BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning a Sunday investigation report looking into issues with emergency housing in Rotorua, and a follow-up item on 1 News. The majority of the Sunday broadcast focused on allegations against the largest contracted emergency housing provider in Rotorua, Visions of a Helping Hand (Visions), and its contracted security company Tigers Express Security Ltd – both led by CEO/Director Tiny Deane. Visions complained the broadcast was unbalanced, misleading, and unfair to Visions, Tigers Express Security and Deane. Noting the very high public interest and value in the story overall, the Authority found most of Visions’ concerns with the broadcast could have been addressed had it provided a substantive response to the reporter on the issues raised – who had made numerous attempts over more than a month to obtain comment from Visions and Deane. On that basis the Authority did not uphold the fairness, accuracy or balance complaints. A privacy complaint concerning a woman and her children who were featured walking down the street as part of a fleeting establishing shot was also not upheld.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy

The broadcasts

[1]  On 4 September 2022, Sunday broadcast an investigation report entitled ‘Golden Mile’, which looked at issues with emergency housing in Rotorua. The host introduced the story:

Rotorua is a jewel in our tourism crown, but when COVID hit hard, its famous gateway, the motels of Fenton Street, went from holiday to emergency housing, and now many locals are at their wits' end. Gangs, drugs, fires. Their town, they say, has become dangerous. But for those living in the motels, things are even worse. So, who is all this actually helping?

[2]  The story featured interviews with several emergency housing tenants, including three former tenants of Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust (Visions) and one tenant of another provider, who have been named in this decision as ‘Visions Tenant 1,’ ‘Visions Tenant 2,’ ‘Visions Tenant 3,’ and ‘EH Tenant’.

[3]  The story began with a teaser showing an overview of the programme:

Reporter:        Mythical, mystical, Rotorua. It's the birthplace of tourism in New Zealand and a mecca for visitors seeking culture, adrenaline and a landscape quite unlike any other. But there's a dark side to this beautiful city.

Reporter:        [speaking to an emergency housing tenant]You've been here for a year and a half?

EH Tenant:     Yep.

Reporter:        You and four kids and a dog.

Fire and emergency worker: [on the phone, voice disguised]There are major problems in these motels. We are waiting for someone to die.

Security guard: [on the phone, voice disguised] The first freak out I got was seeing a couple of guards rolling up in their black power patches.

Reporter:        We've heard allegations of negligence, intimidation and abuse of power towards some of our most vulnerable.

Visions Tenant 1:      I'm getting pushed out of my house and there's nowhere for me to go.

Reporter:        Carried out by agencies who are receiving millions of taxpayer dollars to look after them. [sign stating ‘VISION HOUSING – Helping to home our community’ shown on screen]

Tiny Deane     [on phone] The government has to give me authorisation for that. People just s*** on me. Then I have a reporter like you…

[4]  The opening title went on to focus on Fenton Street, with shots of motels which were being used for emergency housing. One two-second establishing shot showed a woman walking past motels on Fenton Street pushing a pram with a baby inside and another small child walking alongside her.

[5]  A Rotorua resident was interviewed, introduced as having ‘lived near Fenton Street for around 25 years. But in the last few years, she says she's noticed a real change in the area, a real uptick in crime and some pretty scary behaviour.’ She described an incident where she had to call the police:

All I could hear was very loud, aggressive language being thrown at a child who was just crying and screaming. So I literally rang 111 and held the phone up to the fence saying to the lady, can you not hear this?

[6]  The report described an increasing frequency of fights, burglary attempts, and motel fires on Fenton Street. The reporter went for a drive along Fenton Street, pointing out the emergency housing motels and noting ‘So either on Fenton Street or within a 500-metre radius of Fenton Street, there are, as far as we are aware, 50 emergency housing motels, which is a huge number in such a small area.’ A map of Fenton Street was shown on-screen with emergency housing motels circled.

[7]  The reporter interviewed an emergency housing tenant (‘EH Tenant’), who showed her around his small, cramped family unit for him and his four children, noting it was being charged out at $1080 a week.

[8]  The reporting team then went undercover to rent a room at an emergency housing motel. The reporter noted ‘…the charge is $150 a night for regular guests and $209 a night for those staying under the emergency housing system, a cost to taxpayers of over $1400 a week.’ Footage of the room’s interior was shown, with the reporter noting:

So we've just checked in to what's probably one of the worst motels in the city that's doing emergency housing and accepting tourists in as well. It absolutely reeks. Everything is just kind of a bit wet. This place hasn't had a clean in a bloody long time because this is all like black mould spots here. … A string of one-star reviews show other visitors have been equally shocked. They reference violent and abusive behaviour from fellow guests and late-night parties.

[9]  After an ad break, the item shifted focus and introduced Tiny Deane, CEO (at the time) of Visions:

Reporter:        But there's a new emerging industry in this city. Homelessness. Motels raking in millions as well as the companies contracted to look after those who live in them. The biggest operator is a big name around town.

                        …

Reporter:        A former truck driver, Tiny Deane launched his charity Visions of a Helping Hand five years ago. It started as a night shelter and is now a large-scale operation providing social services and accommodation for thousands.

Deane:            [footage from a different broadcast] I'm just a Māori boy from Coromandel that has a big heart and has a lot of common sense.

Reporter:        The Government's paid the charity nearly $14 million since 2017.

Deane:            [on the phone] Probably one of the biggest in New Zealand. I look after more families than the Salvation Army. Emerge, Lifewise, and they are in the whole of New Zealand.

Reporter:        Less well known is Tiny Deane's security company, where he is the sole director. Previously called Visions Security, the name was changed to Tigers Express Security in May. And they're contracted to provide services to Visions of a Helping Hand.

Deane:            [on the phone] Legally I cannot talk about that.

Reporter:        Oh, why is that?

Deane:            Because we're in a collective.

Reporter:        What does that mean?

Deane:            It means that we're governed.

Reporter:        Governed by? By who?

[10]  The reporter then interviewed ‘Visions Tenant 3’, introducing her as ‘a tough cookie with a tough past. A recovered P addict, she says the Fenton Street motels where she lived for eight months are the place to score.’ Visions Tenant 3 described a P ‘shop’ where she would access drugs, and an incident where her daughter was accidentally pepper-sprayed by the police. The reporter then stated Visions Tenant 3 moved to a government-contracted motel, becoming a Visions client. Visions Tenant 3 described feeling under pressure from Visions security guards’ scrutiny and an incident where a ‘whole truckload’ of security guards came and threatened her son, resulting in her young daughter begging on her knees for them to leave her brother alone.

