertisers to keep away from children’s content, and to limit their alcohol advertising to websites that are age-restricted to adults?

Would Google/YouTube and its advertisers rely on the same arguments (you were logged into Google, so Google thought you were an adult) if advertisements for sex services were streamed on YouTube channels devoted to children’s content?

…You were accessing an unauthorised or pirated video

Mr Lavarch also relayed  from Diageo that “it seems that in this case the video was not an authorised, licensed, or verified video on YouTube and therefore YouTube would not have identified it as children’s content.”

This argument strikes me as self-serving.  As the photos on this blogpost illustrate, the Dora video in question was hosted by Super Dora Games, a YouTube channel with >62,000 subscribers and more than 54 million views.

Check it out.  Is it really so unreasonable to expect ABAC to hold Australian alcohol advertisers accountable when they advertise on sites like this?

This isn’t the shady backrooms of the internet, and I do not accept that children’s content websites should be fair game for alcohol advertisers.

Diageo’s assertions are not entirely consistent with advice received from the office of the Hon. Mitch Fifield MP, Minister for Communications, reported in an earlier post.  Google advised the Department that:

“[U]nfortunately [Diageo’s advertisement] was not correctly labelled as an alcohol advertisement, and Google’s other measures to identify inappropriate advertising content did not pick it up”.

The “other measures” comprise the following:

  • “alcohol advertisements are only shown to users that are logged in and who are aged 18 years and older;
  • Google excludes content that is family friendly;
  • Publishers have to opt in to show alcohol advertisements on their video content”.

So what really happened?

It’s difficult to know.  At the end of the day, Diageo Australia spammed a 3 year-old watching content appropriate for toddlers, but that doesn’t even breach the voluntary Code that Australia’s largest alcohol companies, hand on heart, have pledged their allegiance to.

Plugging the holes in the cheese

Mr Lavarch’s letter conveyed advice from Diageo Australia that the following measures have been implemented by its media partners (Google/YouTube?) to prevent similar occurrences:

  • Development of a list of ‘safe’ channels that Diageo content may appear on. All of the channels on the list are 18+ with content vetted to ensure no appeal to minors.
  • Development of a list of key words that should flag any potential areas of appeal to minors. This list ensures Diageo’s advertising will not appear alongside any content that is tagged or titled with these words.

These assurances sound constructive, but they also raise some new questions.  Is the list of channels ‘safe’ for alcohol advertising a private initiative by Diageo, or are all Australian alcohol advertisers adopting it?  Is the list publicly available?

The photos you see above illustrate that spamming children with liquor advertisements on children’s content websites is a real issue, not a hypothetical one.  In my view it would now be appropriate for the ABAC Management Committee to plug one of the holes in the ABAC cheese and to include a provision that prohibits Australian alcohol advertisers from advertising alcohol to children who are accessing age-appropriate content online.

The Alcohol Advertising Review Board, an initiative of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth and Cancer Council WA, administers a voluntary Placement Code that includes the following provision:

“Alcohol Advertisements shall not appear online in connection with content that appeals or is likely to appeal to Young People.”

The alcohol industry could only object to a provision like this if it was unwilling for its members to be held accountable for spamming children and adolescents with alcohol advertisements when they are accessing material online that is of particular appeal to them.

If Diageo and other advertisers have taken steps to ensure that something like this won’t happen again, then they shouldn’t have any problems with updating the ABAC Code accordingly.

The bottom line

Unfortunately, Mr Lavarch’s response illustrates that at the present time, complaints about alcohol advertising to children – to the extent that they raise the issue of placement – are being invisibly eliminated from the ABAC complaints system, confirming the impression that there is no problem to begin with.

Complaints like mine no longer make it through to the full Complaints Panel.

If a purely voluntary code is the best way of regulating alcohol advertising in Australia, then it’s time for the Management Panel to amend the Code so that advertisers are required not to advertise in connection with content that appeals or is likely to appeal to young people.

Is the ABAC Management Panel just a club dominated by alcohol and advertising interests, or can they act in the public interest to protect children from alcohol advertising?

We’ll see.  This issue may have a while to run yet.

In the meantime, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) has released a new alcohol policy which is strongly critical of Australia’s current regime for alcohol advertising regulation – including the ABAC Code.  The recommendations about alcohol advertising are worth quoting in full:

“Recommendations:
1. That the current self-regulatory approach to alcohol advertising in Australia and New Zealand should be changed to include statutory restrictions, including the enforcement of costly sanctions for breaches of the advertising code.
2. That the sponsorship of sporting events by the alcohol industry should be prohibited in Australia and New Zealand as a first step towards a model of alcohol advertising regulations which would phase out all alcohol promotions to young people.
3. That the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code should be amended to introduce mandatory warning label requirements for alcoholic beverages, with specific guidelines on the placement, size, colour and text of the label so they are visible and recognisable; and a strict timeframe put in place for its comprehensive implementation.”

Are you interested in studying health law?  For more information about our Master and Graduate Diploma in Health Law, click here.