BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The claim that the number of New Zealanders facing a housing crisis was growing

despite government spending was covered in an item on 3 National News broadcast

between 6.00–7.00pm on 10 January 1995. The item included an interview with a

woman who had been evicted that day from her Housing New Zealand home with rent

arrears in excess of $5000.

The Minister of Housing (Hon Murray McCully) complained to TV3 Network

Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that while the woman interviewed had been approached

on the basis that her problem was one of affordability, she had not been asked about

the Accommodation Supplement which she had been receiving for several months.

Consequently, he wrote, the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair.

Accepting that the person portrayed might not have been the best example of an

affordability problem with regard to housing, TV3 said that she had nonetheless

spoken of financial pressures. Dissatisfied with TV3's response, the Minister

referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, a majority of the Authority upheld the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

In a letter addressed to TV3's Director of News, the Minister of Housing (Hon

Murray McCully) complained about a news item reporting the eviction of a Housing

New Zealand tenant from her home in Orakei. The item had stated that the tenant had

been evicted because she had not paid any rent since August 1994 and the arrears

amounted to $5,000. The tenant had been used to illustrate what the item described as

the growing housing crisis in New Zealand.

However, the Minister wrote, the reporter had not referred to or asked the tenant

about the Accommodation Supplement she had been receiving since August to assist

with the payment of the rent. Accordingly, because of what the Minister described as

the reporter's "deliberate action", the tenant's case had been misrepresented and a

correction was appropriate.

In addition, the Minister considered, the item to be not only "sloppy journalism" but

a breach of standards G6, G4 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. He also quoted an extract from the item on TVNZ's One Network News

about the same matter which referred to disputes between Housing New Zealand and

a number of Maori tenants to show that TV3's reporter was either unaware of the

relevant details or had deliberately ignored them to make the eviction fit her story.

In his response to the Minister, TV3's Director of News and Current Affairs did not

cite any standards. He disputed the contention that the tenant's situation had been

deliberately misrepresented. The reporter, he wrote, had not asked about the

Accommodation Supplement as it "simply did not occur to her to ask the question".

Such a question, he added, might not have changed the tenant's claim that she could

not afford to pay the rent and could have raised privacy issues. He concluded:

[This tenant] may not have been the ideal case to illustrate the finding that

13,000 families are living in homes that they can not afford to rent, but I do

not believe the story breaches any of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice or

warrants any correction or apology.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, the Minister maintained that it was

neither balanced, accurate nor fair. That had occurred, he continued, as the tenant had

been used as an illustration of affordability problems facing 13,000 Housing New

Zealand tenants but there had been no reference to the points that she was a rent

striker who had been in receipt of an accommodation supplement. The item, he said,

had misrepresented the situation.

In its report to the Authority, TV3's Complaints Committee rejected the complaint.

The item had reported the Minister's rejection of the housing statistics referred to

which claimed that 30,000 New Zealanders faced a housing crisis. The Minister had

maintained the statistics were out of date and he was reported as saying that $30

million had been spent to improve the situation.

The comments from the particular tenant evicted, TV3 continued, were balanced by

the interview with a Housing New Zealand representative and the item had also dealt

with other concerns about aspects of the "housing crisis".

Repeating that the reporter had not asked the tenant about the Accommodation

Supplement as it had not occurred to her, TV3 maintained that the facts had not been

misrepresented. It concluded:

In terms of fairness, the Committee accepts that [the tenant] may not have been

the ideal case to illustrate the finding that 13,000 families are living in homes that

they cannot afford to rent. However, the reporter took [the tenant's] claim that

she was dependent on food banks and the generosity of her family at face value.

[The tenant] was not the only case referred to in the item, and other sources

such as the Salvation Army are considered highly credible.

The contents of the complaint have been presented in some detail for two reasons:

first, the complaint did not follow the statutory process in that what TV3 took to be

an informal complaint was referred to the Authority for investigation and review, and

secondly, the details raised questions of inadequate research by the reporter as well as

the alleged breaches.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, the Minister alleged that the item

breached standards G4, G6 and G20. The first two require broadcasters:

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

Standard G20 reads:

G20 No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present

all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only

by judging every case on its merits.

