BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A One Network News/Colmar Brunton poll which showed a move by voters back to

the major parties in Parliament was the subject of a "Close-Up" item on One Network

News, broadcast on 15 July 1997.

Hon Peter Dunne MP, leader of United New Zealand, complained to the broadcaster,

Television New Zealand Ltd, that the item was unbalanced in omitting any reference

to United New Zealand. He also referred to a "dismissive" comment about the party

from the Hon Richard Prebble MP to which he was not invited to respond.

In the context of the item, TVNZ considered that there was no need to include the

views of all six parties represented in Parliament. It said that it had been decided to

seek comment from one major party (Labour), and one smaller party (ACT). In view

of the comments from the leaders of these parties, TVNZ considered a response was

required on the programme from the leader of New Zealand First. TVNZ pointed out

that the Alliance party was also not included in the item.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Dunne referred his complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

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

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A One Network News "Close-up" item broadcast on 15 July 1997 focussed on a poll

showing that voters had moved support to the major parties in Parliament. Comment

was presented on the programme from the leader of the Labour Party, Hon Helen

Clark and the leader of ACT, Hon Richard Prebble. The leader of New Zealand First,

Hon Winston Peters, was also interviewed to allow him to comment on views

expressed on the programme about his party by the other two leaders. United New

Zealand was referred to in a passing comment made by Mr Prebble about its lack of

voter support.

The leader of United New Zealand, Hon Peter Dunne, complained to Television New

Zealand that the item was unbalanced in not including comment from the smaller

political parties represented in Parliament. He also considered that he should have

been given a chance to respond to Mr Prebble's comment.

TVNZ considered his complaint under section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, and

standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Section 4(1)(d) provides:

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.

Standard G6 requires broadcasters:

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

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

As the item was about the move by voters back to the major parties, TVNZ

considered that for the programme to be balanced, comment was needed only from one

major party and one small party. It noted that the Alliance had not been represented.

Further, it did not consider that Mr Prebble's observation required any balancing

comment from Mr Dunne.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Dunne considered that in issues such

as the one aired, the multi-party political environment ushered in by MMP required

that all parties represented in Parliament be given an opportunity to comment.

TVNZ contended that were Mr Dunne's views to apply, the time that could be

allocated to each party on an item would be so short as to prohibit any rational

debate. It also maintained that the item complained about was balanced.

In view of the topic being dealt with on this occasion, the Authority considers that the

representation of a major party and a smaller party were sufficient. It considers that

this was not an occasion where comment from all parties represented in Parliament

was necessary to achieve balance on the issues raised in the item. Mr Prebble's

comment about United New Zealand, the Authority believes, was neither sufficiently

highlighted nor central to the item to warrant any comment from Mr Dunne.

Accordingly, the Authority concludes that there was no breach of section 4(1)(d) of

the Act, or standard G6 of the Television Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
16 October 1997

Appendix

Hon Peter Dunne's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 17 July 1997

Hon Peter Dunne MP, as leader of United New Zealand, complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd about an item on One Network News, broadcast on TV One at

6.00pm on 15 July 1997. He complained that the item had breached section 4(1)(d)

(the balance principle) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 in that the item about the smaller

political parties did not refer to United New Zealand, save for a dismissive comment

from the Hon Richard Prebble MP, leader of ACT, to which the party was not invited

to respond. He mentioned specifically that he was not given an opportunity to

comment on statements made by the leader of the Labour Party, Hon Helen Clark

MP, relating to long term party groupings.

In concluding, he stated:

The reality of the last election which you cannot ignore, is that six political

parties of varying size, achieved representation in Parliament. To be fair and

balanced, reports that you provide about the parties in Parliament must

include reference to all six. This report did not, nor did it afford us any

opportunity to present our point of view, and is therefore unbalanced.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 5 August 1997

TVNZ considered the complaint under section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, and

standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ did not consider that the programme was a piece about smaller political

parties. Rather, it referred to the introduction to the item which stated that it was

based on a Colmar Brunton poll which showed a "move back to the major parties". It

believed that this represented something different from that perceived by Mr Dunne.

Given the context of the item, TVNZ considered that only comment from one small

party and one major party was needed. Comment from Hon Winston Peter MP as

leader of NZ First was sought in response to comments made by the other leaders on

the programme. TVNZ noted that the Alliance party was not represented on the

item.

Further, TVNZ did not consider that the comment about the United Party by Hon

Richard Prebble MP was such that any balancing comment was needed.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Dunne's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 August 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Dunne referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Dunne stated:

The crux of my complaint relates to Television New Zealand's assertion that

"there was no need to encompass the views of all six parties represented in

Parliament. The decision was made to seek comment from one of the major

parties, and one of the smaller parties". My submission is that in a multi-

party political environment, which MMP has ushered in, that type of thinking

is no longer acceptable, or reasonable, having regard to the principle of balance.

My view is that on issues of this type the views of all parties should be

presented, regardless of the convenience of the Broadcaster.

It is certainly not acceptable as in this instance for Television New Zealand to

decide who should be the spokesperson for the major parties and who should

be the spokesperson from the smaller parties.

The fact that the Alliance party was not represented, Mr Dunne stated, was further

evidence of lack of balance, as was the fact that NZ First had the opportunity to

comment on Ms Clark's comments about future groupings in Parliament, an

opportunity Mr Dunne felt should have be afforded to his party as well.

Mr Dunne reiterated that post MMP each party in Parliament had an equal right to be

represented on an issue such as that covered by the item.

TVNZ's Comments to the Authority - 2 September 1997

In reply, TVNZ disagreed with Mr Dunne's comment that because the MMP system

has placed six political parties in Parliament, each of those parties must be heard from

every time a political story was covered by the news media. TVNZ said that it was

the media's editorial prerogative to decide in any given situation which political views

were the most relevant to the story being told. Were the six parties to be included

every time, it contended, the time that could then be allocated to each individual would

be so short as to prohibit any rational debate.

TVNZ reiterated its views that balance had been achieved in the particular item

complained about.

Mr Dunne's Final Comment - 15 September 1997

Mr Dunne advised:

With respect, TVNZ ... deliberately or otherwise, misses the point of my

complaint. I am not arguing, as TVNZ suggest, that every single political

story has to include the views of all parties in Parliament. In fact, ... I

specifically make the point ... that my complaint relates to the balance

principle and specific issues only. That remains my point.

Mr Dunne pointed out that the promos suggested that the item would be about how

the smaller parties were faring under MMP. He considered that TVNZ might need to

change its news programmes to be fair, rather than trying to fit the balance principle

into the time slot.

In concluding he stated:

I submit that this incident is a good example of TVNZ, in this instance, and I

suspect other broadcasters as well in other instances, failing to properly adapt

to the new multi party environment MMP has ushered in.