Casino Control Authority and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1994-042
- I W Gallaway (Chair)
- R A Barraclough
- L M Dawson
- J R Morris
- Casino Control Authority (CCA)
ProgrammeMana Maori News
BroadcasterRadio New Zealand Ltd
A report on events at a Casino Control Authority hearing in Auckland on 3 November
1993 was broadcast on Mana Maori News on 22 November at 6.37am.
The Casino Control Authority, through its legal adviser, complained to Radio New Zealand
Ltd that the broadcast was in breach of broadcasting standards because it contained
inaccuracies, failed to deal justly and fairly with the Casino Control Authority and was
lacking in balance.
In response, RNZ noted first that the broadcast was supplied to it by Mana Maori News as
a complete package. Rejecting all the allegations of factual inaccuracy except for one, RNZ
pointed out that the comments were correctly attributed to their source and that there
was no editorial endorsement of what was said. It upheld the complaint that one
statement was not an accurate summary of events, that the item treated members of the
Casino Control Authority unfairly and breached the standard requiring balance as the
reported statements were not referred to the Casino Control Authority for comment. RNZ
reported that it had warned Mana Maori Media in writing of its concern about the
breaches of standards which had occurred and drawn attention to the consequences of
such breaches. It advised the complainant that in its view, the broadcast of an apology
months later would be self-defeating. Dissatisfied with that response, the Casino Control
Authority referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a)
of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
For the reasons given below, the Authority upheld the complaint that the action taken by
Radio New Zealand was insufficient. It ordered the broadcast of a summary of this
The members of the Authority have listened to the tape of the item complained about and
read the transcript and the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its
practice, the Authority determined the complaint without a formal hearing.
An item broadcast on Mana Maori News at 6.37am on 22 November 1993 reported on
an incident which occurred at a Casino Control Authority (CCA) hearing nineteen days
earlier when a Ngati Whatua elder, prior to making a submission, offered a greeting in
Maori. According to the Mana News report, he was told by one of its members to speak in
English or to sit down. Accusations about the CCA's cultural insensitivity and racism were
made during the broadcast by Manu Paul, who also suggested that the membership of the
CCA should be reviewed because both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman had a conflict
of interest arising out of their other business activities.
In the view of the CCA, the news report was an inaccurate account of the actual events,
and was unfair to the CCA and its members. It identified three statements in the item
which it believed breached broadcasting standards. The first was the report that an elder
was told either to speak in English or sit down, which the CCA described as a particularly
serious inaccuracy and unfair to the members of the CCA. Explaining the circumstances
surrounding the incident, the CCA reported that the matter was satisfactorily resolved at
the time and provided transcripts of the hearing proceedings where the incident was
The second statement complained about was the allegation that members of the Authority
had displayed blatant racism and were unfit to hold their positions because they were
culturally ignorant, and the third statement was the allegation that the Chairman and
Deputy Chairman had a conflict of interest and should not decide on applications for the
Auckland licence. The CCA submitted that RNZ be required to publish a statement
correcting the misleading information contained in the report and apologise to its
In its response, RNZ reported that it had assessed the complaint under a number of
standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice identified by the CCA as having been
breached. Those standards (now renumbered) require broadcasters:
R1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs
R5 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any
R7 To respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha in New
Zealand society in actively seeking a balanced contribution and views on
matters relating to that partnership.
R9 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters,
current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature, making
reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same
programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
The standards which apply particularly to news broadcasts read:
R16 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.
R21 It shall be the responsibility of each station to be fair in the allocation of
time to interested parties in controversial public issues. In exercising this
responsibility a station will take into account the news value of the
viewpoints offered and previous allotment of air time.
In addition, section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 was cited. That section reads:
4(1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its programmes and
their presentation, standards which are consistent with –
(d) The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are
discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities
are given, to present significant points of view either in the same
programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
At the outset, RNZ explained that Mana Maori News was provided to National Radio as a
complete package under a contractual agreement. It then examined the standards raised
by the CCA, reporting that it had determined that three of the standards raised were
superfluous. Those included standard R21, which it considered was fully represented by
standard R9 and s.4(1)(d) and standard R16 which it decided was subsumed within
standards R1, R5 and R9. With respect to the old standard 5.1 cited by the CCA, RNZ
observed that this requirement was now a broad summary statement in the preamble to
the News and Current Affairs standards and it did not therefore consider it necessary to
make a ruling on it.
