The Associate Minister of Health, Damien O'Connor, is setting up a committee, with terms of reference that are good. Nevertheless, it has an unsatisfactory system of choice of members.

The proposal is good in suggesting a thorough examination of evidence, including the hidden methods used by the alcohol industry, eg emails, websites, text messaging, gifts and prizes to competitors. These are hidden from parents, and called in the trade "viral advertising."

However, in January, the first appointees included a representative of the very body that is to be evaluated, namely the Advertising Standards Authority. Two subsequent independent appointees had to be acceptable to all stake-holders. Thus many people with alcohol expertise were excluded as 'biased'. The advertising industry body has millions of dollars annually of alcohol advertising revenue at stake. They have presided for years over alcohol advertising, while binge drinking and harm from alcohol increased. 'Unbiased? Yeah right'.

It is like appointing those on trial, to the jury first, and then asking their approval of others. The ASA has been responsible for poor self-regulation, which has failed to prevent advertising exposure to children and teenagers. (After the last review, alcohol advertising on television was increased and made earlier in the evening.)

Our Group's recommendations have been declined, yet we back university-based research evidence. Our name and organization exist because of the blind spot in "official thinking."

We urge the media to monitor carefully this debate for signs of vested interest. No journalist has as yet investigated this mockery of democratic process.

<Next> The (not so) independent media

<Previous> Adverts push up drinking by youth