Broadcasting time draws complaints from three parties

Press, 22 June 1984, Page 3

Broadcasting time draws complaints from three parties

By

MICHAEL HANNAH

in Wellington

Three political parties are lodging complaints against the allocation of free television and radio time in the General Election campaign, one of them, the Values Party, saying the allocations have “rigged the election result.”

The New Zealand Party is preparing a “detailed” complaint, which it expects to lodge “in the next day or so,” according to its president, Mr Malcolm McDonald.

Social Credit has already lodged a formal complaint, as has the Values Party, which was given no free time. Values has also said that it received 20 minutes of free time in the 1981 election campaign, yet it fielded fewer candidates then than the 25 candidates standing this year. The New Zealand Party expects its complaint to be dealt with before Monday evening, when the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, opens National’s campaign using free television and radio time. The New Zealand Party is still threatening High Court action seeking a review of the time allocations. Mr McDonald told “The Press” yesterday that the New Zealand Party was preparing a “detailed, researched, and considered” submission to the corporation.

He criticised two of the criteria on which the time was assessed, namely that the party’s time would be

related to previous voting patterns and to its representation in Parliament, neither of which the New Zealand Party met. “Those criteria are illogical anyway,” Mr McDonald said. “Surely that has the effect of precluding a new party such as ours from adequate television time.”

He also noted that the party had received time equal to 43 per cent of the time allocated to either National or Labour, and equal to 14 per cent of the total time allocated to all four parties. This compared with figures in the 1975 election campaign showing that Social Credit got time equal to 56 per cent of the time given to National or Labour, and equal to 18 per cent of the total time allocated; while Values got time matching 43 per cent of National’s or Labour’s time and 14 per cent of the total time.

In 1978, Social Credit’s time was equivalent to 67 per cent of National’s or Labour’s, and 20 per cent of the total time; Values had time equal to 61 per cent of National’s or Labour’s, and 18 per cent of the total time.

Mr McDonald said that in the 1981 election National, Labour and Social Credit got equal time, and Values “virtually didn’t exist.” Commenting on this year’s allocations, he said, “If that is not a gross inequality of television time, then we don’t know what is.”

Social Credit’s Dominion secretary, Mr Bob Stephenson, also lodged a formal complaint yesterday, saying its allocation of less time than National and Labour received was “undemocratic” and put Social Credit “at a serious disadvantage.” Social Credit was effectively handicapped on the most important area of communicating with the country and the use of the most powerful medium to do so, Mr Stephenson said in a letter to the Broadcasting Corporation.

“The situation is rather like that of a horse race where those that have never won start off the back mark whilst proven winners start from the front,” he said.

Mr Stephenson said there were many factors in the electoral system which made it extremely difficult for a third party to obtain fair representation. He accused the corporation of working to perpetuate a two-party system of government.

He asked that Social Credit’s time of 80 minutes be increased to match the 115 minutes allocated to National and Labour.

The president of the Values Party, Mr Barry Cresswell, said that the election stood condemned as “rigged in favour of National and Labour if the time allocations were allowed to remain.” Mr Cresswell asserted that the Broadcasting Corporation was required to give equal opportunity to all candidates, and to all political parties to present their policies to the electorate. “We do not accept that the corporation is entitled to prejudge the result of the election either by following public opinion polls or by extrapolating the results of previous elections,” he said. The popularity of the parties was not for the corporation to decide. The only acceptable way of determining free time was that bona fide parties were allocated time in proportion to the number of electorates in which their candidates were standing. “Anything less than this is a decisive interference in the electoral system,” Mr Cresswell said.

He also argued that the criteria related to voting support and members of Parliament were irrelevant, while other criteria only served to identify bona fide parties. Values was given 20 minutes of time in 1981, when it fielded 17 candidates, while in the present election, 25 candidates were standing, yet no time was given to Values.

“Even by its own criteria, the decision by the Broadcasting Corporation to exclude the Values Party is intolerable,” Mr Cresswell said.

“No explanation was given for this arbitrary reversal of policy. We can only believe that we are the victims of a deliberate attempt to destroy the minor parties.”