19 MARCH

THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

1253

amount in New Zealand currency, the amount to be so taken into
account shall be the equivalent in New Zealand currency of that
amount ascertained in accordance with the rate of exchange set out
in the Schedule to this notice.

3. Revocation—The Customs Exchange Rates Notice (No. 6) 1987,
published in the Supplement to the New Zealand Gazette, No. 30,
dated 10 March 1987 on page 1069 is hereby revoked.

SCHEDULE

Value of One NZ Dollar

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Dollar
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.19 Schilling
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.41 Taka
Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.57 B Franc
Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.76 Cruzado
Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.80 Kyat
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Dollar
Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117.48 Peso
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.08 Renminbi or Yuan
Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.86 Krone
Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 E Pound
Fiji . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 F Dollar
Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.52 Markka
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.41 Franc
French Polynesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.02 FP Franc
Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.39 Drachma
Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.36 HK Dollar
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.27 Rupee
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922.88 Rupiah
Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 I Pound
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Shekel
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728.37 Lira
Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.05 J Dollar
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.68 Yen
Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474.69 Won
Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 M Dollar (Ringgit)
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617.89 Peso
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 Florin (Guilder)
Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.88 Krone
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.65 Rupee
Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Kina
Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.19 Peso
Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.85 Escudo
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.20 S Dollar
South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.19 Rand
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.65 Peseta
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.77 Rupee
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.59 Krona
Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Franc
Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.29 Twn Dollar
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.44 Baht
Tonga . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Pa'anga
United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Pound
U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Dollar
West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02 Mark
Western Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 Tala

Dated at Wellington this 17th day of March 1987.

M. J. BELGRAVE, Comptroller of Customs.

Election of Members to Southland Licensing Committee

PURSUANT to section 36 (11) of the Sale of Liquor Act 1962, notice
is given that an election was held at 2 p.m. on Monday, 2 March
1987, and the following members were elected to serve on the
committee:

William Ronald Cunningham, 10 Kerwood Place, Gore.
Bruce William Pagan, 76 Theodore Street, Bluff.
John David Richmond, 5 Henry Street, Te Anau.
Alistair John Soper, P.O. Box 18, Athol.

Dated at Invercargill this 3rd day of March 1987.

N. T. FARRELL, County Clerk.

Decision No. 2/87
COM 2/86

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

IN the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter of
a complaint by GEORGE IAN ANDREWS:

WARRANT HOLDER—BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF NEW
ZEALAND (TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND):

Chairman: B. H. Slane.

Member: Ann E. Wilson.

Co-opted Members: S. H. Gardiner and Wayne K. Sellwood.

DECISION

On 30 April 1986 Mr George Andrews filed a two-part complaint
with the tribunal. It related first to an advertisement for a Jeremy
Coney cricket coaching video which was played on Television One
at 6.15 p.m. on 18 January 1986. The second part of the complaint
was about a Mazda commercial promoting a programme to be shown
of a women's softball tournament, played on Television One at
9 p.m. on 17 January 1986. The complaint is that both commercials
were in breach of the Broadcasting Rules Committee's advertisement
rule 1.1 which reads:

"Advertisements shall be clearly distinguishable from other
programme material."

This two-part complaint was first made to the Broadcasting
Corporation of New Zealand ("BCNZ") whose board considered it
at their meeting on 26 March 1986. The BCNZ Board did not uphold
the complaint in either respect. Mr Andrews then referred it to the
tribunal.

Jeremy Coney Advertisement

This advertisement occupied the whole of a short commercial
break during Saturday coverage of the World Series cricket from
Perth in January. The advertisement included in its opening sequence
shots from other cricket matches which, Mr Andrews wrote in his
letter to the BCNZ, were "not dissimilar from the programme shown
immediately before. Only after some 10 or 15 seconds does the real
purpose of the advertisement become clear . . ."

This part of Mr Andrews' complaint to the tribunal specifically
was: "That the Jeremy Coney advertisement began with a cricketing
sequence which sufficiently resembled the programme material on
either side of it to make it not 'clearly distinguishable' as advertising
rule 1.1 requires."

In his supporting statement, Mr Andrews wrote that there was
no break of any kind between the live coverage and the cricketing
scenes at the beginning of the commercial and that, although these
scenes may have been of a different character than the live coverage,
they were still scenes of international cricket and therefore not clearly
distinguishable. Mr Andrews stated that for nearly 10 seconds, the
distinction was merely between types of the one sport, not between
one type of television material and another.

He also asserted that: "When 30-second commercials are placed
singly between overs there is an even stronger obligation on the
broadcaster to ensure such distinctions are plain." He felt that ". . .
no effort of any kind was made to ensure the rule was being
observed."

The BCNZ Board's initial response to Mr Andrews was that ". . .
the three opening segments depicting cricket incidents contrasted
so sharply with the preceding live coverage it was considered it
would become abundantly clear almost immediately that something
quite different was being screened."

The BCNZ considered that because there were three quick action
cuts of highlights, the commentary was sharper and the cricketers
in the advertisement were of different races wearing brilliant whites
and different coloured 1-day clothing, ". . . the question of
distinguishability should not have been a problem for anyone."

The BCNZ pointed out that there had been a 100 percent increase
in cricket coverage since 1984 and that therefore there was a
considerably increased viewer awareness of the game. The BCNZ
stated that the commercial had been played dozens of times
previously in other programmes and that 30-second commercials
were now played singly between overs and not in blocks to minimise
disruption of coverage.

This was the substance of the BCNZ's response to Mr Andrews'
letter to them.

In commenting further, on Mr Andrews' complaint to the tribunal,
the BCNZ observed that viewer interpretations are an important
consideration and maintained its view that there could be no viewer
confusion. The BCNZ reiterated that the scheduling of the Coney
commercial began in December and continued into January. There
were 64 placements with only 9 being scheduled during the World
Series cricket.