180 THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE No. 5

people to be identified, we do not think there is any community
standard which in itself constitutes a bar to a radio station pro-
moting itself by means of some competition or other promotion
which involves stopping a person in the street. The circumstances
in which this occurs in the present complaints is the context of the
streetwalker element which requires a person to put a question
which, to say the least, could easily be, or be interpreted as, offen-
sive by the woman.

The fact that the stopping in the street was done by listeners not
agents or employees of the station, created the circumstances in
which a breach of standards could occur so easily.

We therefore cannot uphold the complaints on this ground.

This is not to be regarded as support for the promotion which
was properly dealt with as in bad taste by Radio New Zealand and
the Corporation. Promotions which invite listeners to approach
people directly indeed have a potential for annoyance or offence.

It would be easy to condemn any programme for urging or dis-
playing conduct which could lead to or be said to encourage a
breach of the peace. On that basis much news coverage such as
programmes about male homosexuality, a protest movement, or
advocating tougher police action should not be shown because an
offence or offences may be committed. We do not accept that.

We see this rule as rather protecting viewers from programmes
which constitute a real threat to the maintenance of law and order.
This promotion did not. The fact that it was a promotion rather
than a news programme should not change the principle.

Action taken by the Corporation—The Act is silent as to what
is appropriate action. We consider that in some cases the mere find-
ing on the complaint will be adequate action. In this case, the Cor-
poration states that staff had been advised of the upholding of the
complaint and warned against promotions of a similar kind.

District managers and ZM station managers were told by Radio
New Zealand on 22 February
—to beware of “sexually orientated promotional ploys”
—the promotion
—district managers should take an interest in ZM promotions.

We do not consider the Act contemplates the Tribunal being able
to require the Corporation to make donations to organisations, nor
that it publicly spell out new standards. We comment however, that
it may be appropriate for the rules committee to consider in each
case that a complaint like this occurs, whether or not any amend-
ments might be required to the current rules and standards in the
light of changing social conditions and attitudes. At the same time
there are advantages in maintaining general rules rather than
develop a new rule because of particular complaints.

It is also suggested that the Corporation should have dismissed
the manager of 2ZM. It would be quite inappropriate for this Tri-
bunal to become involved in the industrial relations of the Cor-
poration with its staff or to recommend or stipulate any particular
action be taken against an individual employee or contractor of the
Corporation. Such people are not represented before the Tribunal,
nor are staff representatives appointed to the Tribunal. Industrial
relations is a matter quite separate from the rights of persons under
the Broadcasting Act to have complaints publicly upheld.

In any case, in view of the action taken on 22 February, the
Corporation’s action was sufficient.

The complaints are not upheld on this ground.

It would be reasonable to comment that broadcasters like all peo-
ple in positions of responsibility will from time to time make mis-
takes. It would be unfortunate if the provisions of the Broadcasting
Act were seen by complainants as an opportunity to carry out a
specific action against individuals concerned. In the proper context
of the Act the responsibility for what is broadcast is that of the
warrant holder.

The Corporation’s failure to stipulate its reasoning in upholding
complaints—The complainants would have liked to have seen
some statements by the Corporation which could be regarded as
definitive for broadcasters in the future. They would have liked to
have seen some statements that went beyond the existing complaint
on the status of women. The latter is really a matter for the rules

committee rather than for the Board of the Corporation on the
finding on a complaint.

It would be unnecessarily burdensome on the Corporation if,
when upholding a complaint that a programme was in breach of a
particular rule or provision in the Act that it had to consider 5 or
6 different arguments, some of which it may not agree with and
define its attitude on each one. The right that the complainant has
is for a ruling whether or not the programme breached the par-
ticular provision. In this case the Corporation has noted the pro-
visions which it considers were breached and we do not consider
it has to go any further than that.

Nor do we consider the Tribunal is obliged to deal with every
argument for upholding a complaint. Once the complaint has been
upheld on one ground in relation to one standard or rule, the Tri-
bunal is not obliged to consider finding a breach of the same stan-
dard on other grounds. This would turn the procedure into a
legatistic one.

It is in borderline cases that the Tribunal can usefully define lim-
its and clear cases of breach are not always the best on which to
base definitive judgments.

However in the case of these 2 complaints, they had raised a
number of important points for consideration by the Tribunal in a
detailed and closely argued fashion.

We thought it appropriate therefore to deal with the complaint
and to try and define for the future some of the limitations inherent
in the complaints procedure by dealing with what the complainants
obviously feel is a very important social issue.

Sight must not be lost of the fact that the officers responsible
withdrew the promotion very shortly after broadcasts commenced,
that the Corporation upheld the complaints on a number of
grounds and that steps were taken to advise staff of the situation
and to warn them of the risks of this sort of promotion occurring
again.

The complaints are not upheld.

Co-opted Members—Mrs Boyd-Bell and Mrs Easther were co-
opted as persons whose qualifications or experience were likely, in
the opinion of the Tribunal to be of assistance to the Tribunal in
dealing with the complaints. They took part in the deliberations of
the Tribunal but the decision is that of the permanent members.

Dated the 21st day of December 1982.

Signed for the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

0

Decision No. 1051.
Reference No. Ind 32/82.

Before the Indecent Publications Tribunal

In the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the
matter of an application by the Comptroller of Customs for a
decision in respect of the following publication: Look Nos. 9-13,
published by Schwarz-gelb, Frankfurt.

Judge W. M. Willis (Chairman); Mesdames H. B. Dick, L. P.
Nikera; Messrs J. V. B. McLinden, I. W. Malcolm.

Hearing: 16 December 1982.

Decision: 14 January 1983.

Appearances: Mr McNeice for Comptroller of Customs. No
appearance of importer, Mr B. Armstrong.

DECISION

THESE sample copies were imported through parcels post, Hamil-
ton, and were seized in August 1982. Forfeiture was disputed so
they were referred for classification.

The magazines consist entirely of full page colour photographs
of nude or semi-nude females. There is no accompanying text. In
Decision No. 1020, Look Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were classified
as indecent in the hands of persons under the age of 18. These
publications are no different from those previously classified. It was
the submission of the Comptroller that this appeared to be a suit-
able case for the Tribunal to consider the imposition of a restriction
order under section 15A. The Tribunal, having had the opportunity
to consider a number of these publications, concurs with this view.
Look is therefore classified as indecent in the hands of persons
under the age of 18 years. A Restriction Order is made pursuant
to section 15A for a period of 2 years.