BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Lindsay Perigo in "The Politically Incorrect Show" broadcast on Radio Pacific on 10 May 1998 between 10.00–10.20am stated that he was shocked to have been told that a named lecturer at the University of Auckland had forbidden her graduate economics class to invite Sir Roger Douglas or anyone from the Business Roundtable to speak to the class.

The University of Auckland, through the Office of the Vice Chancellor, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks breached the good taste standard, were inaccurate, unfair and taken out of context.

Radio Pacific responded first by noting that the show was unashamedly subjective, and promoted libertarian ideas. It did not consider there was any breach of good taste and decency in the broadcast, and maintained that what was said was consistent with the objectives of the programme to challenge institutions and personalities who had what the presenter considered to be a "pro-statist" bias. Radio Pacific emphasised that its source confirmed that the lecturer’s remarks were as reported. Dissatisfied with that decision, the University of Auckland referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast breached standard R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice and orders that Radio Pacific broadcast a summary of this decision.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape and read the transcript of 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.

In his "Politically Incorrect Show" broadcast on Radio Pacific on 10 May 1998 between 10.00-10.20am, host Lindsay Perigo repeated a remark apparently made by a University of Auckland lecturer (Susan St John) in an economics lecture to graduate students. According to his source, he said, this "well-known left winger" had asked students to suggest a person who could be invited to address the class, but had told them not to invite Sir Roger Douglas or anyone from the Business Roundtable. The host expressed his indignation that against his will he was paying the lecturer to forbid students hearing from people who disagreed with her, and gave her his award of "Nazi of the Week".

Through the Office of the Vice Chancellor, the University of Auckland complained that the host’s remarks impugned the integrity of the University, as well as the named lecturer. It complained that the lecturer’s comment was inaccurately quoted and taken out of context, and there was no attempt made to check the report’s accuracy or fairness. The University explained that the comments were made at a lecture eight weeks before the broadcast, in which students were asked to suggest a properly qualified private sector macroeconomist of a right wing persuasion to speak to the class. However, it advised, as Sir Roger Douglas was not a qualified private sector macroeconomist, the lecturer had stated that she considered that he did not fit the role she had in mind. The University pointed out that speakers who shared Sir Roger’s views, and Sir Roger himself, had been invited to speak to her class on previous occasions. The University said it considered the award of Nazi of the Week to the lecturer was as silly as it was outrageous. It claimed that the broadcast had caused damage to the reputation of the University, as well as to the lecturer, and asked for an on-air and written apology.

In its response, Radio Pacific observed as a preliminary point that the host was unashamedly subjective, and that his show was known for its promotion of libertarian and anti-statist views. It affirmed the host’s right to freedom of speech and his right to express his opinions in a forthright manner. The station advised that it did not consider there was any breach of good taste and decency in the broadcast, and maintained that what was said was consistent with the programme’s objectives. With respect to the complaint that the broadcast was unfair, Radio Pacific responded that the lecturer was a public figure whose writings had made her well known, and that her views were opposite to those of the host. It concluded by emphasising that the "Politically Incorrect Show" was an essential ingredient of a free society, and declined to uphold the complaint or to broadcast an apology. An appropriate resolution, it suggested, was for the issues to be debated on air on the programme in question. Radio Pacific provided letters from students and faculty members to support the host’s contention that the remarks were made in class as he had reported, and that the lecturer had a known political bias.

When it referred the complaint to the Authority, the University maintained that Radio Pacific had not understood the basis for its concerns. It reiterated its objection to the host’s public attack on a named lecturer when he alleged that she stifled debate in her class, and to his failure to check the facts, or to give her a reasonable opportunity to comment. Referring to the supporting evidence provided by the host, the University noted that the sources were all anonymous, and that none claimed to have been present in class when the offending comments were alleged to have been made. In contrast, it noted, it had provided letters from named members of the class who were present at the time, which confirmed the lecturer’s version of events.

Although no standards were nominated by either the complainant or the broadcaster, the Authority considers that standards R1, R2, R5 and R13 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice encapsulate the complainant’s concerns, and assesses the complaint accordingly. Those standards require broadcasters:

R1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs programmes.