Having studied the material, the Authority was clearly of the view that the item

reported that the evicted tenant was suffering from one set of circumstances –

insufficient income – when it was apparent that there were other relevant

circumstances which were not referred to. The material did not record to what extent

the rent strike was the reason for the non-payment of rent or whether the

Accommodation Supplement would have been sufficient to meet the rent in full.

Moreover, the evicted tenant spoke of her dependency on food banks and the

generosity of her family which suggested that affordability was a central concern.

It was a situation involving a number of relevant circumstances but only one was dealt

with during the item. As a result, the Authority was required to determine whether

the broadcast had breached any of the nominated standards. Because standard G20 in

this situation expands on the requirements of standard G6, the Authority has

subsumed the standard G20 complaint under standard G6.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, the Minister in addition alleged that

the item failed to achieve accuracy. However, as the standard which requires factual

accuracy (G1) was not raised in the initial letter of complaint, the Authority has

declined to determine that specific matter.

Accordingly, the Authority has considered the complaint under standards G4 and G6.

Standard G4 requires that people referred to be dealt with justly and fairly. Although

the item reported the Housing Minister's comments on the statistics and as a Housing

New Zealand representative explained the reasons for the eviction, the Authority was

divided in its decision on whether that was sufficient to comply with the requirements

in the standard.

Standard G6 requires balance and impartiality in addition to fairness. While views

from different perspectives on housing problems generally and the specific tenant's

eviction (including those of Housing New Zealand) were advanced to present

alternative perspectives on the matter, the Authority was again divided on this aspect

of the complaint.

In reaching its decision, the Authority accepted TV3's assurance that the omissions,

while careless, were not deliberate. Had there been any indication that the reporter

had deliberately omitted the details about the tenant's eviction which the Minister

advanced, the Authority could well have upheld the complaint unanimously under the

nominated standards.

The Minister in his letter of complaint described the item as "sloppy journalism" and

the Authority was of the view that it disclosed poor research – the material omitted

was apparently available and was included in TVNZ's coverage of the same item. The

omission was the basis for the majority's decision to uphold the complaint under

standards G4 and G6. The majority considered that the degree of "sloppy

journalism", and the omission of any reference to the Accommodation Supplement or

the possibility of a rent strike, resulted in the broadcast of an item which had not dealt

fairly with the Minister of Housing – in contravention of standard G4 – and had not

fulfilled the requirements for balance and impartiality contained in standard G6.

The minority considered that, overall, the report of the Government's approach to

housing and, specifically, screening the views of the Housing New Zealand

representative with regard to the eviction, were sufficient to comply with the

requirements of standards G4 and G6.

For the reasons above, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) of the

Act. Although the Authority was unanimous in its opinion about the questionable

quality of the item, it was divided in its decision as to whether or not the standards

were transgressed. In view of this division, the Authority decided not to impose an

order on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
31 May 1995

Appendix

Minister of Housing's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 11 January

1995

The Minister of Housing (Hon Murray McCully) complained to TV3 Network

Services Ltd about an item on 3 Network News broadcast between 6.00 - 7.00pm on

Tuesday 10 January 1995.

The item had interviewed Shelley Faires, a Housing New Zealand tenant evicted from

her home that morning, as an example of a family "living in homes they can't afford to

rent". However, the Minister wrote, Ms Faires was not an affordability case.

While acknowledging that the item was correct to report that Ms Faires had not paid

any rent since August and had accumulated a debt in excess of $5,000, the Minister

said the reporter had failed to ask Ms Faires what she had done with the

Accommodation Supplement she had been receiving since August to help her meet her

rent commitments. The Minister continued:

Instead the text of the news report talks of this incident in terms of "the housing

crisis was more than just statistics" and Ms Faires case is highlighted by way of

example.