[11]  The reporter also interviewed a security professional and board member of the New Zealand Security Association, in relation to Tigers Express Security. This interviewee alleged that Visions had employed security guards who had been involved in sexual relations with tenants, displayed poor behaviour, poor handling of conflict situations, and who had gang connections and criminal convictions. He expressed a view that Tigers Express Security should not have been able to get a security license.

[12]  The reporter went on to interview two sisters, Visions Tenant 1 and Visions Tenant 2, who were current/former Visions clients. The reporter spoke to Visions Tenant 1 as she was standing outside Visions accommodation she had been locked out of, having broken the window to get her baby and other children who were with her out of the cold:

Reporter:                 The truth is, the locks were changed at the home [Visions Tenant 1] rented through Visions of a Helping Hand, her belongings still inside.

Reporter:                 Where would you have been if you couldn't get into your house?

Visions Tenant 1:      In my car. I was going to – I have a gazebo around the back there and I was going to pitch that up over my car and sleep in there with my baby. And just give her cold bottles from out of the tap, the outside tap. Oh, it makes you pretty scared because I don't know if I'm going to get in big trouble for this. I'm scared of Visions, yeah.

Reporter:                 Why are you scared of them?

Visions Tenant 1:      Because the attitude that they give when they knock on my door, they stand over me a lot. They lie. They like, tell me things that I did but I didn't do that. And I'm just tired because I'm getting pushed out of my house and there's nowhere for me to go.

Reporter:                One of the reasons Visions gave for [Visions Tenant 1]’s eviction was that she had an unauthorised visitor. That visitor was her sister, [Visions Tenant 2], who was house sitting here earlier this year while heavily pregnant. She went into labour three weeks early, but when Visions staff arrived:

Visions Tenant 2:     They could see me. They could see me labouring. I was fully labouring on the ground. I wanted to push, but I couldn't because they were standing there over the top of me, telling me I have to leave. You've got to get out. I said but I'm having my baby in here. Well, what do I do? She says ‘just get out. Otherwise, I'm calling security.’

Reporter:                Where did you go?

Visions Tenant 2:     I laboured in my car.

Reporter:                When [Visions Tenant 2]’s baby died two weeks later, Visions of a Helping Hand paid for the cremation. [Visions Tenant 2], a former resident of this Visions-run motel says she'd been forced to sleep in her car during her pregnancy when guards wouldn't let her access her room.

Visions Tenant 2:     I had been arguing with Tiny right through my pregnancy, and the security guards.

Reporter:                About what mostly?

Visions Tenant 2:     Just getting in. Just getting into my motel. There's always a fight.

Reporter:                A week after her baby's death, [Visions Tenant 2] received a visit from Tiny Deane.

Visions Tenant 2:     He apologised for baby passing.

Reporter:                And how did that make you feel to hear that?

Visions Tenant 2:     At the time, I was just saying. Yep, yep, yep, yep. Not realising what was going on. But now that I think about it, I have so much, so much to say to him.

[13]  Following a second ad break, the reporter stated:

We’ve spoken to three homeless mothers. […] whose experiences with Visions of a Helping Hand and Tigers Security are shocking. […] But they’re not isolated. Other Visions clients have told us access to motel rooms is strictly controlled by security, that guards enter rooms at any time.

[14]  The reporter went to Deane’s office to seek his comment:

Reporter:        [In a car] So we've been trying for a month now to get an interview with Tiny Deane, he keeps giving us excuses as to why he can't talk to us, directed us to his lawyer and to the Board. Neither of them would answer any of our questions. So the last resort is to show up to head office and see if he'll talk to us. Yeah, that's him. Let's go. [runs up to Deane] Tiny, hey, [reporter] from Sunday. We wanted to have a chat to you.

Deane:            No comment, [reporter].

Reporter:        There's a long list of questions that we want to ask you. Complaints that some of the tenants of Visions of a Helping Hand have and people who've been looked after by Tigers Security.

Deane:            No comments. Speak to our lawyer, please.

Reporter:        Why not?

Deane:            Get off our property please.

Reporter:        We'd really like to talk to you Tiny. Have vulnerable women been kicked out of their homes under your watch? Have you ever had gang members working security? [Deane disappears into building]

Reporter:        [Deane comes back out of building] Tiny, have you kicked vulnerable women out of their homes?

Deane:            No comment. I can't. I can't speak, our Board has advised me against that. We've done nothing wrong.

Reporter:        But you are the CEO. Why can't you answer our questions?

Deane:            Because I'm bound by law. We have a collective here. So best thing, if anything, is just go see the Government.

Reporter:        The Government doesn't run these operations, you do.

Deane:            Yeah. Once our lawyer gives us all the go ahead, we'll, go ahead. But, you know, one thing I can't get over is that we do so much good in this town, and you guys are trying to crucify us for it.

Reporter:        Well to be fair, Tiny, we asked you for an interview quite a while ago before we were aware of these claims and you said you couldn't do an interview then either.

Deane:            I can't. The people who have made those claims. You come back with their names and then we can talk.

Reporter:        Well some of them are scared of you and your team, Tiny.

Deane:            No they're not.

Reporter:        They are. I'm telling you, they are scared of you and your security guards.

Deane:            ...or anything, you know, because I don't know who they are or if they give me permission to talk about them. And then I can discuss matters with you.

Reporter:        Did you or any of your staff order [Visions Tenant 2] out of her sister's place while she was in labour? There's a specific question.

Deane:            No, we didn't.

Reporter:        You didn't? You weren't there. You didn't do that. Your staff had nothing to do with that?

Deane:            No. I wasn't there. It was just a ruling that was made.

Reporter:        We sent those details to Tiny Deane and Visions of a Helping Hand via their lawyer, but they refuted all the claims and declined to comment.

[15]  The reporter said, as a result, she sought comment from Housing Minister Megan Woods:

Woods:           So I think there have been some allegations that certainly I took seriously. In terms of what our people who are working on the ground in Rotorua are finding is that actually there is no cause for us to say that someone shouldn't be in a position to provide services. We're working with a cohort of people who have very complex lives. There are a large number of vulnerabilities and I am very mindful of that.

Reporter:        Does that mean that their claims shouldn't be taken seriously?

Woods:           No, they are taken seriously.

Reporter:        Should these companies still be working with highly vulnerable people while there are such allegations against them?