R2 To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and good taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

R5 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

R13 To act responsibly and speedily in the event of a complaint and when an accusation of unfairness is found to be correct, to provide appropriate redress as early as possible after the original broadcast.

Standard R1 – truth and accuracy in news and current affairs programmes

As a preliminary matter, the Authority considers it doubtful that "The Politically Incorrect Show" is either a news or current affairs programme. Accordingly, the standard is unlikely to apply. However, even if it does, the Authority considers the gravamen of the complaint relates to unfairness, which it addresses below. It therefore subsumes the standard R1 aspect of the complaint under standard R5.

Standard R2 – good taste and decency

The complainant alleged that the broadcast ignored normal standards of decency, notwithstanding the political and satirical nature of the programme, because it attacked a named person and questioned her professionalism.

When it assesses a complaint which alleges a breach of this standard, the Authority’s task is to decide whether the remarks breached accepted norms of decency and good taste. While the Authority acknowledges that the target of the remarks would have found them unpleasant, it does not consider they would have caused widespread offence in the community. As noted above, it considers the essence of the complaint is dealt with under the standard requiring the broadcaster to deal justly and fairly with a named person. In dealing with the good taste aspect, the Authority also notes, as did the broadcaster, the relevance of the context in which the remarks were made. The host’s extreme and provocative views are his hallmark, and the show’s title immediately identifies it as being anti-establishment. Within those parameters, and given that the community as a whole would be unlikely to be offended, it finds no breach of standard R2.

Standard R5 – dealing justly and fairly

The University contended that the lecturer was not dealt with justly or fairly in the broadcast. The host’s allegation that the lecturer had prevented the views of those she disagreed with from being put before students was, the University submitted, patently wrong and quite unfair. It maintained that the lecturer’s professionalism had been compromised, and her reputation damaged. Furthermore, it argued, the reported remarks were not an accurate account of what transpired in the lecture.

In the Authority’s view, the host made a serious allegation against the person concerned. It was the type of allegation which required the broadcaster to be sure of its facts. Here, however, the allegation was based on second hand reports, which have subsequently been directly challenged by the lecturer concerned and her employer.

The Authority has seen the material provided by the broadcaster in support of the host’s allegation, none of which it finds convincing as justification for the broadcast remarks. The host’s accusation that the lecturer had acted in a way designed to stifle debate was serious in an academic context. Given that he has been unable to supply convincing evidence about that, the Authority prefers to accept the lecturer’s direct recollection of the event, and the supporting material provided by the university. It concludes that the host misrepresented the situation and in so doing failed to deal justly or fairly with the person who was the subject of his criticism.

In doing so, the Authority accepts that comment of the kind advanced by the host in his regular forum is not expected to be based on high journalistic standards of proof, as it is clearly presented as opinion. However it considers that he has an obligation to be just and fair to named individuals who are the subject of his criticism, and that this necessitates a more thorough approach than he appears to have adopted on this occasion.

Standard R13 – providing appropriate redress when an accusation of unfairness is found to be correct

The Authority notes that the University requested an apology to the lecturer and her class for the remarks which, it said, had caused her and the University considerable damage.

Radio Pacific’s response was that no apology was due, since no breach of standards occurred. However, it offered the lecturer the opportunity to appear on the "Politically Incorrect Show" to debate the issues with the programme’s host.

The Authority accepts that the standard will only apply where the broadcaster upholds a complaint of unfairness. This did not happen here and therefore the Authority concludes the standard did not apply.

Conclusion

The Authority considers the host’s remarks came close to amounting to personal abuse. It finds that his interpretation of what transpired in the class was not in accord with the recollection of the students who, unlike the person who was his primary source of information, were present at the time. The Authority appreciates that the host has an unalienable right to express his political views, and acknowledges that his programme is a forum for those. However, it does not accept that that right extends to being able to denigrate and personally abuse a named individual when such abuse is not based on sound facts.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint by the University of Auckland that the broadcast of The Politically Incorrect Show on Radio Pacific Ltd on 10 May between 10.00–10.20am breached standard R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) or s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority invited submissions from Radio Pacific and the University of Auckland on the question of penalty. It has considered those submissions and has taken into account the arguments from the complainant and the broadcaster. Taking into account the ramifications of the unfair broadcast on the named lecturer, and balancing that against the broadcaster’s known iconoclastic stance on issues, the Authority makes the following order.

