1634
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 52

And further:

“We are concerned that there is . . . no regular procedure for ensuring objectivity and impartiality in the treatment of overseas controversial issues. It should be possible to detect undesirable trends in coverage and to take positive steps to redress balance when necessary.”

The Tribunal said then in relation to coverage of Northern Ireland:

“We are satisfied that there is no censorship or particular emphasis in television programming intended to show a distorted view of the Irish situation. At the same time we are concerned that proper steps be taken by television to monitor its own news and current affairs activities and to ensure that should such criticism be made in the future, it will be possible to determine whether or not the coverage has been fair and balanced because television editors have been taking the necessary steps to see that it is.”

Much time has elapsed since 1979, but the BCNZ submissions relating to the current complaint reveal no evidence that the Editor of Eyewitness News in August was aware that a considerable portion of the programme had been previously broadcast in April by TVNZ Current Affairs, nor whether “reasonable efforts” had been made to represent significant points of view within the period of current interest.

The Tribunal is in no position to set itself up as an authority on the reporting of conflict in the Middle East but neither, it appears, is the Corporation. In the circumstances it has a legislative obligation to act as more than a passive client of overseas news agencies.

We refer the BCNZ to the Tribunal’s comments in Decision 6/79. The Corporation should seek assurance from its responsible news and current affairs offices that these matters will be incorporated in their procedures. Failure to do so is likely to cause recurrent unsatisfactory treatment of major issues.

We also refer to the Rules Committee the need for adequate recordings of news and current affairs programmes to be held for a reasonable period.

Rule 8.2 requires only the keeping of sound recordings for a period of 14 days, except on some occasions when a videotape may allow a programme to be more properly evaluated.

The rule appears to have remained unchanged despite the widespread use and availability of relatively low cost ½ inch video formats.

In this case, the Tribunal should have received from the Corporation a recording of the programme complained of. The complaint appears to have been lodged promptly and that should have led to the retention of the programme recording. Fortunately we were able to obtain one elsewhere.

The Tribunal considers that the Rules Committee should review Rule 8.2 and set out a revised rule and guidelines.

Co-Opted Members:

The Tribunal co-opted Messrs Brian E. Stephenson and Hiwi Tauroa as persons whose qualifications and experience were likely to be of assistance in dealing with this complaint. They took part in the deliberations of the Tribunal but the decision, in accordance with the Act, is that of the permanent members.

Signed for the Tribunal.

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Exclusive Australian Wine Quota—Tendering of Additional Quota—No. 2

Dated at Wellington this 31st day of March 1987.

M. J. BELGRAVE, Comptroller of Customs.

Applications for Plant Selectors’ Rights Notice (No. 4021: Ag. P.V. 3/2)

Pursuant to section 11 of the Plant Varieties Act 1973, notice is hereby given that applications for grants of Plant Selectors’ Rights as specified in the Schedule hereto, have been received by the Registrar of Plant Varieties. Protective Direction has not been applied for. If it is considered that any interested person will be unfairly affected by the applications, that person may lodge an objection with the Registrar within 2 months from the date of this Gazette. Objections must comply with section 19 of the Plant Varieties Act 1973.

SCHEDULE

SPECIES: ROSE (Rosa L.)

Dated at Lincoln this 26th day of March 1987.

F. W. WHITMORE, Registrar of Plant Varieties.