Woods:           The kinds of claims that you're talking about, they would be criminal. I've taken the step of asking the officials to reach out to the local police. They have told us that there are no concerns in terms of the operation on the ground.

…

Woods:           We could cancel those motel contracts tomorrow. The motel problem for Rotorua would be over, but we’d be back to the problem that was there when I became the Minister. And that was people sleeping in the doorways of shops. Let's be really clear what the alternatives are.

[16]  A follow-up item on 1 News on 5 September 2022 reported that following the Sunday programme, there had been calls from the National Party and Te Pāti Māori to investigate the government agencies and contractors dealing with Rotorua’s emergency housing. It included the following comment from a Visions board member:

We try and maintain a drug-free, an alcohol-free and a violence-free environment. Because of the sheer numbers that we deal with, we have to ensure that we maintain the integrity of that. If you worked in this environment, and had to deal with what we have to deal with, you would understand. […] We work over and above to help these whānau as best as we can.

Summary of the complaint

[17]  Visions complained the Sunday broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, fairness and privacy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

Balance

[18]  The broadcast lacked balance as:

• ‘Emergency housing was presented in an overwhelmingly negative light with the implication being that they, including Visions, take an excessive amount of government money and provide a woefully inadequate service.’
• The programme included several interviews with clients/former clients of Visions, who spoke about negative experiences with the rules and approach of Visions, but did not include any interviews with people who had positive experiences, or discuss the need for emergency housing and the positive difference Visions has made.
• Providing a more positive perspective on Visions’ work was not dependent on TVNZ obtaining an interview with Visions.
• It also did not address:
  • the frameworks required to properly support vulnerable people in emergency housing;
  • context for the rules and restrictions for tenants in Visions accommodation (such as the background to their implementation, the benefit they provide, and the fact that tenants must agree to abide by Visions’ protocols);
  • differences between tenant experiences at contracted and non‑contracted sites.

Accuracy

Allegations against Visions by Visions Tenants 1 and 2

[19]  The broadcast featured several inaccurate allegations against Visions, including:

Visions Tenant 1

• Visions evicted Visions Tenant 1 from her accommodation – this tenant was in fact evicted by the police, and there were a series of events that led to this, supported by incident reports, breach letters and standard reports.
• Visions left Visions Tenant 1 with nowhere to go – Visions did present her with alternative options, in accordance with normal practice, before she was evicted.

Visions Tenant 2

• Visions evicted Visions Tenant 2 while she was in labour, the child later died and the implication was that Visions bore some of the responsibility for this - in fact, Visions Tenant 2 was not a current tenant of Visions, and was not in labour. The timeline of the eviction and the birth was completely misrepresented. The implication that Visions was partly to blame for the baby’s death was also inaccurate.

[20]  Visions acknowledged these allegations were put to them for comment, however due to its confidentiality and privacy policies, it was not able to comment. It considered the broadcaster should have taken other steps to verify the accuracy of these allegations such as questioning the interviewees further (ie asking why they were evicted) or requesting more generalised information from Visions on its policies.

Conflating Rotorua emergency housing as a whole with Visions sites

[21]  The report also misleadingly conflated Rotorua emergency housing as a whole with emergency housing services provided by Visions, casting Visions in an unfairly negative light and misleading the public as to the quality of services they provide. For example:

• Footage was shown of several emergency housing motels with poor standards of cleanliness, including undercover filming at one motel, and an emergency housing tenant and their children in their accommodation. The providers/agencies responsible for these motels were not named in the report. Running footage of these motels alongside discussion of Visions, which was described as ‘Rotorua’s largest emergency housing provider’ created the impression that these motels were run by Visions and that was the standard of accommodation it provides.
• Comments from a Rotorua resident interviewed regarding an incident where she called the police, combined with imagery used when she was talking, implied the incident occurred at a Visions site.
• ‘…while Visions may not have been mentioned until the tease for part two, the preview shown at the start of the show clearly displays the Visions sign (this is shown at 1:23 prior to the footage of non-Visions run motels being aired as part of the programme). The Visions sign also appeared in the previews released by TVNZ before the programme aired.’
• ‘Much of the online/social media commentary about this programme as well as feedback received by Visions and its staff suggest that a significant number of viewers believed Visions was primarily responsible for all the negative aspects portrayed including substandard accommodation, fires in motels, crime, and mistreatment of Contracted and Emergency Housing / clients.’
• The interview with Visions Tenant 3 gave the impression tenants were able to access drugs at a ‘P shop’ at a Visions site – these incidents did not occur at a Visions site.
• A map showing emergency housing locations in the vicinity of Fenton Street included sites run by contracted emergency housing providers.

Other

[22]  Visions raised further concerns under the accuracy standard including:

• A phone call between the reporter and Deane took place at 10am but was made to look like it took place in the evening.
• Footage of a street brawl was shown with no evidence that it related to emergency housing or Visions.
• Footage of contracted emergency housing sites were used at times when the reporter was speaking about emergency housing, and some footage of homelessness used appears not to be from Rotorua.
• Images of incidents where police are present were used where there was no evidence the incidents related to emergency housing.
• The children shown with Visions Tenant 1 when she was locked out of her accommodation were portrayed as being her children when they were not.
• The statement ‘Motels raking in millions as well as the companies contracted to look after those who live in them’ was inaccurate as it should have said ‘charitable organisations’ contracted to look after those who live in them.

Interview with Visions board member on 1 News

[23]  Visions also raised concerns with the follow-up report on 1 News on 5 September 2022 in which a Visions board member was interviewed. It noted that during the interview, ‘the reporter was informed that none of the spaces aired on the programme were Visions sites. This part of the interview was subsequently cut from the interview.’ The board member’s advice that Visions must maintain the privacy and integrity of the whānau was also not aired. Visions considered this to be a ‘further breach of the accuracy standard’.

Fairness

[24]  The story treated Visions, Deane, Tigers Express Security and EH Tenant and his family unfairly:

Visions

• ‘The programme unfairly singled out Visions over other emergency housing providers, the programme canvassed footage and motels used for emergency housing across Rotorua but the only provider mentioned in the story was Visions (despite the fact that Visions provides 7 contracted emergency housing motels located on or in the vicinity of Fenton Street where the map indicated there were c.50).’
• ‘Given the programme included undercover filming in motels that were not managed by Visions, the providers or agencies responsible for these motels should have been named also…’
• Many allegations aired against Visions were hearsay allegations or relied on anecdotal evidence. ‘In light of the nature of the allegations, more effort should have been made to include the written response from Visions [provided Saturday 3 September] in the programme.’
• The programme should at a minimum have confirmed that Visions denied all the allegations made against it.
• ‘Visions is of the view that it was not given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations relating to [Visions Tenant 1 and Visions Tenant 2]. Their names were not mentioned until the reporter’s email dated August 26, which requested a response by September 30. The programme aired on September 4.’
• ‘Footage of other motels not managed by Visions was shown without sufficient clarification that these motels were run by other providers. In addition, footage did not make any discernment between contracted and non-contracted sites.’