Order

The Broadcasting Standards Authority orders Radio Pacific Ltd under s.13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to broadcast a statement summarising this decision and including an apology for the breach arising from the complaint about The Politically Incorrect Show broadcast on 10 May 1998. The text, time and date of broadcast of the statement shall be approved by the Authority and broadcast during The Politically Incorrect Show within one month of the date of this decision. The Authority also orders Radio Pacific Ltd to provide a copy of the written statement to the lecturer and to the University of Auckland.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 October 1998

Appendix

The University of Auckland’s Complaint to Radio Pacific Limited – 8 June 1998

The University of Auckland, through the Office of the Vice Chancellor, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd about a broadcast by presenter Lindsay Perigo on 10 May 1998 between 10.00-10.20am.

In it, the presenter repeated a remark about what had passed in a lecture to post graduate economics students and proclaimed the lecturer "Nazi of the week". The transcript in part records:

My first item this week hasn’t been in the news, but is a national scandal. Now it’s not news that our universities are dominated ideologically by state-worshippers. Nor is it news that these state-worshippers have no respect whatsoever for what is supposed to be the academic tradition of free speech and vigorous debate. Normally, however, the state-worshippers pretend otherwise, and conceal their anti-free speech agenda. So it was still something of a shock to me to be told earlier this week of an incident that occurred in an economics class at Auckland University run by that well-known left winger [X]. Mzzzzzz [X] invited students to invite outsiders to address the class on relevant matters. Then she said, "But don’t even think of inviting Sir Roger Douglas or anyone from the Business Roundtable".

Now Mzzzzzz [X] is paid by you the tax payer she’s not working in a private university funded by alliance supporters to promote alliance policies and censor other ones. If that were the case I would have no problem with her ban on Sir Roger and the Roundtable.

…my indignation is based on the fact that I against my will am paying Mzzzzzz [X] to forbid students to hear from people who disagree with her, and who, for better or worse, could present the case for the reforms they have been instrumental in implementing. Surely, at the very least, it is desirable that students should know what that case is – no one is saying they have to agree with it.

The University complained that:

The essence of the insinuation was that [the lecturer] is unwilling to allow those such as Sir Roger Douglas, with who it is alleged she disagrees, to address her class. The remark was inaccurate and taken out of context. There was no attempt to check its accuracy or fairness.

The University maintained that reporting of remarks from a lecture broke the unwritten Chatham House rules understood to apply, especially in post graduate business classes. It considered it a serious matter that the media had not recognised this, and had compounded the matter by the invective which was broadcast. The University added that the incident had been particularly distressing to the class, adding "They now also see how freedom of thought and expression have now been compromised, not only in this class but in the business school at large."

The University reported that the remark was inaccurately quoted and taken out of context. It recalled that it concerned a lecture 8 weeks before the broadcast, in which students were asked to suggest "a properly qualified private sector macroeconomist of a right-wing disposition" to speak to the class. As Sir Roger Douglas is not a qualified private sector macroeconomist, the lecturer had said she considered that he did not fit the role she had in mind. The University argued that the lecturer had probably done more than any other economist to ensure that the views of people from the ACT party were examined by the students in her courses. It noted that on two previous occasions, Sir Roger had been the guest speaker at social functions. It contended that awarding her "Nazi of the week" for not allowing those views to be expressed was as silly as it was outrageous.

The University maintained that the lecturer was far from being the extreme left ideologue as painted in the broadcast. It wrote:

As an economist who has specialised in public economics and public policy she has a role to teach and examine the legitimate role of the state in a mixed economy. It does not make her a "state worshipper". She has had various politically independent consulting roles in social policy including that of deputy chair of the Periodic Report Group in 1997 and she has co-authored many texts in economics. The insinuations in this broadcast are damaging to her reputation and to the University.

