2356
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 79

On any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
and Saturday.—Opening at 11 o’clock in the morning and
closing at 10 o’clock in the evening.

Dated at Wellington this 7th day of July 1982.

S. J. CALLAHAN, Secretary for Justice.

(Adm. 2/72/5)

Notice of Intent to Vary Hours of Sale of Liquor at
Licensed Premises—Northland Licensing Committee

PURSUANT to section 221A of the Sale of Liquor Act 1962,
as amended by section 22 (14) of the Sale of Liquor
Amendment Act 1976, I, Stanley James Callahan, Secretary
for Justice, hereby give notice that the Northland Licensing
Committee, on 23 June 1982, made an order authorising
variations of the usual hours of trading for the licensed
premises known as the Hikurangi Hotel, Hikurangi.

To the intent that on days other than those on which
licensed premises are required to be closed for the sale of
liquor to the general public, the hours for the opening and
closing of the said premises shall be as follows:

(a) On any Christmas Eve—Opening at 11 o’clock in the
morning and closing at 11 o’clock in the evening.

(b) On any New Year’s Eve—Opening at 11 o’clock in the
morning and closing at 00.30 o’clock on the morn-
ing of New Year’s Day.

(c) On any other day—Opening at 11 o’clock in the morn-
ing and closing at 10 o’clock in the evening.

Dated at Wellington this 7th day of July 1982.

S. J. CALLAHAN, Secretary for Justice.

(Adm. 2/72/5)

Notice of Intent to Vary Hours of Sale of Liquor at
Licensed Premises—Canterbury Licensing Committee

PURSUANT to section 221A of the Sale of Liquor Act 1962,
as amended by section 22 (14) of the Sale of Liquor
Amendment Act 1976, I, Stanley James Callahan, Secretary
for Justice, hereby give notice that the Canterbury Licensing
Committee, on 24 June 1982, made an order authorising
variations of the usual hours of trading for the licensed
premises known as the D.B. Gladstone Tavern, Eastern Tavern,
Springston Hotel, D.B. Cokers Hotel.

To the intent that on days other than those on which
licensed premises are required to be closed for the sale of
liquor to the general public, the hours for the opening and
closing of the said premises shall be as follows:

(a) On any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday—
Opening at 11 o’clock in the morning and closing at
10 o’clock in the evening.

(b) On any Friday, Saturday, and Christmas Eve—Opening
at 11 o’clock in the morning and closing at 11
o’clock in the evening.

(c) On any New Year’s Eve—Opening at 11 o’clock in the
morning and closing at 00.30 o’clock on the morning
of New Year’s Day.

Dated at Wellington this 9th day of July 1982.

S. J. CALLAHAN, Secretary for Justice.

(Adm. 2/72/5)

Com. 12/82
Decision No. 9/82

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

IN the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the
matter of a complaint by HAROLD EARL JENSEN.

WARRANT HOLDER—Broadcasting Corporation of New
Zealand (Television One);

B. H. Slane, Chairman, Lionel R. Sceats, member, Murray
J. Henshall, deputy member, Gordon C. Ell, co-opted member,
Robert Boyd-Bell, co-opted member.

DECISION

Mr Jensen’s complaint concerns a Kaleidoscope programme
broadcast on 11 September 1981. Mr Jensen’s complaint is
couched in intemperate language but amounts to this:

During a live broadcast of the presentation of the Wattie
Book Awards Mr Geoff Chapple accepted the award on
behalf of Mr Maurice Shadbolt who was not present. He
gave an unscheduled statement in which he stated that Mr
Shadbolt was on an anti-tour march in Auckland. He also
made some comments on the Springbok tour and apartheid.
Mr Jensen complained that no effect was made to retrieve
the microphone and the television camera remained on
Mr Chapple. Mr Jensen alleged that the exercise was “pre-
organised and orchestrated by the ‘lefts’ in TV news”. He
considers it was out of keeping with the evening, rude in
the extreme and sour to the viewers who saw the programme.
He alleged that television staff applauded Mr Chapple’s
statement and asked that those responsible should be made
to publicly apologise.

The Corporation considered the complaint under Rule
1.1 (b) which required the Corporation “to take into
consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste
in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in
which any language or behaviour occurs;” 1.1 (d) “to
acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own
opinions” and 1.1 (e) “to deal justly and fairly with any
person taking part or referred to in the programme”.

The Corporation observed that the complaint had been
lodged 4 months after the event and noted that many of
the points made in support of the complaint were factually
incorrect. The Corporation said the awards was not a tele-
vision show as such but a live telecast of an outside event
which, like other direct telecasts of this nature, could not be
subject to editing or evaluation before transmission. Like
a sport telecast, any unscheduled activity was there to be
seen.

Mr Chapple was receiving the award at Mr Shadbolt’s
request and on his behalf, said the Corporation. After he
received it he moved near to the fixed microphone being
used by the compere who remained in his position. Mr
Chapple’s contribution of 1 minute 5 seconds had not been
preplanned by Television New Zealand and was not part of
any programming decision. Though there was a brief cutaway
to audience applause no Corporation staff member had been
visible or had joined in the spontaneous applause. The
Corporation did not uphold the complaint.

From that decision Mr Jensen referred his complaint to
the Tribunal. He alleged that the Corporation could not
have seen the performance and was relying on production
staff. He considered a public apology should be given and
that Mr Chapple’s statement took 3 minutes and 4 seconds
by Mr Jensen’s timing. He maintained his allegation that
applause by the compere and television staff operating the
various areas of filming could be seen.

Mr Jensen is not a reliable witness. His dislike of the
statements made by Mr Chapple has coloured his recollection
of the occasion.

We have seen a tape of the programme. The episode
did not take 3 minutes 4 seconds or anything like it. It
took little more than a minute. No microphone was handed
to Mr Chapple. He moved to stand alongside the compere
who was to be the next person to speak.

In fact the compere spoke over the lengthy applause which
followed Mr Chapple’s comments. He showed no signs of
pleasure at the unscheduled interruption to the programme.
The Tribunal is satisfied that no statement was made that
would have warranted the producer terminating the telecast
on the grounds of any breach of the programme rules.

Having seen the tape and listened carefully to what Mr
Chapple said, it is clear that there is no possible ground
for complaint as to the content being in breach of any
rules.

The action did not warrant a termination in the broadcast
or any physical action from the point of view of rules and
standards. Discretion and broadcasting courtesy, as the Cor-
poration put it, tend to militate against such action being
taken.

The Tribunal upholds the Corporation’s finding and con-
siders that the complaint has no basis. The Tribunal could
not require any apology to be made because of any breach
of rules or standards, as none occurred.

The complaint is not upheld.

Co-opted Members: Messrs Boyd-Bell and Ell were co-
opted as persons whose qualifications and experience were
likely to be of assistance to the Tribunal in determining the
complaint. They took part in the deliberations of the
Tribunal but the decision is that of the members and deputy
member.

Dated the 30th day of June 1982.

For the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman,