144
NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 8

(vi) In decision 89/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Norman Smith of Wellington that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Tonight on 18 June 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency and that news must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

(vii) In decision 90/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Mark Toomer of Christchurch that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an item on 3 National News on 17 July 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to maintain standards of good taste and decency, to be mindful of the effect of programmes on children during their viewing periods and not to encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community on account of religious beliefs.

(viii) In decision 91/92, the authority upheld a complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of an advertisement sponsored by DB Bitter beer on 7 July 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters that sponsorship advertisements shall not use any part of a liquor advertisement other than the mention of a company name, brand name or logo.

(ix) In decision 92/92, the authority upheld a complaint from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor of Hamilton that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on the Holmes programme on 17 August 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to minimise the incidental promotion of liquor.

(x) In decision 93/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Ms Marilyn Pryor and Mr Peter Corrigan of Wellington that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Foreign Correspondent on 21 May 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to be truthful and accurate on points of fact, to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with controversial issues, and to avoid the use of deceptive programme practices.

(xi) In decisions 94/92 and 95/92, the authority upheld complaints from Mr Frank Lane of Auckland and Mr Peter Edmunds of Pukekohe that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on the Holmes programme on 11 February 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to give reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view when controversial issues are discussed and to deal justly and fairly with people referred to in a programme. The authority ordered Television New Zealand Limited to pay costs to Mr Lane in the sum of $1,250.00.

(xii) In decision 96/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr L. J. McKay of Riverton that the action taken by Television New Zealand Limited was insufficient having upheld a complaint about an item broadcast on Tonight on 12 August 1992.

(xiii) In decision 97/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr L. Collier of Upper Hutt that the action taken by TV3 Network Services Limited was insufficient when responding to a complaint about the programme The Ralston Group broadcast on 2 September 1992.

(xiv) In decision 98/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr H. B. W. Meroiti of Waikanae that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on the Holmes programme on 12 August 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with controversial issues.

(xv) In decision 99/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from Mr Kerry Sharp of Palmerston North that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of the programme TV3 Special: Sex on 4 August 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to make reasonable efforts and to give reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view about controversial issues.

(xvi) In decision 100/92, the authority upheld a complaint from Robert Wardlaw of Auckland that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme The Simpsons’ Halloween Special on 28 July 1992 breached the responsibility placed on broadcasters to be mindful of the effect of any programme on children during their viewing periods.

(xvii) In decisions 101/92, 102/92 and 103/92, the authority declined to uphold the complaints from the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor, Growth Through Moderation Society Inc, and Mrs Margaret Jackson that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an advertisement for Steinlager Blue beer at various times in September 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters that liquor advertisements shall not depict boisterous group scenes involving irresponsible frivolity, careless freedom and abandon, or scenes exaggerating the pleasures of companionship associated with the consumption of liquor, or suggest that the consumption or presence of liquor will create a significant change in mood or environment.

(xviii) In decision 104/92, the authority declined to uphold a complaint from the New Zealand Police that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of the programme The Remand of Ivan Curry on 12 July 1992 breached the responsibilities placed on broadcasters to give reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view about controversial issues, to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with controversial issues, and to avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice.

(xix) In interlocutory decision 3/92, the authority declined to accept a complaint from the Centrepoint Community Growth Trust that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Limited of items on 3 National News and Nightline on 5 November 1991 breached a number of the responsibilities placed on broadcasters.

Copies of decisions may be purchased from the Broadcasting Standards Authority, P.O. Box 9213, Wellington at the price of $5.00 each or by annual subscription of $100.00.

Dated at Wellington this 19th day of January 1993.

G. POWELL, Executive Director.

au551

New Zealand Fire Service

Fire Service Act 1975

Northland Fire Districts Notice 1993

Pursuant to section 26 of the Fire Service Act 1975, the New Zealand Fire Service Commission hereby gives the following notice.

Notice

1. This notice may be cited as the Northland Fire Districts Notice 1993.

2. This notice shall come into force on the 25th day of February 1993.

3. This notice revokes and is in substitution for all previous