The fact that it has been damaging is evidenced by a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of The University of Auckland sent by a senior member of the business community querying her behaviour. A transcript of the offending programme, published in the student paper Craccum, has also been prominently displayed around the university.

In conclusion, the University suggested it would be appropriate for the station to make an apology to the lecturer and her class on air, and to respond formally with a written apology.

Radio Pacific Ltd’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 25 June 1998

As a preliminary point, Radio Pacific noted that Lindsay Perigo’s programme was unashamedly subjective. Radio Pacific noted that it was entitled "The Politically Incorrect Show" and promoted libertarian ideas and was anti statist. The station emphasised its belief in free speech, and stated that it would always support Lindsay Perigo’s right to express his opinions in a forthright manner. It did not consider there was any breach of good taste and decency in the broadcast, and believed that what was said was consistent with the objectives of the programme.

As to the allegation of unfairness, Radio Pacific responded that the lecturer was a public figure whose writings had made her well known. It observed that her writings were quite opposite to the views strongly held by Lindsay Perigo.

With respect to the source of the information, Radio Pacific advised that the report came from someone of no particular ideological persuasion who insisted that the details as presented in the broadcast were true. That student, and several others, said they were concerned about her statement, and that it was not atypical. He disagreed with the lecturer’s version of the events concerning Sir Roger Douglas.

Radio Pacific observed that "The Politically Incorrect Show" was known for the vigour of its attack on statism of all forms. It spared neither left nor right, it continued, and indeed during the same editorial, there had been an attack on the ACT/Roundtable/Treasury axis for its contribution to big government. It continued:

In essence it is Radio Pacific’s view that the Politically Incorrect Show is an essential ingredient of a free society. It follows that Radio Pacific does not accept your complaint and is not prepared to broadcast an apology.

In conclusion, Radio Pacific said it did not understand how Chatham House rules were applicable, and that it was not stated in advance that the subject matter was off the record.

The University of Auckland’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 24 July 1998

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific’s response, the University referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The broadcast, it complained, alleged that the lecturer forbade students hearing from people who disagreed with her, and referred to remarks she was alleged to have made about Sir Roger Douglas. Taken in conjunction with the opening remarks, the University alleged that the broadcast implied that the lecturer had no respect for the academic tradition of free speech and vigorous debate.

The University explained that the remark was made in a business economics class of 36 mature students, some eight weeks prior to the broadcast. The University contended that not only were the remarks inaccurate, but they also implied that it had breached the provisions of s.161 of the Education Act 1989, which requires it to preserve and enhance academic freedom.

The University noted that the show’s host had continued to refer to the lecturer in a derogatory way, despite the effort of one of her students who, in an on-air conversation, attempted to clarify and report correctly the events which occurred in the class. The University provided a transcript of that conversation broadcast on 17 May.

The broadcast was damaging to the lecturer’s reputation, the University contended, as people who were not present at the class were misled. Among those was the chief executive of the Business Roundtable, who wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the university questioning the lecturer’s professionalism. It attached a copy of that letter.

Further, the University expressed its concern at the impact which the broadcast had had on students in the class. It wrote:

In classes of this nature many students present case studies relating to their employment, and many of the case studies discussed contain sensitive information relating to companies or projects. Students were concerned to find that discussions they had understood would not be disclosed outside of the class had been given to the media.

The University noted that no concerns had been expressed to it or to the lecturer by any student in the class about any remarks made by the lecturer during the course. It pointed out that the students on the course were mature students who were paying a considerable amount of money for the course, and were quite capable of expressing their views on any topic. The University therefore questioned Radio Pacific’s assertion that both the source of the remarks and "other students" were concerned about the lecturer’s statement.

To further underline the inaccuracy of the remarks attributed to the lecturer, the University noted that the lecture notes, and the lecturer’s recollection of the comments made, indicated that the Business Roundtable was not mentioned in the manner alleged. The University attached a copy of the lecturer’s notes. It wrote:

Class members confirm that at this introductory lecture [X] was, in the interests of balance, asking them if they knew of a right-wing economist from the business sector [emphasis added] to invite as a guest lecturer. She was looking for a balance among the speakers. As the course is on macroeconomics she was looking for a person with academic standing in this field. While Sir Roger Douglas was Minister of Finance a decade ago, he has, more recently, been associated with the Act political party. His views are thus not those of the hands-on, business economist needed to give an in depth analysis of the current economic environment. Her light hearted remark "not Sir Roger Douglas" was to pre-empt any suggestion that the class invite Sir Roger. There was never any basis to suggest that the remark was made because she disagrees with him.