Deane

• The reporter doorstepping Deane was unreasonable, as ‘Visions had, through its attorney, engaged with the reporter to explain that they would not be commenting and to note that this was due to privacy concerns for their vulnerable whānau.’
• The report featured excerpts of phone calls with Deane, which largely consisted of a refusal to comment on the questions raised. This unfairly represented the communications between the reporter and Deane, as it did not show the ‘non-specific’ nature of the questions, or Visions’ justification for not engaging, which was to protect the privacy and confidentiality of Visions tenants.

Tigers Express Security

• A board member of the New Zealand Security Association was interviewed, making accusations against competition and which were ‘founded on hearsay without any evidence’.
• ‘If these significant concerns are being investigated by the PSPLA [Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority] should these be aired on TV while investigations are underway?’

Emergency housing tenant and family

• EH Tenant and his family were exploited by the programme.

Privacy

[25]  The broadcast breached the privacy of a woman and her two children shown walking down Fenton Street early on in the programme:

• ‘The woman is a client of Visions and was relocated to Rotorua for protection reasons.’
• The footage disclosed that the women and her children now live in Rotorua, and ‘Given the circumstances of her relocation to Rotorua, it is unlikely that this would be widely known information.’
• She and her children were filmed without their consent.
• It is likely the camera crew who filmed them would have seen the woman and her children entering or leaving the contracted emergency housing motel, and so should have been obvious that they were, or potentially were, particularly vulnerable. The onus therefore would have been on the camera crew to determine this.
• The broadcast caused significant harm to them ‘as they had been moved for protection reasons and were subsequently recognised by people known to them and by strangers.’ This resulted in Visions needing to take additional steps, including ‘enhanced security’ to protect them.
• This breach of privacy also creates a risk for Visions which has an obligation to protect its tenants.

[26]  Finally, Visions considered the programme also breached the privacy of the children who were filmed with Visions Tenant 1 when she broke into her accommodation, and questioned whether consent had been provided on the children’s behalf by a parent or caregiver.

The broadcaster’s response

[27]  TVNZ did not uphold Visions’ complaint under any of the standards raised for the reasons set out below.

Balance

[28]  TVNZ found the balance standard was not breached as:

• ‘It is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented. [TVNZ] finds that this has occurred in the Sunday programme through the comment of a local to the area… Fire and Emergency NZ, a family living in emergency housing, Rotorua Mayor, Steve Chadwick, Tiny Deane, representing Visions of a Helping Hand, another ex-client of emergency housing on Fenton Street, … [a] security expert, … some Tiger security staff, emergency housing residents [Visions Tenant 1 and Visions Tenant 2], and Housing Minister Megan Woods.’
• The need for emergency housing was discussed: ‘Housing Minister Megan Woods is very clear in the programme that homelessness is the alternative to the use of such emergency housing. She also explains that clients of emergency housing have a large number of vulnerabilities and complex lives.’ Woods also advised ‘actually there is no cause for us to say that someone shouldn’t be in a position to provide services.’
• ‘There is no requirement to “balance” criticisms of the services provided with acknowledgement of positive outcomes…’ The reporter advised: ‘It is not the job of a public broadcaster to act as a PR agency for a charity which is taking millions of taxpayer dollars to look after vulnerable whānau. In the course of my research, I spent many hours talking to current and former clients of Visions of a Helping Hand. None of the experiences of any of the clients I spoke to were good. I did not cherry pick bad experiences. I simply did not come across any good ones.’
• The Sunday reporter had reached out to Deane and Visions on numerous occasions to provide comment on their perspective, and provided correspondence to show this (set out in further detail below). It stated the information that Visions had listed as being of interest to include in the programme ‘was the perspective which Tiny Deane and Visions of a Helping Hand were repeatedly asked to provide by Sunday, and could have provided if they engaged with the Sunday programme in any meaningful way.’

Accuracy

Allegations against Visions by Visions Tenants 1 and 2

[29]  TVNZ advised:

• Visions Tenant 1’s allegation she was left with nowhere to go – ‘We are aware that [Visions Tenant 1] was informed in a meeting with Tiny Deane and [another person] on [9 August] that she would no longer be allowed to stay at any emergency housing motels in Rotorua, and her only option would be a backpackers. It should be clear to emergency housing service providers that a backpackers is not an appropriate place for a young mother and an 8-month-old baby.’ The meeting on 9 August was four days after Visions Tenant 1 was locked out of her accommodation.
• Visions evicted Visions Tenant 2 while in labour – The story did not state Visions Tenant 2 had been evicted. Further, multiple sources, including Visions staff, had confirmed to TVNZ that Visions Tenant 2 was forced to leave her sister’s place while in labour.

[30]  TVNZ noted these allegations were put to Visions for comment on several occasions. It advised ‘On each separate occasion Visions had the opportunity to outline their general housing policy, and they did not. A review of the calls with [Deane, his lawyer and others from Visions] in the lead-up to the airing of the story shows that client privacy was never mentioned as a reason not to be interviewed or to provide comment.’

Conflating Rotorua emergency housing as a whole with Visions sites

[31]  TVNZ disputed the overall framing of the report conflated Rotorua emergency housing as a whole with emergency housing services provided by Visions:

• ‘The story was clearly divided into 3 parts, separated by ad breaks. The first part was about the general emergency housing situation in Rotorua, the second part was about Visions of a Helping Hand, and the third part sought Visions’ and the government’s response. “Visions of a Helping Hand” is not mentioned by name until the tease for Part 2. It was not at any point stated or implied that [2x motor lodges] (where we did the filming inside motel rooms) is a Visions-run motel.’
• ‘The format of the story is one which is familiar to viewers and would not cause confusion. It is extremely common for teasers and promos to show material which will be seen later in the programme, and viewers would not be misled by this.’
• In relation to Visions’ submission that the broadcast gave the impression Visions Tenant 3 had accessed drugs at a Visions site TVNZ advised: ‘There are at least 50 motels in Rotorua providing emergency housing as is made clear earlier in the story. This section of the story does not name or show any particular motel and therefore does not imply the drug-related incidents happened at a Visions site. It is made clear in the story when the client who is speaking moved to a Visions site.’
• In relation to Visions’ concerns regarding a map showing emergency housing locations in the vicinity of Fenton Street including sites run by contracted emergency housing providers: ‘In terms of highlighting how many motels are providing emergency housing in Rotorua, which was the purpose of the map, there is no material difference between motels which are funded by MSD to provide emergency housing and those contracted by HUD [Ministry of Housing and Urban Development]. The primary focus of the motels is the same.’