In its analysis of the CCA complaint that the broadcast was factually inaccurate, RNZ
argued that the complaint confused the factual report of attributed opinion with editorial
presentation of opinion as if it were a statement of fact. It pointed out that whether the
statement or opinion was wrong or not, if the information was reported correctly, there
could be no question of factual inaccuracy, although, it noted, the question of fair
opportunity to respond may arise. Accordingly, RNZ rejected all the CCA's allegations of
factual inaccuracy in the report except for one. It maintained that in each case, with the
one exception, what was reported was an attributed statement or opinion and there was
no editorial endorsement of what was reported.
RNZ identified one statement in the broadcast which could have been interpreted by the
listener as being a factual report of an incident at the hearing and advised that a majority
of its Complaints Committee concluded that the statement was not an accurate summary
of events. Accordingly, RNZ advised that it upheld the complaint that one statement was
in breach of standard R1 because it was factually inaccurate.
With respect to the CCA's submission that standards R5, R9 and s.4(1)(d) had been
breached, RNZ acknowledged that because no attempt had been made to refer the story as
a whole for comment to the CCA or its members, nor to refer the allegation of conflict of
interest, accurately reported as the opinion of Manu Paul, to either the Chairman or
Deputy Chairman for comment, a breach of standards had occurred. RNZ reported that it
upheld the complaint that standards R5, R9 and s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
were breached because the CCA was not given the opportunity to comment on the
In its referral to the Authority, the CCA complained that it was not satisfied with RNZ's
decision. First, the CCA was dissatisfied that in reaching its decision, the Complaints
Committee of RNZ had acted upon a report from Mana Maori News which had not been
referred to the CCA for comment. The CCA argued that since it was not privy to the
information upon which the Committee acted, nor to the terms of the contract between
Mana Maori News and RNZ, nor to the statutory and contractual obligations brought to
the attention of the programme producers, it was difficult to comment on the
appropriateness of the action taken by RNZ.
To this argument RNZ responded that there was no legal obligation for the broadcaster to
refer to the complainant the reports and comments which were received by the
The Authority observed that RNZ was entitled to adopt its own procedures for determining
a complaint and was under no obligation to provide material it sought to the complainant.
Further, it agreed with RNZ that it was under no obligation to reveal the details of the
contractual arrangements between itself and Mana Maori News.
Secondly, the CCA challenged the basis upon which a minority of the Complaints
Committee was able to reach the conclusion that the reporter's description of the incident
with Mr Wikiriwhi was factually correct. The CCA noted that it had not been given the
opportunity to comment on the evidence or other information upon which RNZ's
Complaints Committee relied in reaching its conclusion.
RNZ responded that the error in the item lay in its report of the incident as an apparent
report of a fact and it was this that was found to be in breach of standard R1. Making the
distinction between the reporting of a statement accurately attributed and a report of a
statement as fact, RNZ repeated its argument that it was legitimate for the opinion to be
reported but only if it was clearly attributed to its source.
The Authority was of the view that it was irrelevant that the decision of the Complaints
Committee was not unanimous since the effect was that this aspect of the complaint was
upheld. Further, the Authority accepted, on this occasion, RNZ's explanation that it was
entitled to report controversial opinions, accurate or otherwise, so long as they were
accurately attributed. The Authority believed that RNZ had correctly upheld this aspect of
the complaint since it was unclear that the remarks were opinions only.
Finally, the CCA complained that the action taken by RNZ, having upheld most aspects of
the complaint, was not sufficient. It submitted that an appropriate remedy would be to
require the broadcaster to publish a statement summarising the decision of the Complaints
Committee, correcting the misleading information contained in the report and apologising
to the members of the CCA.