The guest lecturers were all chosen for their ability to enhance the learning experience of the students, not for their political views. This is a serious course in macroeconomics. All of the guest lecturers have been academic or practising economists.

In the University’s view, the lecturer could fairly claim she had done as much (or more) than any other economist (or academic) to encourage debate on the policies of Sir Roger Douglas. It pointed out that her public policy class examined his ideas and reviewed his book, and that Sir Roger had addressed her business class on two social occasions in the past years. Thus, it argued, the allegation that she stifled debate and prevented the views of those she disagreed with from being heard was patently wrong and quite unfair.

The University reported that the lecturer considered that the presenter had denounced her professionalism and denigrated her ability to be seen as a credible and serious economic commentator. It pointed out that thousands of students had learned economics from textbooks she had co-authored, adding that her co-authors were also affected by the allegations, as were teachers and students who used the books. It asked:

What right has Lindsay Perigo to suggest they are getting their economics from a "left winger" who stifles debate and who "spews forth in the Herald every other day" when the evidence shows his remarks are not correct?

The University also advised that the lecturer believed her role as an independent critic had been affected by the allegations. As an indication that she was not regarded as a "censoring socialist" it pointed to her appointment by the National government (later endorsed by the Coalition) as deputy chair of the 1997 Periodic Reporting Group on Retirement Incomes.

In response to Radio Pacific’s argument that the host was "unashamedly subjective", the University responded that that did not entitle him to say what he liked no matter how inaccurate the comments were.

It said neither it nor the lecturer would have a problem if the criticisms referred to the content of her published work. However, they regarded this episode as a personal attack and one which could not be justified.

Next the University referred to a number of letters it had received from students recording their version of events. It enclosed copies of several letters, and noted that none had indicated that the comments made by the host were accurate. It advised that it would be willing to submit further letters from class members if it would be of assistance to the Authority.

In conclusion, the University wrote:

The University welcomes debate. Unjustifiable and damaging personal abuse is something entirely different. The normal standards of decency have been breached.

It said that it considered Radio Pacific’s decision not to retract or apologise was inconsistent with the evidence available. It sought a ruling from the Authority that Radio Pacific broadcast an apology for the inaccurate information broadcast, and confirm that apology in writing to the lecturer.

Radio Pacific’s Response to the Authority – 31 July 1998

Radio Pacific said that it stood by its original response.

The only addition it had to make, it continued, was that it would be happy to arrange for the lecturer to appear on the "Politically Incorrect Show". In its view, that was the ideal forum to resolve any acrimony or differences of opinion.

As to the accuracy of the comments, Radio Pacific advised that the host had requested the right to provide additional information to the Authority. It advised that his comments would be forwarded in due course.

In a letter dated 4 August 1998, Radio Pacific forwarded a submission from the host of the Politically Incorrect Show, Lindsay Perigo. In his submission, Mr Perigo wrote that he had a lot of contact with students interested in libertarian and free market ideas. A recurring theme from these students, he wrote, was the pro-statist bias of their lecturers. He noted that the name of the lecturer at the centre of this complaint was mentioned frequently, but by no means exclusively in that regard. He continued:

The issue is not Ms [X’s] freedom to adhere to her statist beliefs; I uphold that utterly, loudly and often. The issue is the taxpayer’s right, as those who compulsorily pay her salary, to know that she is not using her position to influence her teaching and my right as a commentator to speak out if I have reason to believe that indeed she is doing just that. I believed at the time of the broadcast in question that I had reason to believe this; I believe it even more strongly now. My problem is that, consistent with the way the Left have an intimidatory stranglehold on our universities, none of the parties backing up my case wishes to be identified – at least, at this stage.