Interview with Visions board member on 1 News

[32]  The reporter advised they did not include comment from the board member in the 1 News item to the effect that none of the spaces aired on the programme were Visions sites, as this was not true. Visions had involvement in the support and security of emergency housing clients in several of the motels that were shown on screen.

Fairness

Visions of a Helping Hand

[33]  TVNZ did not consider the broadcast was unfair to Visions as:

• The standard requires that people or organisations which will be adversely affected by a broadcast be given an opportunity to respond to the issues before the programme is broadcast.
• TVNZ considered it met this obligation: ‘As Visions of a Helping Hand is well aware, they were given multiple opportunities to get their side of the story across. Our first approach to Tiny Deane for an interview was on July 25th. We made approaches again to Tiny Deane, his lawyer… and the Visions of a Helping Hand board on August 1st, August 11th, August 12th, August 16th, August 18th, August 22nd, August 25th and August 26th. Visions only agreed to be interviewed on Friday September 2nd, the day our show is recorded. Even if the interview had been able to go ahead, it is unlikely the above points [put to Visions for comment] would have been explained. Our reporter […] interviewed [Visions board member] on Monday September 5th for 1 News at 6pm, and she refused to shed any more light on what had happened with [Visions Tenant 1 and Visions Tenant 2], citing client privacy.’
• Regarding the possible interview on 2 September, TVNZ advised ‘our show is recorded on a Friday afternoon, so the story had already been fully edited and the studio links recorded by the time we heard from Visions. Visions had missed multiple deadlines and refused multiple interview requests by that point, and they acknowledged themselves that it would likely not be possible to include an interview with them at such late notice. They wrote a statement, but this didn’t arrive until Saturday afternoon, the day after our show was recorded. We included part of the statement in our online story, and did an interview with [board member] for the 6pm news on Monday’. TVNZ noted this statement ‘did not address any of the specific allegations and focused mostly on Visions’ achievements…’
• ‘…Visions of a Helping Hand and Tiny Deane’s perspective was included on these issues to the extent that it was provided, and Housing Minister Megan Wood’s perspective is also included which supports the providers in Rotorua.’
• In relation to Visions being the only provider mentioned in the story, ‘Visions of a Helping Hand is the largest provider of government contracted emergency accommodation in Rotorua and has received $14 million from the government since 2017. It is entirely reasonable to focus on them when they are facing such serious allegations from clients.’
• ‘It was not at any point stated or implied that [the two motels] (where we did the filming inside motel rooms in Part 1) are Visions-run motels.’

Tiny Deane

[34]  Deane was not treated unfairly:

• In relation to doorstepping Deane: ‘The issue of client privacy was not mentioned by Visions’ legal representative… in his correspondence with TVNZ. Nor was it mentioned during two separate phone conversations with Tiny Deane. …all attempts to obtain a comment from Tiny Deane and the Visions Board had been exhausted at the time the doorstep took place.’
• The reporter advised ‘The excerpts of the two phone calls with Mr Deane reflect the reality of what was discussed as the conversations consisted mostly of Mr Deane repeatedly telling me he couldn’t or wouldn’t do an interview. During those two calls, the issue of client privacy was never mentioned as a reason an interview could not be conducted… We also engaged with Mr Deane’s lawyer over several weeks and the issue of client privacy was not mentioned…’

Tigers Express Security

[35]  Tigers Express Security was not treated unfairly through comments in the broadcast made by the New Zealand Security Association spokesperson as:

• ‘[The interviewee] is the deputy chairperson of the NZSA, and also spoke in his capacity as a security professional in Rotorua.’
• ‘[The interviewee] has never bid for any security contracts at EH motels and is on the record as having no commercial interest in this sector either in the past or in the future.’
• ‘…[He] was speaking to claims we had also heard first-hand from sources including Visions’ clients and current and former Tigers Express Security staff.’
• His statement that he would argue Tigers Express Security should not have been able to gain a security license was clearly signalled as his own opinion.
• ‘Like Visions, Tigers Express Security (which is also run by Tiny Deane) was given multiple opportunities to be interviewed about the companies’ operations and the allegations against them, but they refused an interview and further comment.’

EH tenant and family

[36]  TVNZ disagreed that EH Tenant and his family were exploited by the programme: ‘This is pure conjecture on the complainant’s part. The [whānau] in this segment were more than happy to share the reality of their circumstances in the hope of shedding light on the emergency housing situation in Rotorua.’

Privacy

Woman with children on Fenton Street

[37]  TVNZ did not consider the broadcast breached the privacy of the woman and her children as:

• ‘The woman and her children were pictured for two seconds in a blurry establishment shot of Rotorua as part of the opening title to the story. No private information was provided in the programme concerning these people and the footage was gathered in a public place, by a camera which was in plain sight. There was no implication that these people were emergency housing clients or that they were clients of Visions of a Helping Hand in the programme, they were not discussed in any way.’
• ‘The woman did not advise Sunday that the filming was a problem for her at the time filming took place.’
• ‘TVNZ does not agree that the general location of a person filmed in a public place (the city of Rotorua), is a private fact, and considers that broadcasting this (in the circumstances that were known at that time) would not be offensive to a reasonable person.’
• TVNZ advised that one week after the programme had aired (on 11 September) a Visions representative contacted the Sunday team advising that the woman was upset about the shot of her in the broadcast. The Visions representative and TVNZ agreed the best course of action (given the story had aired a week earlier) was to prevent any future use in other news stories. TVNZ’s understanding was that this decision was communicated with the woman and she agreed with it. As a result, it considered informed consent had been given after the fact for the footage to remain in the programme on YouTube and TVNZ+.
• It was therefore surprised to receive the further complaint from Visions regarding a breach of the woman’s privacy.
• ‘Despite the fact that we do not believe this shot is a breach of privacy, we take our duty of care very seriously and as such have taken actions to make the shot even more unidentifiable by removing the footage on YouTube and adding a blur to the woman and her children on the TVNZ+ version.’