RNZ acknowledged to the CCA that while the material was prepared and supplied by an
outside organisation it was responsible for the material as broadcaster and offered its
apologies. It suggested however that the broadcast of any form of apology would be self-
defeating since it would be necessary to revive and explain the whole matter for any
apology to make sense to listeners. In its view, this would do more harm than good. RNZ
also offered the opinion that since some two weeks elapsed between the date of the
broadcast and the filing of the formal complaint, it concluded that there was no urgency
to its decision and further, that the efficacy of an apology, should it be justified, was also
diminished by the delay.
The CCA argued that even if RNZ could not order Mana Maori News to broadcast an
apology, then it could have done so itself. It wrote:
The most practical remedial action that can be taken, from the point of view of the
[CCA] Authority and members of the wider public, is to order the broadcast of an
explanatory statement and apology at a time when they would be most likely to
reach members of the audience of the original broadcast.
The CCA also took issue with RNZ's interpretation that the delay between the date of the
broadcast and the filing of the complaint indicated that the matter lacked urgency. It
observed that RNZ's response to the formal complaint was not received until 18 February
1994, over two months after the complaint was filed.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority did not accept RNZ's argument that an apology
would be self-defeating, noting that it had been expressly requested by the CCA as a
remedy. While the Authority acknowledged the lengthy delay between the date of the
broadcast and the broadcast of any apology, it nevertheless considered it was important to
publicly correct statements that were factually incorrect, especially when they reflect on
the integrity of named individuals.
For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that
Radio New Zealand's action, having upheld the complaint, was not sufficient.
The Authority declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.
Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) of the
Broadcasting Act 1989. Because of the failure to obtain any balancing comment from the
Casino Control Authority the Authority has decided to impose an order on this occasion.
Pursuant to s.13(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders
Radio New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a brief summary of this decision,
approved by the Authority. The statement shall be broadcast during Mana
Maori News within 14 days of the date of this decision.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
23 June 1994
Casino Control Authority's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited
In a letter dated 8 December 1993 Ms Kristina Muller, on behalf of the Casino Control
Authority, complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of an item on Mana
News on 22 November 1993 at 6.37am.
The Casino Control Authority objected to allegations made against it in the programme
which it claimed were not only untrue but also unfair to the Casino Control Authority
and those members referred to in the programme. It maintained that RNZ had failed to
preserve the respect the public has for the integrity of news services because it had not
presented the information accurately, objectively and impartially and had not given the
Casino Control Authority an opportunity to comment on the allegations.
The Casino Control Authority identified three statements in the item which it believed were
in breach of broadcasting standards. The first was the report that when a tribal elder
stood to give a Maori greeting to the Authority he was told by one of its members to speak
English or to sit down. The second was the allegation that members of the Authority had
displayed blatant racism and were unfit to hold their positions because they were
culturally ignorant. The third allegation was that the Chairman and the Deputy
Chairman of the Casino Control Authority each had a conflict of interest and should not
decide on applications for the Auckland licence.
The complainant included a copy of the transcript of the programme, a transcript of the
Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board's submission, given by Mr Wikiriwhi to the
Casino Control Authority, a summary of the events which occurred at the public
submission hearing and a statement by the Chairman of the Casino Control Authority
regarding the report on Mana Maori News.
RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint
RNZ advised the Casino Control Authority of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter
dated 15 February 1994. It explained that in reaching its decision, it had before it all of
the material supplied by the Casino Control Authority referred to above and in addition a
report from the Managing Director of Mana Maori News.
At the outset, RNZ explained that Mana Maori News was supplied to National Radio under
contract between Mana News and New Zealand Public Radio Ltd. It then reported that it
had reconciled the standards cited with the recently renumbered Code of Practice and that
it had eliminated standards which it considered were either redundant or duplicated
elsewhere. Eliminating standard R21 from consideration, RNZ noted that it believed that
standard applied to live broadcasts and not to a single structured bulletin piece, but that
the basic issue of fair opportunity still remained and that this was addressed under
standard R9 and section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. With reference to
standard R16, RNZ argued that its requirements were effectively subsumed within
standards R1, R2 and R9 and that therefore no ruling was called for on standard R16.
