5 NOVEMBER

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

3743

Hamilton that the action taken by Television New Zealand Limited was insufficient having upheld a complaint about the broadcast of the Steinlager Finest Tries competition.

(ii) In decision 58/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from the Mental Health Foundation that the action taken by Television New Zealand Limited was insufficient having upheld a complaint about the broadcast of a promo for rugby league.

(iii) In decision 59/92, the authority upheld a complaint from the Auckland Women’s Health Council that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an advertisement for Steinlager beer in February 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that liquor advertisements shall not contain a direct association between the consumption of liquor and the operation of a motor vehicle.

(iv) In decisions 60/92, 61/92 and 62/92, the authority declined to uphold complaints from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North, Mr Clay Nelson of Wellington and the Christian Heritage Party of Christchurch that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of Sophie’s Sex Special on 6 May 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency, to respect the principles of law and to show balance, impartiality and fairness in programmes of a controversial nature.

(v) In decisions 63/92 and 64/92, the authority declined to uphold complaints from Mr Philip Smits of Auckland that the respective broadcasts by Radio New Zealand Limited and Radio Pacific Limited of advertisements for a nightclub in March 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency and not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community on account of race.

(vi) In decision 65/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Don Boscott of Paraparaumu that the broadcast by Radio New Zealand Limited of an item on a talkback show on 9 March 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency and not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community on account of sex.

(vii) In decision 66/92, the authority upheld a complaint from Mr Grant Rothville of Auckland that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited, of a trailer for a film on 5 April 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to be mindful of the effect of a programme on children and that violence which will disturb is unacceptable during children’s viewing times.

(viii) In decision 67/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme Crowe on Crowe on 23 March 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to ensure that the incidental promotion of liquor is minimised.

(ix) In decision 68/92, the authority upheld a complaint from Mr Kristian Harang of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an advertisement for Pioneer Electronics equipment on 6 June 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that, in advertisements, women’s sexual appeal may not be used simply to draw attention to an unrelated product.

(x) In decision 69/92, the authority upheld a complaint from Mrs Lauren Presland of Whangarei that the broadcast by Northland Radio Company Limited of an announcer’s comment on 29 May 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual. The authority ordered the broadcaster to pay compensation to Mrs Presland in the amount of $750.

(xi) In decisions 70/92 and 71/92, the authority upheld complaints from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton and Mrs Margaret Jackson of Cambridge that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of liquor sponsorship advertisements on 5 April and 19 April 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that the saturation of liquor advertising must be avoided.

(xii) In decision 72/92, the authority upheld a complaint from the Minister of Health that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Holmes on 15 April 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to present news accurately, objectively and impartially.

(xiii) In decision 73/92, the authority upheld a complaint from Mr M. C. Bradstock of Christchurch that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of a Canterbury Draught beer advertisement in April 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that liquor advertisements shall not contain a direct association between the consumption of liquor and the operation of a motor vehicle.

(xiv) In decisions 74/92, 75/92 and 76/92, the authority upheld complaints from the New Zealand Shooters Rights Association, the Otago-Southland Firearms Coalition and Dr L. A. Betlowski of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Holmes on 29 November 1991 breached the responsibility placed on a broadcaster to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with current affairs. The authority ordered Television New Zealand Limited to broadcast a brief summary of the decision before 27 October 1992.

(xv) In decision 77/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Russell Garbutt of Dunedin that the broadcast by Radio New Zealand of an item on Mana News on 19 May 1992 and its repeat on Good Morning New Zealand on 20 May breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to respect the principles of law and to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with controversial issues.

(xvi) In decision 78/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Mark Toomer of Christchurch that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the first episode of Shortland Street on 25 May 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency and to abide by the classification codes.

(xvii) In decision 79/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Robert Wardlaw of Auckland that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of a skit on the programming Rowan Atkinson on Location on 17 May 1992 breached the responsibility, among others, placed on broadcasters not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community on account of religious beliefs.

(xviii) In decision 80/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Dr Jane Ritchie of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of a trailer on 17 May 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community on account of sex.

(xix) In decisions 81/92 and 82/92, the authority declined to uphold complaints from Ms Jackie Wooler of Wellington that the broadcasts by Television New Zealand Limited and TV3 Network Services Limited, respectively, of a Chit Chat advertisement on 7 June 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community on account of race.

(xx) In decision 83/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Philip Smits of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Holmes on 27 May 1992 breached the responsibility placed on