1504 THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE No. 58

Now therefore, pursuant to section 48 of the Local Government
Act 1974 (as substituted by section 2 of the Local
Government Amendment Act (No. 3) 1977), the Secretary
for Local Government, without defining or altering in any
way the boundaries of the City of Invercargill and the County
of Southland as those boundaries existed immediately before
the publication of the notice dated the 14th day of November
1979 and published in the Gazette of the 22nd day of
November 1979 at page 3624, hereby revokes that notice.

Dated at Wellington this 15th day of May 1980.

J. N. SEARLE, Secretary for Local Government.

(I.A. 103/5/277)

Canterbury Raspberry Marketing Committee Election
(No. 2385, Ag. 12/3/17)

PURSUANT to the Second Schedule to the Raspberry Market-
ing Regulations 1979, notice is hereby given that the roll of
producers qualified to vote for the election of 4 producers'
representatives to the Canterbury Raspberry Marketing Com-
mittee, will be open for public inspection during ordinary
office hours for a period of 7 days from 21 May 1980, at
the following places, the offices of the Ministry of Agricul-
ture and Fisheries at Christchurch, Ashburton, Rangiora, and
Head Office, Wellington.

Nomination forms may be obtained on application to any
of the above offices, or from the Returning Officer, Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries, Christchurch.

Nominations must be received by the Returning Officer
not later than noon on the 9th day of July 1980.

Dated at Christchurch this 5th day of May 1980.

D. P. KIRKER, Returning Officer.

Otago Raspberry Marketing Committee Election
(No. 2384, Ag. 12/3/17)

PURSUANT to the Second Schedule to the Raspberry Market-
ing Regulations 1979, notice is hereby given that a roll of
those persons qualified to vote for the election of 2 pro-
ducers' representatives in the Northern Ward to the Otago
Raspberry Marketing Committee, will be open for inspection
during ordinary office hours at the following places viz.,
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Head Office, Welling-
ton, also at the offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries at Dunedin, Timaru, and Waimate; the Post Office,
Temuka, and at the office of A. P. Hayes (Secretary), 37A
Thames Street, Oamaru.

The roll will be available for public inspection for a period
of 7 days from May 24 1980, during which period any person
may lodge with the Returning Officer, an objection in writing
under his hand to any entry on the roll.

Nomination forms may be obtained on application to any
of the above officers or from the Returning Officer, Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dunedin. Nominations must
be in the hands of the Returning Officer not later than noon
on the 11th day of July 1980.

Dated at Dunedin this 8th day of May 1980.

N. W. McCULLOCH, Returning Officer.

B42/3/80 Decision.

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

IN the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter
of a complaint by Clifford Reginald Turner:

WARRANT Holder—Broadcasting Corporation of New Zea-
land (Television One).

B. H. Slane, Chairman
Lionel R. Seears, Member
Janet C. Somerville, Member
S. H. Gardiner, Co-opted member
Robert Boyd-Bell, Co-opted member

Hearing: 25 March 1980.

Counsel: B. L. Darby for the Broadcasting Corporation of
New Zealand.

DECISION

Mr Turner complained to Television One about the telecast
of the Benson & Hedges Fashion Design Awards on Tele-
vision One, 9 November 1979. He considered that the
prominence given to the words Benson & Hedges amounted
to an advertisement of that brand of cigarettes.

In his reply, the Director-General of Television One
referred to the dilemma faced by broadcasting organisations
internationally, especially in coverage of sport on television.
He distinguished a previous complaint by Mr Turner and
went on to say a company name may be referred to in a
broadcast where it is part of the recognised title of sporting
or other public events which are sponsored. This was a
qualification (Rule 4.2) to the main Rule 4.1 Television Rules
and Standards, which reads:

Sponsored material may be broadcast by a television service
provided that it does not relinquish editorial rights or
control over the extent and presentation of such material,
and provided that the association of a sponsor with a
programme is acknowledged in the programme credits.

Television One contended the decision to cover the awards
was a normal programming judgment made in the public
interest.

If the complainant's views were upheld the Director-
General considered there would be no coverage of many
events of major public interest.

Rule 1.1 reads:

Advertisements shall be clearly distinguishable from other
programme material.

Mr Turner took his complaint to the Corporation which
noted that the event had been staged for a number of years
but had been televised in full only in 1978 and 1979. The
company name, in the view of the Corporation, had become
a recognised part of the title of the event. The two signs
shown in the television programme were not Benson & Hedges,
but Benson & Hedges Fashion Design Awards.

No part of the programme constituted an advertisement
in terms of the definition of the Broadcasting Act because
no money was paid to the Corporation for its broadcast.
The board concluded that the programme was not a paid
advertisement, and that no breach of the Broadcasting Rules
had occurred.

Mr Turner then brought the complaint to the Tribunal,
which viewed sufficient of the programme to establish the
extent of the content which featured the company and brand
name.

The event was staged publicly in Auckland. There was
an apron stage with a cat walk into the auditorium. Across
the back drop to the stage was a sign "Benson & Hedges
Fashion Design Awards 1979", but the words Benson &
Hedges were in a type face that was very much bolder than
the remaining part of the sign. The "coat of arms" associated
with Benson & Hedges was also displayed.

At the back of the centre entrance was another sign, the
logo of Benson & Hedges, and below that the words "Fashion
Design Awards, 1979"

In viewing the programme we found there was a visual
dominance of the words "Benson & Hedges". The placing of
the logo at the stage entrance meant that it was shown
prominently whenever there was a central stage entry and at
times when events were about to occur on that part of the
stage. Admittedly, the lower sign was obscured from time to
time by the mannequins but no viewer could have watched
the programme without knowing that Benson & Hedges were
the sponsors: In fact the degree of prominence of the
Benson & Hedges signs was to be contrasted with the less
prominent signs given to three co-sponsors whose logos and
names were not obtrusive.

We were assured by Mr Darby for the Corporation that
no payment or any consideration in money or otherwise was
given directly or indirectly or by way of contra by Benson &
Hedges for the showing of this event on television.

We find therefore that it was not an advertising pro-
gramme, which, under the Act, must be a programme or
part of a programme intended to promote the interests of
any person, or to promote any product or service for the
commercial advantage of any person, for which, in either
case, payment is made whether in money or otherwise
(emphasis added).

If the programme does not amount to an advertising pro-
gramme the advertising rules which prohibit cigarette
advertising would not apply. The relevant rule is:

1.8 Advertisements must not specifically refer to cigarettes,
cigarette paper or cigarette tobacco or mention the brand
name of any product. However, a retailer may indicate
that he stocks such products provided that there is no
elaboration of the statement or reference to brand names.