Finally it reported on its interpretation of the old standard 5.1 which was now included in
the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice as a broad summary statement under the News
and Current Affairs heading. Accordingly, it decided it was not necessary to make a ruling
concerning public respect specifically.
Rejecting all of the allegations of factual inaccuracy, except for one, RNZ argued that in all
the other cases, what was reported was a statement or opinion attributed to a source and
that there was no editorial endorsement of what was reported. It added:
The statements and/or opinions are clearly presented as those made or held by
named organisations or persons, not as statements endorsed by the broadcasters as
Pointing to the introduction to the item, RNZ noted that there were two statements of
editorial fact; one that the New Zealand Maori Council and the Ngati Whatua O Orakei
Maori Trust Board were to take action against the Authority; and the second that the
action was to be taken over allegations of racism. It noted that the introduction stated
that racism had been alleged but was not stated as a fact. Accordingly, it did not uphold
the complaint that these statements were factually inaccurate, noting that they were
statements made by others and accurately reported as such.
RNZ then considered the two other issues raised by the Casino Control Authority. The first
was the report that a tribal elder stood to give a Maori greeting to the Authority and was
told by one of the members to speak in English or sit down. According to RNZ, this was a
statement offered as a report of fact by the reporter and not a report of an attributed
opinion. However, RNZ considered that despite accepting the Chairman's explanation of
the incident, Ngati Whatua held the view that the Authority displayed a culturally unsafe
approach and had offered a serious insult by displaying ignorance and by interrupting.
RNZ explained that Ngati Whatua felt that by interrupting an elder, the Authority had, in
Maori idiom "sat him down".
In RNZ's view, the condensed report of the incident departed from the facts and although
it was justifiable in the context to use the term "sit down", it was clear that Mr Wikiriwhi
had not been told to speak English. He had been asked whether he was intending to
provide a translation for the record, which, according to RNZ may well have been
interpreted by Ngati Whatua as being told to speak English.
RNZ reported that its Complaints Committee was divided on this issue - some felt that it
was justified to report the Maori interpretation, while others felt that this statement was
presented as an editorial fact and was therefore not accurate.
On balance, RNZ upheld that this aspect of the report was inaccurate. In reaching that
conclusion, it reported that it took into account the fact that the programme is intended to
reach a significant Pakeha audience who would not necessarily be aware of the
connotations of the statement.
A second aspect upheld by RNZ was that Mana Maori News reporters had omitted to seek
comment from the Authority on the issues raised, and had not referred the allegation of
conflict of interest to either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman.
RNZ reported that the action it had taken as a consequence of upholding part of the
formal complaint was to warn Mana Maori News in writing of its concern at the breaches
of basic standards which had occurred and to draw attention to the contract penalty
clauses which such lapses bring into operation. Although the broadcast was supplied by an
outside organisation, RNZ acknowledged its responsibility as broadcaster and offered its
RNZ suggested that the broadcasting of any form of apology would be self-defeating,
pointing out that much had occurred since the date of the broadcast and it would be
necessary to revive and explain the whole matter for any apology to make sense to radio
Casino Control Authority's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards
Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, in a letter dated 18 March 1994, the Casino Control
Authority, through its chairman, referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards
Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
The Casino Control Authority identified three aspects of the decision with which it was
dissatisfied. The first was that RNZ had received and acted upon a report from the
Manager of Mana Maori News which had not been referred to the Casino Control
Authority for comment. The second was that the Casino Control Authority had not been
given the opportunity to comment on any evidence or other information upon which RNZ
could have reached its conclusion that there was a Maori viewpoint on the statement that
the elder was asked to speak in English or sit down. Finally, it recorded that it was
dissatisfied with the outcome of the decision.
The Casino Control Authority noted that since the broadcast of the item a number of
listeners had formed a derogatory view of the Authority because of the inaccuracies
contained in the report and the failure to allow the Authority to respond. It maintained
that this was a matter of great concern and submitted that the action taken by RNZ was
unreasonable in the circumstances.
