BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Following the death of three children in a house fire at Matauri Bay in the Far North,

an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 25 June 1997 focussed on the reasons for

the poor standard of housing for Maori in that area.

The Minister of Housing, Hon Murray McCully, complained to Television New

Zealand Limited that the Holmes item had dealt with him unfairly, was unbalanced,

and failed to present all sides of the story. He advised that he had been offered an

opportunity to appear on the programme, but had declined because of his concerns

about its format.

TVNZ did not uphold the complaint, pointing out that the decision not to appear on

the programme was the Minister's, and a written statement provided to TVNZ by Mr

McCully was broadcast. It also believed that the Minister had missed the point of the

item when he considered that balancing comment was needed on the individual

financial positions of people interviewed on the item.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ'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, 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). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Following a tragic fire in the Far North, an item on Holmes examined some aspects of

Maori housing in the area. The item showed some of the houses causing concern and

explained that it was difficult for Maori to obtain a loan when offering communally

owned lands as security. The Minister of Housing, Hon Murray McCully, did not

appear, but some of his statement was read, and was accompanied by captions. The

item concluded with an interview with Mr Dover Samuels, a Labour MP, who was

critical of some aspects of government policy.

The Minister complained to TVNZ that the item failed to deal with him fairly, that it

was unbalanced, and that it failed to put the government's side of the case adequately.

He acknowledged that he had been offered an opportunity to appear on the

programme. However, he had declined it on the basis that he considered that the

programme's proposed format was inherently unjust and unfair to him. He had

predicted the tone of the broadcast, he said, in that he had suspected that the

interview with Maori from the Far North would raise affordability issues without a

corresponding emphasis on income support. As the Accommodation Supplement

was a central instrument of government housing policy, the Minister argued that

comments about affordability which did not also explore income support available to

specific individuals were unbalanced. That, he said, had occurred on the item

complained about when a resident of Matauri Bay had been interviewed.

The Minister said that privacy waivers would have solved the problem, but the

Holmes programme had not accepted this suggestion. Nonetheless, although he had

declined to appear, he had faxed to Holmes his reasons for doing so and his comments

on the issues. Pointing out that the item still had an obligation to comply with the

standards despite his decision not to participate, the Minister maintained that the

lower requirement for balance and fairness he said was adopted by TVNZ on this

occasion was unacceptable and in breach of the standards.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the standard nominated by the Minister.

Standards G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice 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 sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by judging

every case on its merits.

TVNZ explained in detail the discussion between the Minister's press secretary and

Holmes staff during the day of the broadcast which culminated in the Minister

advising that he did not intend to participate personally. However, it said, he

provided a written statement which TVNZ used between the filmed item and the

interview with Mr Samuels.

Dealing with the issue in the item about an individual raising a loan on communally

owned land, TVNZ maintained that the Minister had been given an opportunity to

explain the government's policy on the issue. TVNZ also contended that a privacy

waiver was not necessary in a general discussion about Maori housing problems.

TVNZ also insisted that a producer had to retain editorial control of a programme, and

that it was untenable for a participant to dictate the format to be used. A participant

could of course decline to appear, as the Minister had done on this occasion, and the

statement he had sent was read on air. Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ

wrote:

TVNZ will not abandon a news item or a current affairs piece simply because

one of the hoped-for participants declines to appear. In this case, in your

absence, the presenter acted in a feisty "devil's advocate" role putting your

comments to Mr Samuels and demanding to know of him what more the

government could do. The presenter also emphasised the concern you had

following the death of the three children.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, the Minister explained that he had

declined to appear as he considered the format adopted would be inherently unfair.

He persisted with his argument that a Privacy Act waiver was not an unreasonable

request. The Minister disputed TVNZ's contention that his statement was broadcast

appropriately, observing that it had been paraphrased into two distinct parts, and

some key sentences had been omitted initially.

In response to TVNZ's proposition that a privacy waiver was unnecessary for a

general debate about Maori housing, the Minister did not accept that the broadcast

featured a general debate. Rather, he wrote:

. . .  a lack of balance – which was not addressed editorially – was built into the

"filmed item" segment and also built into the interview with Labour MP Dover

Samuels.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ cited comments from the item and continued to

argue that the issue on which the item focussed was the inability of the Maori families

interviewed to borrow money on land for which they did not have individual title.

The accommodation supplement, it added, was not relevant to that issue. The

individual examples advanced, it said, were used to illustrate the issue affecting many.

