378
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 12

Although he gives his profession as journalism he is not employed as a journalist. He came to New Zealand in 1975 and, he says, in ill health—admitted on compassionate grounds. He has had an invalidity benefit but, he told the Tribunal, the New Zealand Government had now awarded him National Superannuation although he had not reached the eligible age.

It was his appreciation of what the New Zealand Government had done for him that has led him to take up the drugs issue.

Mr Haliburton sometimes states facts in a manner which gives a misleading impression. This occurred when he wrote to newspapers saying that he was researching an inquiry for the Broadcasting Tribunal into media dissemination of false and provocative information (when in fact he was simply a complainant) inviting people to write to him about the Russian desinformatiya fabricating false information in New Zealand.

He used expressions to us such as “when I came out of the navy” which give an impression of service with the navy. That, and his association with Dartmouth, accepts can lead to the impression that he had been a naval officer. He told us that his wife (being a county councillor) preferred to be called Councillor Haliburton. But his witness Dr Lochore told us she preferred to be called Lady Haliburton.

Given the sort of allegations he made on the air, we consider it reasonable that the station should be entitled to refer to any doubt about his qualifications. Mr Haliburton is the author of any embarrassment over his naval or intelligence connections. The complaint in this respect is not upheld.

We regret that the station did not go about its research in a methodical and clear way as they could have established his status at the public library and could also have researched his drug activities which apparently they took no steps to do. We consider it may have been more important to consider his authority to speak on those topics, rather than to investigate the peerage.

No list of bogus peers

This has already been referred to in considering part 2 of the complaint.

Mr Haliburton accepts that the knowledge that he is a Lord is likely to make his statements more newsworthy. We have noted a tendency to misstate what other people have said or done. He is also quick to attack the integrity and motivation of others whilst making sweeping attacks on other people and institutions.

Mr Haliburton claims that the statements made by the station were defamatory but that he had no resources to pursue those in a court of law. The Committee of Private Broadcasters considered it had no grounds to deal with defamation. It does have the power to do so to the extent that the statements made breach the Radio Rules and Standards or the provisions of the Act. However, the Committee found that in their opinion such breaches had not occurred.

The Tribunal considers that, although the word bogus was an emotive one and its use borderline, it cannot uphold the complaint in the light of the actual situation as revealed by Mr Haliburton and his witnesses at the hearing.

Although there is no list headed “bogus”, there are lists of extinct dormant forfeited and abeyant peerages. The listing of this title there, as extinct or forfeit combined with his “use” of the title puts the term “list of bogus peers” in the area of popular interpretation which, in this case, was just acceptable.

This part of the complaint is not upheld.

General

Mr Haliburton attributes to the news reports the failure of television to pursue a possible interview with him, the New Zealand Herald’s failure to accept his letters which they had been accepting before and Radio New Zealand’s ceasing to use him as their Hibiscus Coast correspondent.

Yet he admits that the newspapers in the United Kingdom would not take his copy—he suggests because of a campaign against him. He cannot accept the possibility that his material is being rejected on merit.

He conveyed the impression to us that he had been called in by the editor of Radio New Zealand News in Auckland to be told that he would no longer be their correspondent because he must be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion. Yet, on questioning, it became clear that he saw that edition as a result of a serious disagreement with the chief reporter (or news editor) over the use of Mr Haliburton’s views on drugs by Radio New Zealand. He was then invited to see the editor. It seems likely that the decision not to continue to use him arose from that dispute rather than because of Radio Pacific news reports.

While Mr Haliburton fosters the belief that he is entitled to be called Lord Haliburton but has no established claim to that form of address, it would not be surprising if news editors and senior journalists treat his strong views with some caution.

We do not absolve Radio Pacific from all responsibility in relation to this complaint. It is clear that if they were going to use him in this programme they knew enough about his views to do the checks on his authority before the programme took place. When they subsequently did check some aspects of his background the resulting news items were poorly written and the subediting sloppy.

Decision

The complaint is not upheld.

Co-opted Members

Messrs Ell and Boyd-Bell were co-opted as persons whose qualifications or experience were likely, in the opinion of the Tribunal, to be of assistance to the Tribunal in dealing with the complaint. They took part in the hearing and the deliberations of the Tribunal but the decision is that of the permanent members.

Dated the 25th day of January 1982.

For the Tribunal:

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Reservation of Land

PURSUANT to the Land Act 1948, and to a delegation from the Minister of Lands, the Assistant Director of Land Administration of the Department of Lands and Survey hereby sets apart the land, described in the Schedule hereto, as a reserve for Government Purpose (wildlife management).

SCHEDULE

SOUTH AUCKLAND LAND DISTRICT—WHAKATANE DISTRICT

11.0280 hectares, more or less, being Allotment 1346, Matata Parish, situated in Block I, Rangitaiki Upper Survey District. Part certificate of title, Volume 266, folio 97. Part New Zealand Gazettes, 1941, page 2612 and 1946, page 1241. S.O. Plan 51816.

Dated at Wellington this 28th day of January 1982.

W. J. F. BISHOP,
Assistant Director of Land Administration,
Department of Lands and Survey.

(L. and S.H.O. Res. 3/6/16; D.O. 8/5/267/7)

Reservation of Land

PURSUANT to the Land Act 1948, and to a delegation from the Minister of Lands, the Assistant Director of Land Administration of the Department of Lands and Survey hereby sets apart the land, described in the Schedule hereto, as a reserve for recreation purposes.

SCHEDULE

OTAGO LAND DISTRICT—DUNEDIN CITY

1.9804 hectares, more or less, being Section 72 (formerly Part Sections 27 and 28, Block A2, Otakou Maori Reserve and Section 69), Block II, Portobello Survey District. All G.N. 264964 and part transfer No. 364690. S.O. Plan 16512. (All certificate of title 299/236 Ltd. cancelled and all certificate of title 4B/791 cancelled.)

1.9349 hectares, more or less, being Section 73 (formerly part section 27, Block A2, Otakou Maori Reserve and Section 70) Block II, Portobello Survey District. Part G.N. 249236 and part transfer No. 364690. S.O. Plan 16512. Subject to a water supply easement created by Proclamation 6915. (All certificate of title 4B/789 cancelled.)

Dated at Wellington this 2nd day of February 1982.

W. J. F. BISHOP,
Assistant Director of Land Administration,
Department of Lands and Survey.

(L. and S.H.O. 4/837; D.O. 8/16/74/1)

Declaration That Land is a Reserve

PURSUANT to the Reserves Act 1977, and to a delegation from the Minister of Lands, the Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands hereby notifies that the following resolution was passed by the Rodney County Council on the 22nd day of October 1981.