230

THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

No. 11

SCHEDULE

SOUTH AUCKLAND LAND DISTRICT—HAURAKI PLAINS COUNTY

487 square metres, more or less, being Lot 5, D.P. S. 27358, situated in Block I, Waihou Survey District. Part certificate of title, No. 21D/1317.

Dated at Hamilton this 5th day of January 1981.

R. M. VELVIN, Commissioner of Crown Lands.

(L. and S. H.O. Res. 3/44/6; D.O. 8/1042)

Maori Land Development Notice

PURSUANT to section 332 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, the Maori Land Board hereby gives notice as follows:

NOTICE

1. This notice may be cited as Maori Land Development Notice Rotorua 1981, No. 1.

2. The notice referred to in the First Schedule hereto is hereby revoked.

3. The land described in the Second Schedule hereto is hereby released from Part XXIV of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Date of Notice Reference Registration No.
29 January 1971 Gazette, 4 February 1971, No. 8, p. 157 S. 510648

SECOND SCHEDULE

SOUTH AUCKLAND LAND DISTRICT

ALL that piece of land described as follows:

Area ha Being
71.62 Waiohan A4B part, situated in Blocks VII and XI, Rangitaiki Lower Survey District. Partition Order dated 27 September 1955.

Dated at Wellington this 26th day of January 1981.

For and on behalf of the Maori Land Board.

B. S. ROBINSON, Deputy Secretary for Maori Affairs.

(M.A. H.O. 15/3/742; D.O. 5314)

Decision No. 26/80

Com 7/80

Decision of 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 Zealand (Network One).

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

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

Hearing: 2 December 1980.

DECISION

Mr C. R. Turner’s complaint concerned a commercial presented on Network One in which the presenter used the words in a commercial for Ebbett Waikato Used Cars: “Safety in the used car jungle”.

Mr Turner said the clear implication of those words was that, although other firms may cheat customers, that would not happen to those dealing with this advertiser. He believed it to be a breach of Advertising Rule 1.7. That rule reads:

Advertisements should not attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication.

Mr Turner had originally complained to the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand. The Board of the Corporation considered his complaint. The Corporation replied to him but he was not satisfied with the reply and told the Tribunal that he “had read the Corporation’s explanation many times—the meaning of it all still eludes me”.

The Corporation had told him that his complaint appeared to be founded on the interpretation of the relationship between the words “safety” and “jungle” and the application of that interpretation to the used car market.

The Corporation said this:

“To many people a jungle may be a vast area covered in trees in which it is easy to become lost. This lines up with the shot in the commercial of the large car yard packed with vehicles. It could also be claimed that a jungle is a place where one might have to proceed with care and where one might feel one could run into danger here or there.

“The advertiser may be saying that he is offering safety in an area where the consumer may feel he is endangered. The Board further noted that the used car market is particularly sensitive and that no complaints about this commercial had been received from the motor trade.

“The Board decided the way the words were used in the commercial was justified, and did not infringe Advertisement Rule 1.7.”

The Board did not uphold Mr Turner’s complaint.

The Tribunal heard both Mr Turner and Mr Hudson for the Corporation and questioned them.

It appeared to the Tribunal that Mr Turner was looking for possible breaches of Advertising Rules based on a strict interpretation.

The Corporation had told the Tribunal that the Rule was rather different from most of the other rules since it could be said to have as its purpose the protection of advertisers from other advertisers rather than the protection of public. An advertisement which met all the other requirements of the Rules could still be in breach of this Rule.

The Corporation submitted that the complaint did not identify any advertiser or advertisement which was attacked or discredited. The complaint was dealt with on the basis that it referred to a product which in this case was the service provided by other car dealers. The Corporation has had no indication from other car dealers whether advertisers or not that they considered the advertisement attacked or discredited them. Furthermore it had been the Corporation’s experience that members of this industry were not slow to complain if they considered any advertising was unfair.

The Tribunal was inclined to agree with the Corporation’s interpretation of the purpose of the Rule and would be loathe to determine a complaint from a member of the public who could not possibly be affected by the advertisement when there were no complaints to the warrant holder from those who might be considered to be affected if the complainant’s interpretation was upheld.

There are no disadvantages for the public in the use of what is known as “knocking copy” but there are disadvantages for advertisers. We see in this instance no need for a watchdog to enforce the Rule when there are persons affected who would be sophisticated enough and willing to object if an advertisement adversely affected them.

Accordingly we would have been reluctant to determine such a complaint (if we had considered advertisement to be a breach of the Rule) where there appeared to be no injured party and no complaints about the advertisement. We believe the broadcasting industry can do without that sort of supervision.

As it happens we find there is no merit in this complaint. The advertisement clearly does not attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication.

Mr Turner was insistent that the advertisement in some way suggested that used car dealers other than the advertiser were dishonest. That may be Mr Turner’s interpretation but it is not a reasonable one. It is apparently based on a stereotyping of the used car trade plus a cynical interpretation of the nature of the advertisement.

We do not find the Corporation’s reasoning difficult to follow but we do find it difficult to appreciate why Mr Turner could not understand the response he received from the Corporation.

The Tribunal disallows the complaint and upholds the decision of the Corporation.

Co-opted Members—

Messrs S. H. Gardiner and Robert Boyd-Bell were co-opted as members of the Tribunal as persons whose qualifications and experience were likely, in the opinion of the Tribunal, to be of assistance to the Tribunal. They took part in the hearing and deliberations of the Tribunal but the decision, in accordance with the Act, is that of the permanent members.

Dated the 22nd day of December 1980.

For the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.