Children featured with Visions Tenant 1

[38]  TVNZ did not consider the broadcast breached the privacy of these children as ‘guideline 7.11 states a parent or guardian… can consent on behalf of a child under the age of 16 years, but the broadcaster must be satisfied that the broadcast is not contrary to the best interests of the child. The relevant parent consented to these children taking part in the programme, and the broadcast is not contrary to the best interests of the child, it highlighted a problem which they were experiencing in an attempt to rectify this.’

Our analysis and findings

[39]  We have watched the broadcasts (Sunday and 1 News) and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Freedom of expression and public interest

[40]  Our starting point when we look at any complaint, is to consider the important right to freedom of expression, which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer information and the audience’s right to receive it. Our task is to weigh the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcasts, against any harm potentially caused. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint as a breach of standards where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.¹

[41]  In this case, we recognise the high value and legitimate public interest in investigative journalism pieces, such as this Sunday item. Broadcasts which scrutinise or which are critical of the actions of the Government and its service providers are a vital component of freedom of expression. The media has a significant role to play in keeping the public informed and in holding state organisations and government service providers to account.

[42]  The Sunday ‘Golden Mile’ programme highlighted an issue that might not have otherwise been known to the wider New Zealand public, being problems with condensed emergency housing in Rotorua, and serious allegations against Visions, the largest government-contracted emergency housing provider in Rotorua. There was high public interest in scrutinising agencies entrusted with providing housing and support for vulnerable New Zealanders, and this item and the follow-up coverage contributed to ongoing public debate and a review of how emergency housing should continue to operate in Rotorua.² In other words, it contributed to effecting real change.

[43]  Overall we have not found harm under any of the broadcasting standards raised that outweighed this value and public interest, or warrants our intervention. The primary reason for this is the extensive efforts by the Sunday reporter to get Visions’ and Tigers Express Security’s comments in response to the allegations made against them. It was reasonable in our view for TVNZ to focus on Visions, as the largest provider in Rotorua, and given the serious allegations against it. Many, if not all, of Visions’ concerns with the broadcast could have been addressed had it provided a substantive response to the reporter on the issues raised.

[44]  Accordingly, we have not upheld any part of the complaint. We explain our reasons below.

Timeline of contact attempts

[45]  A key feature of this complaint, and the reasons for our decision, is the timeline of communications between the reporter and Visions/its legal counsel from 25 July 2022 right up until the day before the broadcast of 4 September 2022. Throughout its submissions, Visions maintained it was not given sufficient opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the programme.

[46]  It is evident from the submissions and email chains provided to us that the Sunday team made numerous requests to Deane or his lawyer for comment or an interview over the course of the six weeks prior to the programme being broadcast:

• The reporter initially contacted Deane by phone to request an interview on 25 July 2022. Deane advised he was unable to do an interview without approval from Visions’ Board, and the Board did not meet for another month.
• The reporter called and texted Deane on 1 August to ask again for an interview, with no response.
• The reporter called Deane again on 11 August once they had heard more specific allegations against Visions and Tigers Express Security. The reporter explained they were seeking a response to the concerns and wanted Deane’s side of the story. Deane declined an interview and referred all communication to his lawyer.
• The reporter emailed Deane’s lawyer on 12 August and outlined the further general allegations against Visions and Tigers Express Security, and asked for an on-camera interview with Deane to get his response. The reporter asked for a response to their interview request by 16 August.
• Deane’s lawyer responded on 15 August saying Visions’ board members needed to convene a meeting to consider its response to the issues, and asked for a written copy of allegations and questions.
• On 16 August the reporter replied saying they would be happy to provide questions on the proviso they could be answered by 19 August, and repeated the request for an interview with Deane.
• With no response, on 18 August the reporter emailed the lawyer again outlining more detailed allegations against Visions and Tigers Express Security (though it was not specified who had made the allegations) and repeated the request for an interview with Deane. The reporter stated ‘Because we still haven’t received a response to our first set of questions, sent Friday 12 August, we expect a response by tomorrow, 19 August.’
• On 24 August, Deane’s lawyer emailed to advise they were awaiting updated instructions from the Visions board members, noting it was a volunteer board of a charitable trust. They advised Tigers Express Security had considered the allegations put to them, refuted them, would not be making further comment, and that Deane declined the request for an interview.
• On 25 August, with the on-air date approaching, the reporter went to the Visions office in Rotorua to attempt to speak to Deane in person (‘doorstepping’ him, as shown in the broadcast). Deane said if the reporter supplied the names of complainants he could respond to the allegations.
• In the afternoon of 25 August, Deane’s lawyer emailed saying the Visions Board ‘refutes the allegations contained in your correspondence. The Board respectfully declines to make any further comment at this time in relation to the matters raised and declines the request for an interview with Mr Deane.’
• On 26 August, the reporter emailed Deane’s lawyer again naming the complainants behind the allegations and including more specific detail. They again requested an interview with Deane, and requested a response to the questions by 30 September (intended to be 30 August).
• On 30 August, Deane’s lawyer advised ‘our client declines to make any further comment.’
• On 2 September, the day the Sunday programme was pre-recorded, the Visions Board contacted the reporter to advise they had seen a preview for the programme and requested to be interviewed, saying if this was not possible due to the production schedule they would provide an interim written statement.
• TVNZ responded on 2 September advising as the email was only received at 1.53pm, ‘our production schedule means we are no longer able to include an interview in our programme.’ However it invited a written statement for inclusion in an online article.
• On 3 September, Visions provided a written statement, and comments from that statement were included in an online article.³
• TVNZ also interviewed a Visions board member for a follow-up story on the 6pm news on Monday 5 September, the day after the Sunday story aired.⁴

Balance

[47]  Turning to consider Visions’ concerns under the balance standard, this standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news, current affairs, and factual programmes.⁵

[48]  An issue of public importance is something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public. A controversial issue will be one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.⁶

[49]  This story was an in-depth investigation report on the adequacy of emergency housing in Rotorua. Emergency housing is an issue of social and political importance, concerning some of Aotearoa New Zealand’s most vulnerable individuals, and funded by the taxpayer. At the time of the broadcast, Rotorua had been experiencing ongoing problems associated with a high number of emergency housing motels situated in the same vicinity, which had come into operation during the COVID-19 pandemic to stem a growing homelessness problem, and these problems were the subject of ongoing public debate.⁷ As a result, we find the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, and the balance standard applies.