In his final comment, the Minister reiterated the essence of his complaint that he had

not been dealt with fairly. The interviewer's adoption of the devil's advocate role, he

considered, was insufficient to comply with the standards. As for the standard G20

aspect of his complaint, he wrote:

. . .  I contend that when the 'filmed item' segment and the 'live item' segment are

taken together and judging this case "on its merits", there is sufficient lack of the

presentation of at least one significant side - the Government's – in this Holmes

item for the entire item to fail the test of basic fairness. Accordingly, I ask that

my formal complaint also be upheld on this ground.

The first point for the Authority to decide in determining the complaint is the theme

of the item. It concludes that the item dealt with the problem of housing for some

Maori in the Far North, and specifically focussed on Maori who were unable to

borrow money for housing as they were unable to use communally owned land as

security. The recent tragedy involving the death of three Maori children in a house

fire was referred to, as was the concern that a similar tragedy could recur given the

current condition of some housing. Nevertheless, the problem of finding loans for

housing, not the tragedy, was at the forefront throughout the item.

The item showed the current state of some housing, which was said to be a result of

an inability of the occupants to obtain loans. It then presented the Minister's

statement on the government's efforts in dealing with the problem during the

preceding two years, and interviewed Mr Samuels MP, as to whether those efforts

were enough. The Authority accepts TVNZ's point that the interviewer adopted a

reasonably assertive approach to Mr Samuels.

The Authority notes that the Minister was invited to participate, but declined. His

statement on the issue addressed in the item was read in part, and captioned on the

screen. The Authority also notes that the Minister suggested that privacy waivers

should have been obtained to enable him to discuss the specific situation of the Maori

occupants shown. The Authority disagrees. Their specific situations were not the

focus of the item, it considers, as the principle of their inability to obtain a housing

loan on communally owned land was the relevant matter.

While the Authority acknowledges that the item might have been marginally unfair in

that it did not state explicitly whether the home dweller whose living conditions were

explored in detail had, in fact, ever applied for a loan, it does not accept that the item

was unbalanced or that the government's side was not given due emphasis. The

Minister's comments on the government's efforts to deal with the housing in the Far

North were reported adequately, it considers.

The Minister was given the opportunity to appear and, the Authority notes, because

the interviewer made a reasonable effort to challenge Mr Samuels and his arguments, it

concludes that the standards were complied with.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27 November 1997

Appendix

The Minister of Housing's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 22 July

1997

Hon Murray McCully, Minister of Housing, complained to Television New Zealand

Ltd about an item on Holmes broadcast on 25 June 1997 at 7.00pm, following the

death of three children in a fire in makeshift housing in the Far North of the country.

Mr McCully believed that TVNZ had breached standards G4, G6, and G20 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. His complaint was based on the following:

_ While he was offered a chance to appear on the programme, he considered the

format for the programme to have been inherently unfair. The proposal was for an

introductory report from a correspondent who had travelled to Northland, and then

a live question time with Dover Samuels MP and himself fielding questions from

the presenter. He considered a fair scenario would have been for Holmes to run the

correspondent's report and then to have had separate interviews, first with Mr

Samuels and then with him.

_ TVNZ, he said, declined to change the format and advised that it would proceed

with the programme regardless of Mr McCully's appearance.

_ He considered the programme's use of the case of a particular person's dwelling to

highlight hardship to be unfair, unbalanced and biased when no balancing

explanation of that person's various income support entitlements was made.

TVNZ, he said, had not obtained waivers of privacy from the people complaining

about hardship to enable balancing comments to be advanced.

_ The programme as aired did not succeed in dealing justly and fairly with him, as a

person referred to on the programme. It also did not succeed in providing fair and

balanced coverage of the issues, particularly in dealing with the case of Mr Ngatote.

The programme, he concluded, failed to present all significant sides of the issue in

as fair a way as possible.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 8 August 1997

TVNZ considered the complaint under the standards nominated by Mr McCully. It

wrote:

Arising from the then tragedy in which three children died in a fire, the item

looked at problems involving Maori housing in the Far North. An item filmed

there showed some of the homes and highlighted the difficulty of residents

acquiring loans for land which is communally owned. This was followed by a

statement from you as Minister, accompanied by captions. The sequence

concluded with an interview with Mr Dover Samuels MP.

TVNZ outlined the approaches it had made to the Minister prior to the screening of

the item, and advised that the written statement which Mr McCully had despatched

to the programme had been used on air in between the filmed item, and the interview

with Mr Samuels. It considered that given that the decision not to appear on the item

was made by Mr McCully, and because a summary of his views was carried in

caption form, the item was not unbalanced or unfair.

