infonews.co.nz
INDEX
POLITICS

National's political interference distorts NZ broadcasting

Labour Party

Friday 20 January 2012, 2:00PM

By Labour Party

156 views

Two National Party office holders are implicated in the NZ on Air controversy, suggesting political interference is ‘alive and sick’ at the country’s public broadcasting funding agency, says Labour’s Broadcasting spokesperson Clare Curran.

“Suggestions that publicly funded programmes should not be aired during an election campaign reveal serious cracks in our democratic process and must be resisted,” Clare Curran said.

John Key’s electorate chairman and deputy chairman at NZ on Air, Stephen McElrea, raised the issue with the board chair and CEO after a complaint was made by a National Party board member, Alastair Bell.

“John Key must front up and answer questions about whether he spoke to his electorate chairman about the complaint before it was laid. Was he kept in the loop about the decision to pursue legal advice to shut down political debate about controversial issues before an election? And was Stephen McElrea acting as a NZ on Air board member or as an official of the National Party?

“Now today we have National Party pollster and right wing commentator David Farrar suggesting that it would be perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.

“The fallout of such a draconian move could affect Radio NZ and TVNZ, which is a Crown entity,” Clare Curran said.

“The NZ on Air controversy follows on from ‘the John Key show’ where the Prime Minister received an hour’s free publicity on Radio Live as a host, and the debacle over the teapot tapes. The incidents aren’t related, but taken together paint a picture of a Party steadily building a reputation for media manipulation.

“More than a storm in a teacup, these events strongly hint at a situation where the National Party’s political influence is distorting broadcasting in New Zealand.

“The irony is, NZ on Air has now compromised its own political neutrality and raised questions about whether its decision-making is driven by fear of upsetting its political masters,” Clare Curran said.