Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-019:Flook (on behalf of the New Zealand National Party) and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1990-019 PDF467.22 KB

reasons as did the National Party.

In the Party’s view, it was inherently unfair to require Mr Capill, the leader of a Category 3 party with an MP in Parliament, to appear alongside the leader of a Category 4 party with no MP in Parliament. Furthermore, it emphasised that the two parties had nothing in common, and TV3’s decision to lump them together showed that it had misread the political landscape.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority Peter Radich Chair14 October 2011 Appendix The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint: 1 New Zealand Labour Party’s formal complaint to the Authority – 3 October 2011 2 National Party’s response to the complaint – 5 October 2011 3 Office of the Prime Minister’s response to the complaint – 5 October 2011 4 RadioWorks’ response

[15] Restricting participation to parties represented in Parliament, the CHP argued, was too narrow and it: … effectively means that no new party can get ahead in this democracy because the State broadcaster has determined it will not include in documentary or current event programmes parties that do not have an MP. [16] The Party concluded: Christian Heritage is asking the [Electoral] Commission to address this issue even though the election is now history.

SummaryA National Party election advertisement broadcast on Saturday evening 5 October 1996 focussed on the tax policies of some of the other parties. Using the imagery of a burning cheque, it opened with the words ‘you’ll pay dearly under a coalition of Labour, the Alliance and New Zealand First’.

Summary An item on the Larry Williams Programme focussed on the resignation from the Alliance Party of Mr Frank Grover MP. The item included interviews with Mr Jim Anderton, the leader of the Alliance Party, and with Mr Grover. It was broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 11 June 1999, commencing at about 6.15 pm.

It said that Mr Locke had never been a member of the Communist Party or any Soviet-aligned party, and his mother left the Party in 1956. [19] The Green Party maintained that the host had attached “absurd and prejudicial labels to [Mr Locke], like ‘anti-Americanism’, knowing full well that millions of Americans (including the American Green Party) espouse exactly the same policies” as he did.

SummaryAn angry and obscene talkback interchange was broadcast by Aotearoa National MaoriRadio on 14 October 1996 at about 2.00am.

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-144:Child and Aotearoa National Maori Radio - 1993-144 PDF230.01 KB

The Christian Heritage Party complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 8 March programme depicted "homosexual paedophilic activity" since the boy involved was aged only 15. It noted that it was a criminal offence to have sex with a minor. It also complained about the language used, which it described as offensive. Of particular concern was the frequent use of blasphemy, and the fact that young people would be watching the programme.

Complaint [3] Losalini Dulakiverata complained to the National Pacific Radio Trust Inc (NPRT), the broadcaster, alleging that the item had breached the principles of balance and social responsibility. [4] The complainant argued that the item was unbalanced because the host had given Ms Asenaca “free rein to publicly justify racially discriminatory policies of the SDL government”.

It considers it unnecessary to invite submissions on orders from the parties on this occasion.[26] The Authority has found that the action taken by Niu FM after it upheld a breach of Standard 4 (balance) was insufficient.

The trust and TPO are closely related parties. There is a distinction between a situation where one party passes money on to an unrelated private party and the situation here, where one party, the trust, is passing money to a wholly owned subsidiary, TPO, the directors of which are also trustees. The issue of the relationship between the trust and TPO was considered by the High Court in relation to matters subsequent to the broadcast.

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-085:National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-085 PDF502.9 KB

The results screened for each electorate listed four Parties – Alliance,Labour, National and New Zealand First. They were listed as the four Parties which wererepresented in Parliament and their selection could be justified by the "news value"criterion applied by TVNZ.However, as the Christian Heritage Party pointed out in the complaint, New Zealand Firstdid not advance a candidate in each electorate. The Authority understands that it was notrepresented in 14 of the 99 seats.

When she referred the Party's complaint to the Authority, Ms Francis maintained thatthe broadcast also breached standards G1 and G13 of the Code. They requirebroadcasters: G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

Even some in the homosexual community admitted the advertwas in bad taste and was a blatant attack on Christianity.Why was the Christian Heritage party singled out for a broadside on itsphilosophic based? When was the last time that National or Labour got such atreatment?

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-050:Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-050 PDF297.88 KB