He added:

I can not avoid coming to the conclusion the misrepresentation of Ms Faires

case as an affordability problem was a deliberate action by your reporter and in

breach of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice, warranting a correction.

Not only was the item "sloppy journalism", he expressed the opinion that it involved

a breach of standards G6, G4 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

The Minister then quoted a section from the script of the item as reported by

TVNZ's One Network News and said he was disappointed at the standard of

reporting on TV3 which was the channel he regularly watched for news.

TV3's Response to the Complaint - 6 March 1995

Apologising for the length of time it had taken to investigate the complaint, TV3 said

Ms Faires' case had not been grossly misrepresented. Ms Faires had claimed that she

could not afford the rent and she had said that she was dependent on food banks and

the generosity of her family. The item had then explained the situation leading to her

eviction.

TV3 confirmed that the reporter had not asked Ms Faires about the Accommodation

Supplement, adding:

It simply did not occur to her to ask the question, it was not a deliberate

omission. In any case, it probably would not have changed Ms Faires claim that

she could not afford the rent. Such a question might also have raised privacy

issues.

Accepting that Ms Faires might not have been the best case on which to base a story

about the affordability of housing, TV3 maintained that the standards had not been

contravened.

The Minister of Housing's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

- 13 March 1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, the Minister referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

He said that TV3 introduced an item on the affordability of Housing New Zealand

rentals by showing Ms Faires as the typical tenant facing affordability problems.

However, as Ms Faires was a rent striker and no mention was made of her entitlement

to and collection of the Accommodation Supplement, the item failed to achieve

balance, accuracy and fairness.

The Minister regarded as insufficient TV3's concession that Ms Faires might not have

been the ideal case to illustrate affordability issues and, he argued, his complaint

should be upheld.

TV3's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 April 1995

Noting that Mr McCully had complained that Ms Faires' failure to pay rent had

nothing to do with affordability as she had been on a rent strike and had not

mentioned the Accommodation Supplement that she had been receiving, TV3

responded that it believed the item to be balanced. It pointed out that the item's

introduction had reported the Government's claim that the Statistics Department

figures were out of date and, moreover, the Government had spent $30 million to

improve the situation. It continued:

Ms Faires comments that she couldn't afford the rent were balanced by Mr

Hamilton's (of Housing New Zealand) comments , that she (Faires) had refused

to talk to Housing New Zealand about making some arrangement to pay the

rent. He was also quoted as saying the Tenancy Tribunal had found in Housing

New Zealand's favour, allowing it possession of the house.

In addition, the item had discussed emergency housing and had "made every effort to

balance the differing points of view".

As for the accuracy aspect of the complaint (by not mentioning the accommodation

supplement), TV3 acknowledged that with hindsight it was a question which could

have been put to Ms Faires. However, it had not occurred to the reporter at the time

and, TV3 stated:

The [Complaints} Committee is satisfied that the reporter did not seek to

misrepresent the facts and in fact may have run into problems with the Privacy

Act if she had tried to explore Ms Fairies financial background in greater depth.

Acknowledging again that the case might not have been an entirely appropriate one to

illustrate affordability, TV3 said that the reporter had taken Ms Faires claim about her

use of food banks and the generosity of her family at "face value". However, it

concluded, she was not the only illustration used in the item of the housing crisis.

The Minister's Final Comment -15 May 1995

In his final comment, the Minister repeated the grounds for his complaints and the

reasons why he was dissatisfied with TV3's response.

The reporter, he wrote, did not realise that the case she focussed on was not one of

affordability. Moreover, questions of affordability in such cases could not be fairly

reported without reference to income support measures. He wrote:

The very instrument by which the Government provides affordability is the

Accommodation Supplement. It is my contention that by definition, it is

impossible to make a balanced reference to affordability without referring to the

Accommodation Supplement entitlement of the individual.

He also acknowledged TV3's concession that the case was not an "ideal one to

illustrate" housing problems which, he argued, amounted to admission that the

standards had been breached.