Of particular concern to the Casino Control Authority was that RNZ appeared to regard
the fact that the programme was prepared under contract as a factor which mitigated the
breaches of basic standards. It argued that this was irrelevant.
Responding to RNZ's argument that questions of factual inaccuracy are not relevant so
long as statements are accurately attributed, the Casino Control Authority argued that it
was therefore even more important for the broadcaster to give it the opportunity to
respond to the statements and that the failure of RNZ to do so was a matter of some
consequence. It pointed out that listeners may well not fully appreciate the distinction
between statements of third parties and those for which the broadcaster will accept
In conclusion, the Casino Control Authority submitted that it believed it was appropriate
that the broadcaster be required to broadcast a statement summarising the decision of the
Complaints Committee, correcting the misleading information contained in the broadcast
and apologising to members of the Casino Control Authority.
RNZ's Response to the Authority
As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its
letter is dated 21 March 1994, and RNZ's reply, 24 March.
RNZ summarised its response to the complaint, noting that it had upheld two aspects of
the complaint and did not uphold allegations of factual inaccuracy with respect to
statements which were properly attributed. It explained that it had not intended to excuse
the breaches by pointing out that Mana News was supplied by an outside contractor.
Responding to points raised by the Casino Control Authority, RNZ recorded:
1 Nothing in the formal complaints process requires a broadcaster to make available
reports it has obtained in the course of investigating a formal complaint.
2 It did not conclude that the reporter's statement about the incident was factually
correct. On the contrary, it recognised that the statement may well encapsulate a
Maori view of the incident, but because it was not attributed as such it came across
as a factual report which was not accurate.
3 It was under no obligation to refer the report received by RNZ from the Manager
of Mana Maori News to the Casino Control Authority.
4 There was no intention to excuse the breaches by noting there is a contractual
relationship between RNZ and Mana Maori News.
5 Provided the report of a statement is accurate, and is clearly attributed, the content
of the statement is immaterial to the accuracy of the reporting. RNZ disagreed
with the Casino Control Authority's contention that the audience was not likely to
distinguish between reported statements and editorial statements.
6 It was a basic journalistic ethic to broadcast a balancing response and RNZ had
obtained specific information from the programme producers on this point and
drew their attention to the statutory and contractual obligations to do so. It
reiterated that since RNZ staff were not responsible for the breaches, the only
significant remedial action available was to take action under the contract of
As a final comment, RNZ noted that its experience suggested that an explanatory
broadcast often exacerbated matters. In a postscript it noted that fourteen days had
elapsed between the date of the broadcast and when the complaint was received and
observed that in radio news terms, fourteen days was a long gap.
Casino Control Authority's Final Comment to the Authority
When asked for a brief final comment in response, in a letter dated 11 April 1994, the
Casino Control Authority, through its legal advisor, challenged some of the points made by
The Casino Control Authority argued that in the interests of natural justice it should have
been given the opportunity to comment on what the producer of the programme said
about the item, particularly since RNZ's Complaints Committee was obviously influenced
by the producer's report, both in adjudicating on the substance of the complaint and in
determining the outcome.
Referring to RNZ's discussion and analysis of the allegation of racism, the Casino Control
Authority explained that it had difficulty in following RNZ's reasoning and expressed
concern about some of its findings. The sentence in the item complained about was:
At a recent casino hearing tribal elder Doc Wikiriwhi stood to do a Maori greeting
to the Authority and was told by one of its members to speak English or sit down.
The Casino Control Authority observed that although the majority had upheld the
complaint that the statement was factually inaccurate, it challenged RNZ's contention that
it was justifiable in the context to use the term "sit down". While noting that an
explanation was given in the report by the producer to RNZ's Complaints Committee, the
Casino Control Authority contended that the report should have been shown to it for
The second point was that the report stated as a fact that Mr Wikiriwhi had been told to
speak English. The Casino Control Authority observed that it had no opportunity to
respond to RNZ's explanation that it was justifiable to report this as it was the
interpretation of the Maori point of view. The Casino Control Authority submitted that
RNZ should not have relied on information on which the complainant had no opportunity
The Casino Control Authority reiterated its point that listeners may not appreciate the
distinction between reported statements of third parties and editorial statements, and
noted that RNZ itself had acknowledged there was such confusion. In response to RNZ's
argument that provided it reports a third party's statement accurately, it is not responsible
for the accuracy of its contents, the Casino Control Authority maintained that that made
it all the more important that persons impugned in such statements be given a fair
opportunity to respond. Further, it argued that if such an opportunity was not given at
the time of the broadcast, a public explanation and apology would be the only appropriate
form of redress.