TVNZ considered that Mr McCully had missed the point of the programme if he

believed that comment was needed on the income support to the families mentioned in

the item. Rather, it said, the item highlighted the issue that regardless of income,

people applying to borrow money for housing needed security and on Maori land,

where individuals have no clear titles, such loans were no longer advanced.

While generally it did not consider privacy waivers were necessary where persons

discussed their private circumstances, TVNZ observed that in this case the absence of

a privacy waiver did not prove an obstacle to a general debate on Maori housing

problems and the difficulties of raising loan monies without the security of clear title

to land.

On the basis that editorial control remained with the producer of an item, TVNZ

continued:

It is simply not tenable to have a situation where participants in a programme

decide for themselves the format in which they will appear. With respect

Minister, you refused to participate other than under your own rules. That is

of course your right, but we do not believe you can in fairness then accuse a

broadcaster of not giving you the opportunity to respond to the issue. Your

statement was read on air and it included the argument concerning Housing

Corporation grants.

TVNZ maintained that in Mr McCully's absence the presenter had acted in a feisty

"devil's advocate" role putting the Minister's comment to Mr Samuels. It declined to

uphold the complaint.

Mr McCully's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 4 September

1997

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

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

Mr McCully reiterated most of the points he had made to TVNZ and stated:

As a person referred to in the programme - I should not have to accept a lower

standard of fairness, impartiality, and balanced coverage, just because I

declined an invitation to appear on Holmes.

Mr McCully explained that there were two reasons why he as Minister of Housing

needed an assurance that persons interviewed about their financial circumstances

agreed to a waiver of privacy in respect of financial details not disclosed. They were:

_ He as Minister would be unable to obtain information on any person from

department's outside his portfolio, eg Social Welfare, which he may need to balance

comments made.

_ He could not assume that he was able to disclose personal information held by him

but not disclosed by those persons.

In response to specific comments made by TVNZ, Mr McCully contended:

_ That a statement from him to TVNZ for broadcast on the item was not included in

full but paraphrased in two distinct parts. The reporter initially, he said, did not

refer to the following sentences:

(But) I am not prepared to be a party to a public debate about housing policy

which intrudes into the private grief of those who have suffered loss in last

weekend's tragedy. I regret that the format you propose therefore makes it

impossible for me to appear.

_ That the reporter's question on the item to Mr Ngatote: "Why don't you have a

normal house like city people?" and the response "(Well) number one it's

unaffordable", clearly raised issues about affordability which needed balancing

comment.

_ That while a "general debate" on the housing issues for Maori in the Far North may

have satisfied broadcasting standards, this was not achieved on the programme. He

maintained that the item lacked balance, particularly in the "filmed item" and the

interview with Labour MP, Dover Samuels.

_ While accepting that editorial control lay with the broadcaster, this did not preclude

his trying to negotiate a more acceptable format.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 25 September 1997

TVNZ advised that it had little to add to its earlier letter to the Minister, but it wished

to reiterate a couple of major points.

_ The Minister was incorrect in believing that the accommodation supplement was at

issue in the item. It reported:

The item, to do with the difficulty some Maori in the Far North have in

bettering the living conditions, focussed on the problems such people have in

raising loans because they live on Maori land. It is in that context that the

concept of affordability is discussed.

TVNZ drew attention to the item's introduction, and other comments within the item

which it considered supported this view on the purpose of the item.

_ For the purposes of balance TVNZ considered that the item needed a statement of

government policy on the broad issues revealed by the cases shown. It did not

require specific comment on individual cases. TVNZ stated:

We hold to the view that for ease of communicating a situation, it is sound

editorial policy to use individual examples to illustrate an issue affecting many.

But balance is achieved by getting official response to the problems being

illustrated, not the specifics of the families concerned.

Mr McCully's Final Comment - 29 October 1997

In his final comment, Mr McCully repeated that the essence of his complaint was that

the item which referred to him had failed, in his absence, to deal with him and the issue

in a fair and balanced way. He did not accept that the interviewer had acted

sufficiently as a devil's advocate to satisfy the requirements of standards G4 and G6.

Moreover, Mr McCully argued that the filmed and live segments together failed to

advance the Government's side of the case fairly.

As a remedy, he asked for an acknowledgment on Holmes that the item's presentation

of the issues contravened the standards.