[50]  The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁸ The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance. Broadcasters should, however, give a fair voice to alternative significant viewpoints, considering the nature of the issue and coverage of that issue.⁹

[51]  Visions is concerned the broadcast presented emergency housing providers, including Visions, in an ‘overwhelmingly negative light’, and did not include any positive experiences, or discuss the positive difference emergency housing makes. It also raised concerns that the broadcast did not address certain contextual matters, such as the rules for tenants in Visions accommodation, and the reasons these are in place.

Balance within the broadcast

[52]  We note the item did include a range of significant perspectives including three former Visions clients, a fire and emergency worker, a Tigers Express Security guard, former Rotorua Mayor Steve Chadwick, a local Rotorua resident, a security professional, Housing Minister Megan Woods (whose comments were supportive of Visions’ work), and some comments from Deane to the extent they were provided.

[53]  Given the criticisms raised in the broadcast, it was particularly important – as the broadcaster clearly appreciated – for the broadcast to include Visions’ perspective.

[54]  We consider TVNZ gave Visions ample opportunity, and made more than reasonable efforts, to provide Visions’ perspective as part of the broadcast. Visions was made aware of the issues that would be discussed well in advance of the broadcast and was invited to provide its response on numerous occasions, however did not engage until the last moment, once the programme had already been recorded.

[55]  While Visions has argued it would have been a breach of its client privacy and confidentiality policies to provide comment on individual cases, we see no reason it could not have provided its perspective generally refuting the claims and outlining its position, without breaching the privacy of their former clients. It was also open to Visions to provide the further contextual information it considered was missing from the broadcast such as information on its general operations – having sought Visions’ comment on the allegations, it was reasonable for TVNZ to expect Visions to provide this information if it considered it to be relevant.

[56]  In any event, in the absence of a detailed response from Visions outlining its perspective on the matters discussed in the broadcast, the broadcast nevertheless included balancing comment that was available:

• From Minister Woods:
  
  In terms of what our people who are working on the ground in Rotorua are finding is that actually there is no cause for us to say that someone shouldn't be in a position to provide services. We're working with a cohort of people who have very complex lives. There are a large number of vulnerabilities and I am very mindful of that.
  …
  The kinds of claims that you're talking about, they would be criminal. I've taken the step of asking the officials to reach out to the local police. They have told us that there are no concerns in terms of the operation on the ground.
  …
  We could cancel those motel contracts tomorrow. The motel problem for Rotorua would be over, but would be back to the problem that was there when I became the minister. And that was people sleeping in the doorways of shops. Let's be really clear what the alternatives are.
• From Deane: ‘I look after more families than the Salvation Army, Emerge, Lifewise – and they are in the whole of New Zealand;’ ‘We’ve done nothing wrong’ and ‘One thing I can't get over is that we do so much good in this town, and you guys are trying to crucify us for it.’
• The reporter also stated that Visions ‘refuted all the claims’ made against them.

Balance within the period of current interest

[57]  The standard also allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest. Visions’ perspective in relation to the concerns raised in the programme was subsequently included in other news media,¹⁰ including the broadcast of 1 News on 5 September 2022, the following evening.

Reasonable opportunities for Visions to provide balancing comment  

[58]  Visions also specifically argued under the balance standard that it was not given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations relating to Visions Tenants 1 and 2, given their names were not mentioned until the reporter’s email of 26 August, which requested a response by 30 September (when the programme aired on 4 September). We do not consider this raises any issue under the balance standard because:

• Given all of the emails and phone calls that had gone before, typically requesting comment within a few days, it was fairly obvious that the deadline of 30 September was an error and intended to read Tuesday 30 August. In any case, the reporter followed up at 12.33pm on 30 August noting the deadline had passed and again asked whether any comment would be forthcoming. Deane’s lawyer responded to TVNZ on 30 August advising ‘our client declines to make any further comment.’
• While their names were not provided to Visions until 26 August, details of the general allegations made by Visions Tenants 1 and 2 had been provided to them on 12 and 18 August. To the extent Visions is suggesting 3-4 days for a response was unreasonable, we disagree – especially given the reporter had made the nature of the programme and the range of allegations clear well before 26 August.

[59]  Further, we do not consider it was unreasonable for TVNZ not to have included Visions’ written statement of 3 September in the programme given it was provided after it had been recorded on 2 September, and TVNZ had already given Visions numerous opportunities to provide comment. In any event, the statement itself primarily promoted Visions’ work rather than responding to the allegations at issue. While it would have assisted Visions for some of this statement to be included in the broadcast, there was nothing to stop it providing this content well before 3 September.

Other aspects

[60]   Finally, we note other aspects of Visions’ complaint under this standard appeared more directed at issues of bias in the reporting. The standard does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias.¹¹ Within the limits established by the standard, broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.¹² In this case, the report was focused on issues that had been identified, and allegations that had come to light, regarding emergency housing in Rotorua. It did not purport to be a broad overview of emergency housing where the audience might expect to hear more about the need for emergency housing and the positive difference it makes. As the broadcaster notes, nor does the standard require ‘positive’ balancing comment to be included alongside ‘negative’ coverage.

Conclusion

[61]  Overall, we are satisfied the broadcaster made reasonable efforts, and gave reasonable opportunities, to provide balance as part of the story and we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Accuracy

[62]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹³ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹⁴ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[63]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[64]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to.¹⁵

[65]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.¹⁶

Allegations against Visions by Visions Tenants 1 and 2

[66]  Visions submitted that the broadcast featured several inaccurate allegations by Visions Tenants 1 and 2, including:

• Visions evicted Visions Tenant 1 from her accommodation.
• Visions left Visions Tenant 1 with nowhere to go.
• Visions evicted Visions Tenant 2 while she was in labour.

[67]  We do not consider the entity (ie whether it was the Police or Visions) who physically evicted Visions Tenant 1 from her accommodation to be a material point that would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the programme. The key message was that Visions Tenant 1 was a Visions tenant who had been evicted from her accommodation. The accuracy standard therefore does not apply to this point.

[68]  We further note that Visions Tenant 2 did not allege in the broadcast that she was a tenant of Visions at the time, or that she had been evicted, instead stating that she had been told to ‘get out’ of Visions Tenant 1’s accommodation.

