182
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 5

Maria Wines Ltd. They have a special tasting of reisling at the
show. Over 20 odd years, Villa Maria Wines Ltd. have risen
to the top in table wine quality. Find out why, and how, on
the Villa Maria Wines Ltd. stand at the Waikato Winter
Show.”

Mr Turner claimed that the commercial was in breach of
the following standards and rules:

1.11.2 Advertisements other than those referred to in 1.11.1
made by or on behalf of any person or persons or body
corporate who manufacture, distribute or sell alcoholic liquor,
or whose name is associated with the manufacture,
distribution or sale of alcoholic liquor, may be broadcast
if they meet the following requirements:

1.11.2 (1) The advertisement does not make any reference to the
availability of alcoholic liquor for sale.

1.11.2 (2) The advertisement does not include references to brand
names of alcoholic liquor as such except to the extent that
the brand name is incorporated in or identical with the
name of the advertiser.

1.11.2 (3) No descriptions of the qualities of the alcoholic liquor
manufactured, distributed or sold by the advertiser are
included in the advertisement:

The complainant claimed that the whole commercial was laden
with the implication that Villa Maria Wines were available for sale.
It did not matter, he said, that the wines were not available for sale
at the company’s stand at the Winter Show. There was nothing in
the rules about where the liquor was available. If the commercial
makes it apparent that a name brand of liquor was available for
sale somewhere then, he contended, rule 1.11.2 (1) had been broken.

The Corporation did not uphold his complaint.

The rule refers to an advertisement not making any reference to
the availability of alcohol liquor for sale. The advertisement does
not make any reference to it being available for sale. In this respect
the complaint is not upheld.

Mr Turner alleges a breach of 1.11.2 (2) because the word reisling
did not appear in the Company’s name. The Corporation submitted
that reisling was not a brand name but a type of wine and therefore
that rule had no bearing on the matter. The Tribunal agrees. The
complaint is not upheld in this respect.

The third part of the complaint was that the advertisement was
in breach of 1.11.2 (3). The Corporation said in answer to this that
the statement related specifically to the company rising to the top
because of production excellence. It submitted that the fair and
generally accepted understanding of the rule requirement “no
descriptions of the qualities of the alcoholic liquor” was to exclude
such aspects as colour, bouquet, taste, smell and other aspects
which were widely accepted as constituting wine qualities. There
was no reference in the advertisement to these aspects and it was
the company and not the actual definable nature of its product
which was being extolled.

The advertisement refers to Villa Maria Wines Ltd. having risen
“to the top in table wine quality”.

The question is whether the general reference to top quality can
be construed as a description of one of the qualities of the wine.
There are two meanings of quality referred to in Heinemann’s New
Zealand Dictionary:

“1. A characteristic.

2. Character with respect to excellent: ‘meat of the highest quality
   is very expensive.’”

The use of the plural “qualities” in the rule must limit its use to
the first meaning. For the advertisement to have been caught by
the rule, the rule would have had to ban descriptions of the quality
of the alcoholic liquor and the qualities (i.e. the characteristics) of
the liquor.

We do not consider that the invitation to listeners to “find out
why and how” is a description of those qualities.

The complaint is not upheld in this respect.

Co-opted Members—Mrs Susan Boyd-Bell and Mr Gordon Ell
were co-opted as persons whose qualifications or experience would
be of assistance to the Tribunal in dealing with the complaint. They
took part in the deliberations of the Tribunal but the decision is
that of the permanent members.

Dated the 22nd day of December 1982.

For the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Exchange Rates

In terms of section 25 (2) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act
1964, the Reserve Bank today released outer limits for rates of
exchange to be used in transactions involving the conversion of
New Zealand currency into foreign currencies and foreign currencies
into New Zealand currency when delivery of the foreign currency dealt in will be effected by telegraphic transfer. The following
range of rates, for the main currencies used by New Zealand traders
in settling foreign exchange transactions, will remain in force until
replaced by a new Schedule issued by the Reserve Bank. These rates
do not apply to transactions for settlement after the expiration of
2 business days (forward transactions) or to transactions in which
instruments are purchased which do not entitle the buyer to foreign
currency balances in the foreign centre until the instruments have
been delivered at the foreign centre. In the latter case interest at
foreign centre rates may be deducted from the telegraphic transfer
rate to compensate the purchaser for his loss during the transit
period.

Date: 19 January 1983.

Time: 9 a.m.

C. J. HAVILL,
Acting Assistant Chief Cashier,
Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Wellington.

Customs Notice—Exchange Rates

NOTICE is hereby given, pursuant to the Customs Act 1966, that
the following exchange rates to the New Zealand dollar relate to
imported goods for which a New Zealand Customs entry has been
lodged on or after 1 February 1983.