Search

And yes of course it’s important, and yes he’s the leader of the National Party but we are getting the message, stay at home, if you can work from home you should do so and as you say it comes after David Clark the Health Minister has been told off for not following the rules either and going on a mountain bike and he is yet to publicly apologise for that.

Two items on 21 and 22 May 2020 comprised interviews with Mr Hooton about the National Party leadership contest at that time, following which an item on 24 May 2020 discussed the emergence of Mr Hooton’s conflict of interest in this regard. The complaint was the 21 and 22 May items failed to disclose the conflict and the 24 May item failed to address it adequately.

Although Mr Peters did not answer the questions put to him, he referred to this ‘trend’ being started by the National Party which had taken ‘countless’ people there in the ‘hope that one day soon in the future, when we do need business funding then we can go to the public of this country…’.

The first complaint related to a segment on the Five O’Clock Report which featured an interview with National Party MP Mark Mitchell. The second complaint related to a segment on the Morning Report featuring an interview with then leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges. Robert Terry complained that the Five O’Clock Report segment contained biased coverage and that the Morning Report segment required balance.

She challenged him about the spread of ‘misinformation’ by National Party MPs, specifically in relation to a tweet by Chris Penk, including referring to it as ‘fake news’:SF: Are you going to be exerting any control over your MPs that are spreading misinformation about this?

(David Bennett, National Party Corrections spokesperson) As we noted in relation to Mr Garrett’s complaint on this topic addressed in Decision No. 2019-079, the standard clearly recognises that balance is not achieved by a ‘stopwatch’; in other words, alternative perspectives do not have to be given equal broadcast time to satisfy the requirements of the standard.6 Although Mr Bennett’s statement was brief, it clearly presented an opposing view, from his perspective as the National Party’s spokesperson

The following morning, the National Party’s Corrections spokesperson David Bennett was interviewed on Morning Report about why the National Party was critical of the strategy. The complaint was that the interview with Sir Kim and Ms Whaipooti was unbalanced and one-sided.

Mr Gower also discussed National Party Leader Simon Bridges’ position on the Global Pact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (the Pact) and comment from Martin Sellner, leader of the Austrian far-right group Identitäre Bewegung Österreich (Identitarian Movement of Austria), supporting Mr Bridges’ position was also included.

Mr Borrows, former National Party MP and Chair of Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora, spoke about the Report’s findings regarding the ongoing effects of colonisation on the justice system and the need for ‘transformational change’ to the system. Host Corin Dann raised the ‘three strikes’ law asking whether it should be repealed. Mr Borrows said ‘everyone we heard who was talking about three strikes thought it should go, so that’s a common theme across the middle of the political spectrum.’

Party Senate candidate showed blurred footage of the candidate in a strip club with a voiceover saying ‘Steve Dickson was filmed groping a woman at a Washington DC strip club.’[2] The item was broadcast at 6:00pm on 1 May 2019 on TVNZ 1.

Party leader Simon Bridges and Mayor of Auckland Phil Goff, as well as members of the public, who had differing opinions regarding the proposed tax.

The Authority found the item was unlikely to mislead or misinform audiences, as it contained comments from various parties including a DOC representative, an anti-1080 campaigner and a National Party MP.

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision.]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana.

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision.]An item on Nine to Noon featured an interview with RNZ’s US Correspondent regarding recent political events in the United States, including a brief discussion of the controversy surrounding the Democratic National Party and the release of American political strategist and campaign manager Donna Brazile’s book, Hacks. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this discussion was unbalanced and misleading.

The report also included comment from Labour Party Leader Jacinda Ardern, National Party Leader Bill English, ACT Party Leader David Seymour, and in-studio analysis from the political reporter. Our analysis[11] A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision.]An item on Newshub by political editor Patrick Gower reported on National Party Leader Bill English’s claim that the Labour Party would raise income tax if they won the 2017 General Election. Mr Gower stated that the National Party was ‘deliberately spreading misinformation’ about Labour’s income tax policy. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Gower deliberately misled the public prior to the election.

Party treated unfairly?

The standard exists to ensure that competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.The parties’ submissions[6] Mr Boyce submitted:The host’s introduction implied that the interviewee was an independent political commentator, which was misleading as, in the complainant’s view, she is not independent but is associated with a National Party MP and is a National Party activist, which amounted to a conflict of interest.

There were no facts presented to verify either the statements that Labour was going to introduce these, or to support the view they are bad for New Zealand. [11] The National Party submitted:Viewers of the advertisement would be under no misapprehension that this was a political campaign advertisement (evidenced by the advertisement’s authorisation and National Party vote message). The purpose of the campaign advertisement was to highlight National Party policy compared to Labour.