3522
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 151

Number and Title of Specification
BS 903:--- Methods of testing vulcanized rubber—
Part A38:1978 Determination of dimensions
of test pieces and products for test purposes
BS 4426:1969 Methods of test for sodium
hypochlorite solution
ISO 1942:1983 Dental vocabulary—
Addendum 1:1983 ($16.30)
Addendum 2:1983 ($16.30)
Addendum 3:1983 ($16.30)
Addendum 4:1984 ($22.80)
Addendum 6:1985 ($16.30)

Amendment
No./AMD
1/4032 ($3.80)
1/4427 ($3.80)

All persons who may be affected by these amendments and who
desire to comment thereon, may obtain copies from the Standards
Association of New Zealand, Wellington Trade Centre, 15–23
Sturdee Street (or Private Bag), Wellington.

The closing date for the receipt of comment is 15 October 1985.
Dated at Wellington this 9th day of August 1985.

DENYS R. M. PINFOLD,
Director, Standards Association of New Zealand.
(S.A. 114/2/1)

Notice of Intention to Vary Hours of Sale of Liquor at Chartered
Club—King Country Licensing Committee

PURSUANT to section 221A (14) of the Sale of Liquor Act 1962, as
amended by section 22 (1) of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act
1976, I, Stanley James Callahan, Secretary for Justice, hereby give
notice that the King Country Licensing Committee on 26 June 1985
made an order authorising variations of the usual hours of trading
for the chartered clubs known as the Otorohanga Working Men’s
Club and the Otorohanga Services and Citizens Club.

To the intent that on days other than those on which chartered
clubs are required to be closed for the sale of liquor to its members
the hours for the opening and closing of the said premises shall be
as follows:

(a) On any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—
Opening at 11 o’clock in the morning and closing at 10
o’clock in the evening.

(b) On any Friday, Saturday and Christmas Eve—Opening at 11
o’clock in the morning and closing at 11 o’clock in the
evening.

(c) On any New Year’s Eve—Opening at 11 o’clock in the morning
and closing at 00.30 o’clock in the morning of New Year’s
Day.

Dated at Wellington this 8th day of August 1985.

S. J. CALLAHAN, Secretary for Justice.

(Adm. 2/72/5 (5))

Decision No. 8/85
COM 4/84

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

IN the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter of
a complaint by:
Julia Margaret Stuart of Trentham, Journalist.

WARRANT HOLDER: Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand
(Radio New Zealand):

Chairman: B. H. Slane.

Members: Lionel R. Sceats and Ann E. Wilson.

Co-opted Members: Helen A. Cull and N. L. Macbeth.

Hearing: At Wellington—6 November 1984.

DECISION

Mrs Stuart’s complaint relates to the broadcast in the programme
As It Happens on 17 February 1984 on the National Programme
of Radio New Zealand. The programme related to the United
Nations Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women and consisted of a preliminary background followed by a
discussion between Mrs Babette Francis who was campaigning
against the Convention and Mrs Ann Hercus a Labour MP who
supported ratification of the Convention.

Mrs Stuart was authorised by Mrs Francis to lodge the complaint.
As she was dissatisfied with the Corporation’s refusal to uphold the
complaint Mrs Stuart referred it to the Tribunal.

At the hearing evidence was given by Mrs Stuart, by the
interviewer on the programme and by Mr P. E. Downes, Programme
Manager, National Programme.

Subsequently the Tribunal was supplied with some further material
which had been referred to at the hearing. Mrs Stuart claimed that
there were breaches of Rules 1.1 (e) and 4.2 (e) of the Radio Rules
which read as follows:

“1.1 In the preparation and presentation of programmes,
broadcasters are required—
(e) To deal justly and fairly with the person taking part
of referred to in any programme.”

It is also pertinent to note another sub-paragraph:

“(g) To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing
with political matters, current affairs, and all questions of
a controversial nature.”

“4.2 A radio news and current affairs service should take account of
the following points—
(e) Greater care must be taken in the editing of
programme material to ensure that the extracts used are a
true reflection and not a distortion of the overall event or
the overall views expressed.”

The complaint can be summarised as follows:

1. That the interviewer in collusion with Mrs Hercus, did not
   reveal information that she had obtained from the office
   of the Premier of Tasmania about an incident relating to a school
   library in Tasmania.

2. That the failure to warn Mrs Francis about this information
   resulted in her being unfairly treated in the interview.

3. The editing of the discussion was not balanced, impartial
   and fair and did not reflect the views expressed.

It is not necessary for the purpose of this decision to go into the
minute detail which the complainant and (necessarily) the
Corporation did in the hearing of the complaint.

We deal with each allegation separately.

1. Collusion—As a result of reading a report in the Dominion,
   the Radio New Zealand interviewer contacted the press officer at
   the Tasmanian Premier’s office concerning an incident which Mrs
   Francis had been mentioning in her speeches in New Zealand. She
   was campaigning during her visit against the ratification of the UN
   Convention (It had since been ratified by Australia but the question
   of whether it should be ratified by New Zealand was a matter of
   public controversy.)

The incident was a book culling in a school, the facts of which
are disputed. Mrs Francis was using the incident to illustrate the
effect of the signing of the convention and/or the possibility that
ratification could create a climate which resulted in libraries
eliminating such books as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and
Born Free.

Although she claims that she did not associate it directly with
the UN Convention, and although the interviewer approached the
Premier’s office on the basis of enquiring whether it had anything
to do with ratification of the convention, the incident was relevant
because Mrs Francis raised it as part of her argument against the
convention.

The interviewer obtained by telephone the information that as
far as the Minister of Education and the Government of Tasmania
were concerned, the book incident was not associated with the
convention.

We place no great importance on the legalistic point of whether
it was to do with the ratification of or with the signing of the
convention. The way in which the question was put would have
elicited an appropriate response from the Premier’s office if it had
been associated with the signing of the convention.

Because she was present at the studio for the interview early and
because the call from the Tasmanian Premier’s office came through
while she was there, Mrs Hercus became aware of the telephone
call and the information obtained by the interviewer.

Mrs Francis arrived late. The interview was started immediately
because of the limited time available in the studio. She was not
made aware of the information obtained a few minutes earlier.

The Tribunal considers that the interviewer should have
acquainted Mrs Francis with the information she had obtained.

The Tribunal considers that it would not necessarily have been
appropriate if the broadcast had been an interview. But as it was
to be a discussion and one party already knew what the interviewer
had learned, she should have made that knowledge available to the
other party.

We do not find there was any collusion between the interviewer
and Mrs Hercus. There was an error of judgment on the part of
the interviewer.