Search Rapua

Comments included that the Speech from the Throne sometimes sounded ‘like a National Party social media video’ and putting to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon ‘that’s National Party spin.’ The complaint alleged this should have been identified as an opinion piece, and the Political Editor should be ‘unbiased’ and stick to news, not adding opinions.

On this basis, he argued that the broadcast was fundamentally misleading because it created the impression that the projects shown were achieved by the National Party and implied that the National Party had been much more productive (in terms of infrastructure) than it actually had been.

There were no facts presented to verify either the statements that Labour was going to introduce these, or to support the view they are bad for New Zealand. [11] The National Party submitted:Viewers of the advertisement would be under no misapprehension that this was a political campaign advertisement (evidenced by the advertisement’s authorisation and National Party vote message). The purpose of the campaign advertisement was to highlight National Party policy compared to Labour.

This election programme promoted the National Party’s message that it is a ‘unified, positive, and forward-moving team’.

Following Labour’s announcement that any tax changes would not be introduced until after 2020, the advertisement was even more inaccurate. [11] The National Party submitted:Viewers of the advertisement would be under no misapprehension that this was a political campaign advertisement (evidenced by the advertisement’s authorisation and National Party vote message). The purpose of the campaign advertisement was to highlight National Party policy compared to Labour.

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision.]During the National Party's closing address, footage was shown of Prime Minister John Key with US President Barack Obama and the Queen.

National Party’s Response to the Authority [4] The National Party contended that the term “plain English” was a figure of speech meaning “easy to understand” or “plain language”, and did not refer to the specific language that would be used in the school reports. It said that while the National Party had a strong commitment to Te Reo, the emphasis of the National Administration Guidelines (NAG 2A) was on the use of plain language.

For the reasons we have outlined above in relation to accuracy, we are satisfied that, as a political party advertisement broadcast during the election period, it would be obvious to most viewers that by its very nature the advertisement is advocating for the National Party and its election policies.

The complainant noted the National party ‘admitted that their own numbers don’t stack up and only limited (around 3000 households around the country)’ families would benefit.[7] The complainant considered this ‘outright false information’ should not be broadcast during the regulated election period.The National Party’s response[8] The National Party responded to the complaint under standard E2 (noting the complainant did not raise any standard said to be breached in the Code of Broadcasting Standards

We thank the parties involved in this matter for their timely and concise responses to our request for submissions.The parties’ submissionsThe complaint[6] Peter Gill complained the programme’s statement “only a party vote for National can change the government’” was misleading as ‘voting for National could change the government but it’s not the only way to change the government.’The National Party’s response[7] In response to the complaint, the National Party stated: ‘Guideline E2b that recognises

Party’s policies will have on public services provided by various public agencies, including ‘MSD, MPI, MBIE, Customs, DOC, and Environment.’[7] In response to the National Party’s and NZME’s comments, the complainant considered the programme would not be ‘readily distinguishable’ as opinion for a number of people, referring to the PSA’s concerns.The National Party’s response[8] The National Party considered the complaint to be ‘factually incorrect’, responding:The National Party is not cutting

The advertisement opens with the words ‘you’ll pay dearly under a coalition of Labour, the Alliance and New Zealand First’ then goes on to state that ‘Labour wants tax Increases’.Being unable to reconcile the income-after-tax figures released by the Labour and National Parties because of the different dates from which the figures applied, TVNZ wrote:. . . there is enough truth in the National Party advertisement for it to withstand scrutiny under the codes.

While the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it also included several relevant perspectives on this, including from National Party leader Christopher Luxon, National Party Spokesperson Erica Stanford, Labour Party Spokesperson Jan Tinetti and Canterbury University Professor Brigid McNeill.

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision.]The Authority did not uphold a complaint regarding inclusion of a comment, ‘The party is reeling’, in the context of a news bulletin regarding the resignation of National Party Members. The complainant submitted this was unnecessary editorial comment which should not have been in a news bulletin.

The Authority found the accuracy standard was not breached noting other content within the broadcast and interviews with National Party members before the programme meant audience members were unlikely to be misled. The balance standard did not apply.

The item ‘is clearly discussing National Party policy and balancing material is not required’. Fairness: the comment was the type of analysis expected of the deputy political editor. The reporter also put this issue ‘directly to the National Party Leader, who gives his own viewpoint on the choice of venue.’

The complaint [3] In his initial complaint to RNZ, Steve Ellis complained that Jones described ‘all those participating in National Party political meetings as racists’ and that: The host took no exception to Jones’ statement that National Party public meetings were ‘full of angry racists’, or Jones’ later statement that you wouldn’t see such ‘outbursts’ at a Labour or Green Party meeting. Jones’ comments were ‘biased and unbalanced’.

‘The purpose of the interview was to give New Zealanders some insight into the new National party leader and what he stands for. It is not a platform for the interviewer to express their own political views or biases when the answers being given do not suit their personal points of view.’

The following morning, the National Party’s Corrections spokesperson David Bennett was interviewed on Morning Report about why the National Party was critical of the strategy. The complaint was that the interview with Sir Kim and Ms Whaipooti was unbalanced and one-sided.