1632
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 52

along the boundary of Upper Hutt City to a point on the said
boundary due south of the commencing point; thence by a right
line to the commencing point; and starting at a point on the western
side of Totara Park Road at its intersection with the northern side
of Upper Hutt Bypass (River Road); thence by a right line to the
western end of Tulsa Grove; thence north-easterly, generally, to the
southern end of Bridge Road; thence along the north-western side
of Bridge Road to its intersection with Akatarawa Road; thence
along the north-western side of Akatarawa Road to a point 140
metres measured northerly, generally, along Akatarawa Road from
Gillespies Road; thence by a right line to a point on the northern
side of the No. 2 State Highway (Pokeno - Wellington via Gisborne)
400 metres measured north-easterly, generally, along the said
highway from Plateau Road, thence south-westerly, generally, along
the northern side of No. 2 State Highway (Pokeno - Wellington via
Gisborne) to its junction with the north-western side of Upper Hutt
Bypass (River Road); thence along the northern side of Upper Hutt
Bypass (River Road) to the commencing point.

———

SECOND SCHEDULE

SITUATED within Upper Hutt City:

No. 2 State Highway (Pokeno - Wellington via Gisborne): from a
point 50 metres measured south-westerly, generally, along the said
highway from Henry Street to a point 480 metres measured north-
easterly, generally, along the said highway from Akatarawa Road.

Signed at Wellington this 7th day of April 1987.

C. M. CLISSOLD, Chief Traffic Engineer.

†New Zealand Gazette, No. 74, dated 11 September 1975, page 2023.
(M.O.T. 29/2/Upper Hutt City)

———

Approval of Motor Cycle Safety Helmets in Terms of the Traffic
Regulations 1976

———

PURSUANT to subclause (1) of regulation 88 of the Traffic Regulations
1976 motorcycle safety helmets of the make and type described in
the Schedule hereto are hereby approved for the purposes of
regulation 31 of the said regulation.

SCHEDULE

SAFETY helmets manufactured by Shoei Kako Co. Ltd., Japan,
bearing the model designation RF-105V and bearing the certifica-
tion mark of the Standards Association of Australia AS 1698.

PURSUANT to powers delegated to me by the Secretary for Trans-
port by an instrument of delegation dated the 28th day of March
1985.

Dated at Wellington this 7th day of April 1987.

G. LIVERSAGE, Assistant Chief Automotive Engineer.

(M.O.T. 17/6/1)

———

Decision No. Dec No. 7/87
COM 14/86

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

———

In the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter of a
complaint by CATHERINE FREY for the PALESTINE HUMAN
RIGHTS CAMPAIGN.

Chairman: B. H. Slane.

Member: Robert Boyd-Bell.

Co-opted Members: Brian W. Stephenson and Hiwi Tauroa.

Dated the 30th day of March 1987.

DECISION

THIS complaint arose from the broadcast of an extended item
concerning the Israeli Air Force in Eyewitness News on Television
Two on Monday, 18 August 1986.

The Programme:

The item at the heart of this complaint was a thirteen minute
long report from the American CBS News 60 Minutes current affairs
programme. In the report CBS correspondent Morley Safer presented
a profile of the Israeli Air Force, with particular emphasis on its
recruitment policies, equipment, tactics and morale.

The feature had been prepared within constraints imposed by
Israeli military authorities, but was of the nature of an “inside look”
at the Israeli Air Force. Substantially the same programme had been
broadcast some 4 months earlier by TVNZ as a segment of the
Foreign Correspondent programme on Saturday, 5 April 1986. There
were some differences in both the presentation and content of the
programme between the two occasions on which it was broadcast.

The Complaint:

The Palestine Human Rights Campaign lodged a formal complaint
with the BCNZ dated 26 August regarding the Eyewitness News
broadcast of 18 August, complaining particularly about the
introduction to the item and the use there of the term “the great
protector” to describe the Israeli Air Force. The complainant
disputed the accuracy of introductory information that the Israeli
Air Force had just attacked Lebanon for the first time in almost a
year, and also alleged lack of balance.

The Corporation’s Response:

The Board of the BCNZ considered this complaint among others
at its meeting of 4 November. In its response of 14 November, the
BCNZ explained that the item originated from a satellite feed of
the CBS 60 Minutes programme and presented an American
viewpoint.

Defending the use of the term “the great protector”, the
Corporation asserted that the description was used by Israel to define
its defence forces and was in general usage. The letter continued:

“The Board considered that various nations have coined their
own expressions for their fighting forces over the centuries.
While acknowledging that a nation is entitled to that opinion,
it is also considered that the media is entitled to report that
opinion.”

The Corporation, considering the objectives of accuracy and
impartiality had not been infringed, did not uphold the complaint.

Reference to the Tribunal:

On behalf of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Ms Catherine
Frey referred the complaint to the Tribunal of 26 November, alleging
that the BCNZ had not examined the complaint thoroughly and
that its reply was based on a claim which was not factual. She said
neither the item nor the TVNZ visual and verbal introduction were
accurate, impartial or objective. Ms Frey said it was factually wrong
to claim in August that the Israeli Air Force had attacked Lebanon
for the first time in almost a year. She disputed that the term “the
great protector” was in general usage, noted that no evidence to
that effect had been produced, and said TVNZ was not “impartial,
accurate or objective” in adopting that description.

Ms Frey also drew attention to the fact that the programme had
been broadcast twice by TVNZ in April and August of 1986 and
had not been balanced by any other programme in that period.

The Corporation Submission:

In his submission to the Tribunal dated 24 December the Secretary
of the Corporation, Mr I. H. McLean, described the item as “a
mini-documentary on the Israeli Air Force” and submitted that a
question of objectivity or impartiality did not arise.

He said the Corporation had rather selectively joined a headline
statement to the substantive introduction and that TVNZ did
not gratuitously label the Israeli Air Force as “the great protector”. Mr
McLean said the item was self-contained and any recalling of earlier
events in the Middle East was not relevant.

Mr McLean told the Tribunal there had been a volume of
complaints lodged by the complainant, much of the substance had
been answered over a long period but “the great protector” aspects
was new and treated as such.

The Corporation informed the Tribunal that a videotape copy of
the Eyewitness News in question was no longer available but a copy
of the earlier broadcast in Foreign Correspondent was provided.

Ms Frey’s Response:

Ms Frey responded on 19 January 1987, noting first that it was
unsatisfactory that a videotape of the programme had not been held
by TVNZ pending the outcome of the complaint. She reiterated her
earlier complaint, adding her contention that Programme Rules
1.1 (g) and 5.1 (b) did apply in these circumstances. She said several
good documentaries on the Middle East had been produced but not
purchased or shown by TVNZ, that the BBC appeared able to obtain
information from wider sources in the Middle East and the BCNZ
should consult more widely. Ms Frey said the Palestine Human
Rights Campaign lodged a number of formal complaints because
TVNZ was not accurate, objective or impartial with regard to the
Middle East.