25 JUNE
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
1763

there’s 10 percent . . . even as much as 20 percent . . .
off certain wine lines. So there you are, be sure to visit
the Melville Winc Centre in Bader Street today or
tomorrow for their special pre-Christmas promotion.”

Mr Turner said the word “promotion” was a subterfuge
to avoid using the word “wine-tasting”. The advertisement
mentioned the chance to win $5,000, a condition of which
would be the purchase of a cask of wine. (He found this
out by telephoning the advertiser.)

When referring the complaint to the Tribunal Mr Turner
raised another point. He said that the advertisement would
endanger the physical mental or moral welfare of the audience
in breach of Advertisement Rule 1.3.

He wished the Tribunal to determine whether or not an
advertisement for a promotion was a euphemism for a wide-
tasting and a breach of the rule.

The Corporation made 6 submissions.

1. This related to the alleged breach of Advertisement
   Rule 1.3.

2. The Corporation said that any suggestion of using a
   named person as a way of getting around the ban on brand
   names was untenable. Her name may be well known in the
   trade, but it is unlikely the public at large would conjure
   up a brand of wine on the mention of her name certainly
   not through a radio advertisement.

3. In upholding the decision in relation to a wine-tasting
   previously, the Tribunal said that it promoted the consump-
   tion of liquor. Since then the rules have been changed and
   the advertisement would have to be for the promotion of
   the general consumption of alcoholic liquor to offend the
   new rule.

4. The Corporation considered that a wine-tasting could
   well be an associated service permitted under Rule 1.11 (4)
   (C). A wine promotion could well fall into the same category.

5. Only wine was being promoted and therefore it was not
   in breach of Advertisement Rule 1.11 (4) (b) as it would
   not promote widespread or general consumption of alcoholic
   liquor.

6. The Corporation submitted that its decision was in the
   spirit and letter of the rules for advertisements associated
   with alcohol effective from 10 June 1980.

As we have said in other decisions there is now no ban
on liquor advertisements “designed to encourage and/or
promote the general consumption of alcoholic liquor”. That
is stated as a “broad intention” of the rule. But advertisements
which conform with requirements (1) to (6) are clearly
permitted. We do not find that this advertisement breaches
the rule. The rule applies to this type of advertisement
because it is an advertisement which mentions alcoholic
liquor, but the advertisement conforms to requirements (1)
to (6).

We do not agree with Mr Turner’s contention that the
mention of the name of the person conducting the wine
promotion is a way of getting around the ban on brand
names, because she may be known to be employed by a
wine firm.

The advertisement requirement (2) is that advertisements
must not use brand names as such. We consider it would
be stretching the rule to agree with Mr Turner’s contention
that the mention of a person who it identified with a wine
company in this instance amounted to the use of the “brand
name as such” in the advertisement.

The Tribunal was not required to consider whether a wine
promotion for a wine-tasting is an associated service for
which advertising is permitted under requirement (4) (c).
While it could be said that wine-tasting is an associated
service we do not think a promotion as such could fall into
that category. But requirements (1) to (6) do not ban
mention of a wine promotion in an advertisement. The list
is simply of a number of prohibitions of the things that may
be referred to.

Mr Turner alleged the Tribunal had already ruled that
competitions associated with alcohol are not to be advertised
on radio or television. This is not a correct statement of the
position. The previous decision of the Tribunal depended on
Regulation 14 which has been revoked.

As we have pointed out the opening statement in the rule
is now no more than a general statement of intention of the
rule.

As far as a breach of advertisement rule 1.3 is concerned
it is clear that that rule must be read as part of the advertise-
ment rules as a whole. These do contemplate advertisements
being associated with or mentioning alcoholic liquor and it
cannot be said that the advertisement rule 1.3 overrides
advertisement rule 1.11.

We must say that we consider Mr Turner was justified in
raising the matter with the Corporation. To advertise dis-
counts does not appear to be consistent with the stated
broad intention of Rule 1.11. Logically if discounts are to
be advertised so should prices. To mention prices it would
be necessary to mention brands and so on.

In the circumstances we can only reiterate our advice that
the rules need to be rewritten.

The Tribunal is unable to uphold the complaint in this
case although it considers Mr Turner was justified in bringing
the matter forward. The outcome of the complaint shows
once again the unsatisfactory nature of the present rule.

Co-opted Members:

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

Dated the 10th day of June 1981.

For the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Auckland Fire District Notice 1981

PURSUANT to section 26 of the Fire Service Act 1975, the
New Zealand Fire Service Commission hereby gives the following
notice.

NOTICE

1. Title and commencement—(1) This notice may be cited
   as the Auckland Fire District Notice 1981.
   (2) This notice shall come into effect on the 1st day of
   August 1981.

2. Auckland Fire District constituted—The North Shore Fire
   District declared to be a fire district by the Fire Service Act
   1975, and the Auckland Fire District constituted a fire district
   by the Auckland Fire District Notice 1979, are hereby abolished
   and a fire district, to be known as the Auckland Fire District is
   hereby constituted.

3. Boundaries of Fire District defined—The boundaries of the
   Auckland Fire District constituted by this notice are hereby
   defined in the Schedule hereto.

4. Revocations—The following notices are hereby revoked:
   New Zealand Gazette, 1979, p. 575, The Auckland Fire
   District Notice 1979
   New Zealand Gazette, 1980, p. 319, The Fire Districts
   Boundaries (North Shore) Notice 1980, clause 2 (a)
   and so much of the Schedule as relates to the North
   Shore Fire District.

SCHEDULE

ALL that area in the North Auckland Land District in the
cities of Auckland, Papakura, Mount Albert, and Manukau,
the boroughs of New Lynn, Newmarket, Mount Eden, Mount
Roskill, Onehunga, One Troc Hill, Ellerslie, Mount Welling-
ton, Otahuhu, and Howick, and the county of Franklin, and
including all reclaimed land adjoining those territorial authori-
ties, bounded by a line commencing at the easternmost corner
of Lot 21, D.P. 43825, on the left bank of the Whau River in
Block III, Titirangi Survey District, and proceeding southerly
then northerly and easterly, generally, along the line of mean
high water of the Whau River and the Waitemata Harbour,
crossing the mouths of creeks, rivers, and inlets and including
the Auckland Harbour Bridge approaches and the Auckland
wharves and continuing along the said line of mean high water
to the south-eastern corner of Lot 2, D.P. 42113, in Block III,
Orere Survey District; thence westerly along the southern
boundary of that Lot 2 and that boundary produced across
Orere-Matangarahi road to the western side of that road and
north-westerly, generally, along the south-western side of the
aforesaid road and Kawakawa Orere road to the junction of
the last-mentioned roadside and the southern boundary of
part Orere and Taupo Block shown on D.P. 27557 in Block X,
Wairoa Survey District, and westerly, generally, along
the western boundary of Kiripaka Block to the south-eastern
boundary of Lot 11, Deeds Plan 71 blue; thence southerly along
that boundary to its intersection with the middle of the
Aroaro Stream; thence north-westerly, generally, along the
middle of that stream to its junction with the northern side
of Ness Valley Road; thence westerly along that northern side
to the eastern boundary of part Mataitai No. 6 Block com-
prised in certificate of title 546/156; thence southerly along the