3148
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 99

western side of Centre Road; thence generally northerly
along the generally western side of Centre Road to a point
in line with the north-western boundary of Section 35,
Block XVII, aforesaid; thence north-easterly by a right line
to and along that boundary to the north-western corner of
part Section 28, Block XVII, aforesaid; thence north-easterly
along the north-western boundary of part Section 28, aforesaid
to a point in line with the south-western boundary of
Section 66, Block XIX, Jacobs River Hundred; thence
north-westerly by a right line to the south-western corner
of Section 66, aforesaid; thence generally northerly, easterly
and southerly along the generally western, northern and
eastern boundaries of Section 66, aforesaid to the easternmost
corner being a point on the south-western boundary of part
Section 36, Block XIX, aforesaid; thence south-easterly
along the south-western boundary of part Section 36, aforesaid
to a point on the southern boundary of Block XIX,
Jacobs River Hundred; thence northerly and easterly along
the western and southern boundaries of Block XIX, to
the western boundary of Block III, Jacobs River Hundred
being a point in the middle of the Pourakino River; thence
generally northerly along the generally western boundary
of Block III, aforesaid to the north-western corner of Block
III, aforesaid; thence easterly along the northern boundary
of Block III, aforesaid to the south-western corner of Block
IV, Jacobs River Hundred; thence north-easterly along the
south-western boundary of Section 7, Block IV, aforesaid; thence
south-easterly along the north-eastern boundaries
of Section 7, aforesaid and Section 16, Block IV, aforesaid; thence
south-easterly by a right line, across the Riverton Otatutu
Road to the south-western corner of Section 28, Block IV,
aforesaid; thence south-easterly along the south-western
boundaries of Sections 28 and 42, Block IV, aforesaid; thence
south-easterly along the north-eastern boundary
of Section 49, Block IV, aforesaid to the south-western
boundary of Block IX, Jacobs River Hundred; thence south-
westerly along the north-western corner of Block IX, aforesaid
being a point in the middle of the Aparima River; thence generally
easterly along the generally southern boundary of Block IX,
aforesaid to the north-eastern corner of Block VI, Jacobs
River Hundred; thence south-easterly along the north-eastern
boundary of Block VI, aforesaid to the sea coast; thence
generally westerly along the sea coast crossing the mouths
of all harbours and inlets to the point of commencement.

Dated at Wellington this 13th day of September 1979.

E. C. THORNE, Chairman.
W. J. HENDERSON, Fire Commissioner.
F. A. HARDY, Fire Commissioner.

(OPS 4/1/6B3)

Decision No. Com. 5/79

Decision of the Broadcasting Tribunal

IN the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the
matter of a complaint under section 67 (1) by Patrick
Gerard Curran:

WARRANT holder—Broadcasting Corporation of New
Zealand in respect of Television One and Television Two:

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Members: B. H. Slane (Chairman), L. R. Scats (member),
J. C. Somerville (member), N. L. Macbeth (co-opted
member), G. R. Wear (co-opted member).

Hearing: Monday, 30 July 1979.

DECISION

The complaint concerns the coverage on television of news
and current affairs relating to Northern Ireland.

Mr Curran has for some years followed the broadcasting
coverage of Northern Ireland. He described himself as born
in Southern Ireland “of catholic stock”. He came to New
Zealand in 1956 and became a New Zealand citizen. He is
concerned that his personal views should be made perfectly
clear. He supports the present policy of Britain in Northern
Ireland, that it will maintain its military presence for as
long as the majority of the population should wish it. He
condemns all the violence perpetrated by both the protestant
and catholic sides of the sectarian struggle there.

I wish it to be understood at the outset that I do not
condone or support any of the terrorism or acts of
violence conducted by the Irish Republican Army or
any group claiming to be of catholic background, he
told the Tribunal.

I am not concerned that the I.R.A. is shown in a bad light
by television programmes and news items. I am con-
cerned that the Corporation has failed to maintain
standards of objectivity and impartiality of news pre-
sentation in that it reports the activities of one faction
and ignores almost completely the equally atrocious
activities of the other.

The Complaint

Mr Curran made a statutory declaration, on 21 November
1978, running to some eight pages in the course of which he
set out his criticism of news coverage by television in New
Zealand for the past two years. He had compared presenta-
tion of news items in news broadcasts with copies of news
supplied by Reuters to the New Zealand Press Association.
He claimed the television news broadcasts were consistent
in their almost total exclusion of any items relating to acts
of violence allegedly perpetrated by proscribed protestant
organisations such as the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red
Hand Commandoes or the Ulster Freedom Fighters. Pre-
eminence, he claimed, was given to incidents of violence by
members of the Irish Republican Army and other pro-catholic
groups. The effect of this practice was he said to give an
unbalanced view of the sources of violence and terrorism.
He gave a number of instances where a news item which
he considered unfavourable to the I.R.A. was reported on
television and another item which was unfavourable to a
protestant faction was not reported.

He specifically complained about the lack of balance in a
World Watch programme broadcast by T.V. 2 on 10 Septem-
ber 1978.

Mr Curran subsequently added some later news items to
his complaints.

The Corporation considered his complaint which had been
anticipated by earlier criticisms of television handling of
events in Northern Ireland in 1976 and 1977.

At its meeting, on 13 February 1979, the Corporation
considered the declaration he had forwarded and the sub-
sequent letter from his solicitors. The following findings were
made by the Corporation:

1. Although Mr Curran’s affidavit and complaint referred
   to coverage of events over a two year period, the evidence
   he brought forward covered only selected months in
   1978, and in some cases the affidavit did not cover all
   news items broadcast in these particular months. The
   Corporation felt, therefore, that the complaint in its
   overall form could not be sustained.

2. Nevertheless it found that the World Watch programme,
   of 10 September 1978, was unbalanced in its treatment
   of the I.R.A.

3. The Corporation also acknowledges that Mr Curran
   brought forward sufficient evidence to suggest that great
   care should be taken to achieve a balanced presentation
   of events in Northern Ireland, by a closer study of the
   merits of wire service reports in relation to filmed reports.
   On this point the Director-General of T.V. 2 has made
   specific acknowledgment of T.V. 2’s error in not recognis-
   ing the significance of the international wire copy
   relating to the incident raised separately in your letter
   of 15 January.

Mr Curran was told that the Corporation’s finds and
amplifying observations had been drawn to the attention of
the appropriate staff by their Directors-General.

The 15 January letter referred to a report carried by T.V. 1
ncws which accurately reported an incident concerning a
priest’s information on a bombing campaign in Britain,
making it clear that the priest had given the Northern
Ireland Office the information that he had. The South Pacific
Television report on T.V. 2 news had left the impression, in
the opinion of the complainant, that the priest had known of
the planned attack but had done nothing to warn the
authorities. Mr Curran complained to the Tribunal that he
was dissatisfied with the Corporation’s decision. He said that
in its presentation of news items and current affairs pro-
grammes concerning Northern Ireland, in the period July
1978 to December 1978 (inclusive), the Corporation failed
to have regard in the items and presentation of news according
to the recognised standards of objective journalism in breach
of section 24 (1) (b), and failed to have regard to the
principle that when controversial issues of public importance