Noting that RNZ had taken action by drawing attention to the programme makers and
producers the terms of the statutory and contractual obligations between itself and Mana
Maori News, the Casino Control Authority reported that since it was not privy to the terms
of the agreements between the parties, it was unable to determine whether or not the
action taken was appropriate. However, the Casino Control Authority submitted that it
was not the only remedial action open to RNZ. It argued that if RNZ could not compel
Mana News to make an apology then it could have done so itself. It continued:
The major source of damage to the Authority was the impression that the
broadcast would have created upon the minds of the Mana News audience - an
impression resulting from the inaccuracy of the reporter's statement of "fact",
coupled with the reported allegations by third parties against the Authority based
on that statement, compounded by the omission to refer any of this to the
Authority for comment. Members of the audience will not be aware of whatever
action Radio New Zealand might have taken under its contract with Mana Maori
News. The most practical remedial action that can be taken, from the point of view
of the Authority and members of the wider public, is to order the broadcast of an
explanatory statement and apology at a time when they would be most likely to
reach members of the audience of the original broadcast.
Responding to RNZ's point that in the context of whether or not an apology might be
appropriate it should be noted that there was a two week lapse between the date of the
broadcast and the receipt of the formal complaint, the Casino Control Authority
commented that the reason for the delay in filing the complaint was that the Authority
was, at the time of the broadcast, involved in hearings for the Auckland casino licence.
Furthermore, it noted that RNZ's response was not received until 18 February 1994, over
two months after the complaint was filed.
RNZ's Response to the Final Comment
In a letter dated 13 April 1994, RNZ commented that the complainant's comments raised
matters not controlled by the programme standards and were beyond the province of the
In particular, it argued that the broadcaster was under no obligation to refer to the
complainant reports and comments solicited by it to assist in determination of the
complaint. RNZ added that it believed a complainant was entitled to an explanation of
how it made its determination and always attempted to do so clearly.
Clarifying the point about the reported incident, RNZ explained that it examined the
"Maori version" of the incident and recognised that:
(i) the interruption of an elder in the middle of his greeting in a formal context
is regarded more seriously by Maori than by Pakeha; to the Maori it is a
deep insult, scarcely excused by the nature of the speech, an ignorance felt
to be an insult on its own: and
(ii) the significance which the idiom "sit him down" (the verb being used
transitively in this explanation) can have in Maori thinking, ie to shut him
up in full ceremonial flight - again, an insult.
The Maori people have a right to hold and express this opinion.
Where the error in the item lay was in its presentation as an apparent report of a
fact, and it was this that the Committee found to be a breach.
RNZ repeated that it was under no obligation to make available reports it had obtained or
details of commercial contracts to a complainant.
In response to the Casino Control Authority's comments about the lapse of time between
the date of the broadcast and the receipt by RNZ of the formal complaint, RNZ pointed out
that it only made the point to make clear that in terms of radio broadcasting, a long time
had elapsed. It justified the length of time it took to make its response, noting that it was
done within just over half of the allowable statutory time and that the length of time
elapsed was not unreasonable.
Finally, RNZ argued that having put to one side matters on which there are no
programme standards, the only matter which the complainant can refer for review is the
action taken. It maintained that a broadcast apology was not useful after such a long
delay. Secondly, disciplinary action could not be taken because the programme was
produced by a separate company under contract to RNZ. However, RNZ noted that it
detailed in writing the two lapses in the broadcast and reminded Mana Maori News of the
consequences of a further breach of programme standards. It added that if stressed the
failure to refer to principals for balancing comment was particularly serious.