Mr Perigo then summarised three pieces of correspondence which he had received relating to the course, which in his view, confirmed that his remarks were accurate, and fair comment. He appended copies of the statements, each of which commented on the political views of the lecturer.

Further submissions were received in a letter dated 7 August 1998. Mr Perigo advised that one of the parties had amended his submission in order to protect his identity. That submission noted:

Student folklore up to 1998 has constantly reinforced the perception that THE only means of receiving a high grade from [X] is to write according to HER biases: any other response in coursework assignments or exams will result (sometimes) in reprimand and (usually) lower grades.

The University of Auckland’s Final Comment – 12 August 1998

The University referred first to Radio Pacific’s invitation to debate the matter on air. It asserted that it was apparent from that proposal that Radio Pacific had not understood the basis of the University’s concerns. The University pointed to s.161 of the Education Act, which provides "the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial and or unpopular opinions." The University emphasised that its staff knew their academic freedom was subject to accountability provisions, and that the University was required to maintain the highest ethical standards, and to "permit public scrutiny to ensure the maintenance of those standards."

The University maintained that it was the responsibility of Radio Pacific and its host to ensure accuracy when individuals were criticised on air and, where they were inaccurate, to publicly retract the allegations made and apologise for their mistake.

The University emphasised that it would have no problem if the criticism had been confined to the views put forward in the lecturer’s published papers. However, it wrote, the host attacked her publicly on the grounds that she stifled debate in her class, without checking his facts, or giving her an opportunity to comment. It also complained that the host, through the submissions provided, had attempted to shift the focus of the debate to, among other things, the way the lecturer marked papers. It wrote:

To seek to shift the focus of the debate as has happened in this case, underlines the University’s concerns about the nature of the May 10 broadcast and provides a compelling reason for requiring Radio Pacific to broadcast a formal apology and confirm the retraction in writing.

The University also commented on the supporting evidence put forward by the programme’s host. It noted that the sources were all anonymous and that none were present in the class when the remarks were alleged to have been made. It pointed out that this contrasted with the evidence of the named witnesses which the University had provided to the Authority.

Next the University dealt with each of the submissions. It submitted that the first one relied on hearsay information. It expressed its concern about the allegation that students’ papers were marked according to the lecturer’s bias. It reported that there were only two pieces of marked work in the course, and that every student received a full answer guide, so the process was transparent. Further, the University noted, a senior professor of economics had assessed the course work and could find no evidence of left wing bias. It attached copies of tests and assignments. It submitted that the evidence given in the first submission was not credible and could not be used to justify Lindsay Perigo’s remarks.

Turning to the second submission, the University noted that it relied on the recollection of a student in a 1984 class, in which he claimed that an assignment he had written on healthcare had been returned with a huge amount of feedback indicating that the marker did not agree with the views expressed. The University responded that in relation to the 1984 class, the lecturer did not mark any assignments, and students were given model answers so they could compare their work with what was considered to be a good response. Therefore, it concluded, the evidence of this submission was inaccurate as well as irrelevant.

With respect to the third submission, the University stated that it could find no basis for relying on the writer’s views, and cited some aspects which it said were untrue, and some which it said were unprofessional.

In conclusion, the University noted that the facts did not establish any basis for the on air remarks. It added:

The University expects that its members will be called upon to justify their opinions and to debate the views they express. That, however is quite different from a situation where unsubstantiated information is used to personally attack the reputation of a respected teacher and commentator without giving that person the opportunity to check or correct the information used.

On that basis the University believes Radio Pacific and Lindsay Perigo must broadcast an apology and retract the unsubstantiated allegations broadcast on 10 May 1998.

Further Correspondence

The Authority received a letter from Radio Pacific dated 21 August, in which it enclosed a further response from the programme’s host. A fax received from Radio Pacific on 28 August relayed the host’s request that the Authority postpone making its decision pending further testimony from a student to support his case.

On 31 August, the Authority received an email from the University in which it advised it strongly opposed the Authority delaying its decision, particularly as the host himself admitted that the evidence was not relevant to the original complaint.

The Authority received further submissions from the host via Radio Pacific on 7 September. These referred to the lecturer’s personal views being made apparent in lectures.