BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A "pint and a pie" before each game, minimal training and a propensity to break into

song, were described as the unorthodox approach of a rugby team profiled on TV

One's Holmes, broadcast between 7.00–7.30pm on 15 July 1997. It was reported

that the social rugby team with the Shirley Rugby Club had won 99 games in a row.

Miss Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

focus on the consumption of alcohol suggested that drug-taking led to success. That

appalling example, she wrote, breached the standards.

Maintaining that it recognised its responsibilities to minimise liquor promotion but

that the item in question was a light-hearted piece of Kiwiana, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Miss Hadfield referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A social rugby team comprised of mature aged men from the Shirley Rugby Club was

profiled in an item broadcast on Holmes on 15 July 1997. The team was shown doing

minimal training, and consuming a "pint and a pie" before each match, along with a

toast of port. Nevertheless, the item reported, the team had accumulated a 99 game

winning streak.

Miss Hadfield complained to TVNZ about the emphasis given in the item to alcohol,

and maintained that the item promoted a drug (alcohol) as a means to achieving

success.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard A3 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, which reads:

A3   Broadcasters will ensure that the incidental promotion of liquor is

minimised.

Arguing that it took its responsibilities under the standards relating to alcohol

seriously, TVNZ said that it was unrealistic to portray a world in which alcohol

consumption was not involved. It described the item as showing a "slice of life" in a

light-hearted way.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Miss Hadfield maintained that the

item's message was that "drug-taking, especially before a game, helps success".

The Authority considers that the item portrayed a piece of New Zealand culture when

it showed that the moderate consumption of alcohol was part of the activities of one

particular rugby team. However, it believes, it did not glamorise the consumption of

alcohol and did not suggest that there was a direct link between alcohol and sport.

The standard requires that the incidental promotion of liquor be minimised. In the

Authority's opinion, the item did not involve the promotion of alcohol and,

accordingly, it does not consider that standard A3 was contravened.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
16 October 1997

Appendix

Miss Hadfield's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 17 July 1997

Elaine Hadfield of Blenheim complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item

on Holmes broadcast at about 7.25pm on TV One on 15 July 1997.

The item dealt with the Shirley Rugby Club and, Miss Hadfield wrote, showing the

players drinking port before a game involved the promotion of alcohol. Describing the

rugby team as setting an appalling example, Ms Hadfield said the broadcast promoted

a substance which led to many lives being ruined.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 6 August 1997

Explaining that the item profiled a social rugby club which had won 99 games in a row,

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard A3 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The team, TVNZ added, adopted an unorthodox approach

which included minimal training, and a "pint and a pie" before each match.

TVNZ pointed out that it had been involved with the New Zealand Sports Assembly

in developing a detailed code as to the extent alcohol could be promoted at sports

events. Nevertheless, it continued:

... we suggest that it would be quite wrong for television programmes, especially

news and current affairs programmes, to portray a world in which the

consumption of alcohol is absent. Whatever we might wish society to look like,

such a portrayal would be simply inaccurate.

It described the item complained about as Kiwiana which had looked at a colourful

group of men in a light-hearted way. It had not, it insisted, promoted alcohol.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ maintained:

We are sorry that the item caused you concern, but it is our considered

judgement that it is not the intention of standard A3 to prevent the broadcast of

"slice of life" items such as this. If it were to apply in these circumstances,

viewers might never again be able to see footage of the infamous six o'clock swill

of the fifties, or of the clandestine manufacture of whisky in the South Island -

aspects of New Zealand which are part of our history and heritage, whether we

like it or not.

Miss Hadfield's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 30 April

1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Miss Hadfield referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Emphasising the point that the item suggested that the consumption of beer and port

before a game led to the team's success, Miss Hadfield now considered that the

broadcast breached standard G12 in addition to standard A3.

If the item was worthy of broadcast at all, she wrote, then it should be screened late in

the evening. The item's message, she maintained, was that "drug taking, especially

before a game, helps success".

TVNZ's Report to the Authority - 12 September 1997

Noting that it had little to add, TVNZ repeated that the item was a light-hearted look

at a social rugby club heading for its 100th consecutive victory.