[69]  In relation to the remaining allegations, these were Visions Tenant 1 and 2’s personal accounts of events and their experiences. The audience would have understood that these accounts were allegations. The parties have provided us with conflicting information about what actually happened. We note the broadcaster’s submissions maintaining that it took additional steps to investigate the credibility of the claims (the reporter advised she viewed paperwork indicating that Visions had not presented Visions Tenant 1 with alternative accommodation options, and multiple sources had advised her that Visions Tenant 2 had been in labour when she was forced to leave). However, we consider Visions’ concerns about these allegations being aired, along with the alleged implication that Visions played some role in Visions Tenant 2’s baby’s death, are more appropriately dealt with under the fairness standard, below.

Conflating Rotorua emergency housing as a whole with Visions’ sites

[70]  Visions considered the report misleadingly conflated Rotorua emergency housing as a whole with emergency housing services provided by Visions. We do not agree viewers would have been misled in this way. Addressing Visions’ particular concerns we note:

• The first part of the broadcast was clearly focused on providing a general overview of the issues with emergency housing in Rotorua, featuring a discussion of recent fires, crime on Fenton Street, a local resident detailing an incident where she called the police, the reporters visiting EH Tenant and his family at their emergency housing motel, and the reporters going undercover to a motel. The broadcast did not state or imply, through imagery or otherwise, any of these incidents were the fault of Visions or that the motels featured were Visions-run. Visions was not mentioned until the second part of the broadcast, after the first ad break.
• The overview teaser at the beginning of the programme did show an image of a Visions sign while stating there had been ‘allegations of negligence, intimidation and abuse of power towards some of our most vulnerable… carried out by agencies who are receiving millions of taxpayer dollars to look after them.’ We do not consider this would have misled viewers to believe all the motels subsequently featured were Visions-run – the teaser specified there were multiple ‘agencies’ who were the subject of allegations, and we consider it would be clear to viewers that Visions is just one of a number of emergency housing providers in Rotorua.
• Visions Tenant 3 was interviewed in the second part of the broadcast just after Visions, Deane and Tigers Express Security were introduced. Visions Tenant 3 was introduced as ‘a recovered P addict, she says the Fenton Street motels where she lived for eight months are the place to score.’ She stated there was a P ‘shop’ at one motel she stayed at and detailed an incident where her daughter was accidentally pepper‑sprayed. The broadcast then stated ‘[Visions Tenant 3] and five of her kids moved to a government contracted motel, becoming clients of Visions of a Helping Hand watched over by Tiny Deane’s security guards.’ We consider this sufficiently indicated that the incidents involving drugs and pepper spray occurred before Visions Tenant 3 became a Visions client, and viewers would not have been misled to believe they occurred at a Visions site.
• Viewers would not have been misled as a result of the map of Fenton Street showing emergency housing locations not differentiating between contracted and non-contracted emergency housing providers. For the purpose of indicating to the audience the locations in the vicinity of Fenton Street, there was no material difference between contracted and non-contracted emergency housing providers.

Other

[71]  We do not propose to traverse all of Visions’ remaining concerns under accuracy as set out in para [22] above, on the basis they concern technical points that were not material to the broadcast, or matters of editorial discretion which do not raise broadcasting standards issues.

1 News interview with Visions board member

[72]  In relation to Visions’ concerns with the follow-up report on 1 News on 5 September 2022, these relate to matters of editorial discretion as to what comments from the board member’s interview should have been included in the broadcast – rather than any issue of accuracy. We consider the comments included were sufficient to indicate Visions’ point of view in the context of the brief report.

Fairness

[73]  The fairness standard¹⁷ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁸ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Visions of a Helping Hand

General fairness concerns

[74]  Visions is concerned it was unfairly singled out as a focus over other providers in Rotorua (particularly the provider running the motel in which the reporters went undercover). As noted, broadcasters have editorial discretion to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus, and it was open to the broadcaster to name and focus on Visions and allegations against it.

[75]  A key principle of the fairness standard is that where a person or organisation referred to or portrayed in a broadcast might be adversely affected, that person or organisation should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, prior to the broadcast.¹⁹ What is ‘fair and reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances.²⁰ They should also be informed, before the broadcast, of the nature of the programme and their proposed contribution.²¹

[76]  As detailed under the balance standard, we consider Visions was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations against it. We also consider it was adequately informed, before the broadcast, of the nature of the programme and the allegations that would feature. The reporter’s early correspondence to Visions advised ‘I am doing a story on emergency housing motels in Rotorua for the Sunday programme, and over the course of my research I have been made aware of multiple allegations against Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust, and Tigers Express Security, entities which are both run by Mr Deane.’ The reporter subsequently provided details of all material allegations that were ultimately discussed in the broadcast.

[77]  While Visions says it was unfair the statement it provided on 3 September was not included in the broadcast, as previously noted, we do not agree. The broadcast had already been recorded at that point, and Visions had been given numerous opportunities to provide a response in the weeks leading up to the broadcast. The report did state that Visions had refuted all claims against it, and part of the written statement was included in the corresponding online article.

[78]  As a public-facing organisation, partially taxpayer-funded (with the programme noting it had received a total of $14 million in recent years) and tasked with providing emergency housing to some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable individuals, Visions can reasonably expect to be subject to media scrutiny where allegations such as those raised in the broadcast are made. It could also reasonably expect to be asked to provide its comment/perspective in response, and was given every opportunity to do so.

[79]  We have already addressed Visions’ concerns that the broadcast unfairly associated motels run by other providers with Visions motels, and conflated contracted emergency housing with non-contracted emergency housing, under the accuracy standard above, and found no breach. For similar reasons, we do not uphold these concerns under the fairness standard either.

Allegations by Visions Tenants 1 and 2

[80]  Visions Tenant 1’s allegation that she was left with nowhere to go after being locked out of her accommodation, and Visions Tenant 2’s allegation that Visions made her leave Visions Tenant 1’s accommodation while in labour, had the potential to adversely affect Visions. However, as detailed above at para [58], we consider Visions was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to these allegations. Visions Tenant 2’s allegation that she was made to leave while in labour was also specifically put to Deane when the reporter doorstepped him, to which he responded ‘No. I wasn't there. It was just a ruling that was made.’ While Visions considered it was unable to respond to these allegations for privacy reasons, as previously noted we are of the view it could have refuted the specific claims and outlined its general policies (eg, regarding offering alternative accommodation) without revealing additional personal information.

[81]  While not stated explicitly, we accept the description of the lead-up to Visions Tenant 2’s baby’s death and her interactions with Deane just after could have implied Visions played some role in the baby’s death. This was a very serious insinuation to make, and we were concerned the broadcaster may have overlooked cultural and other considerations that may have led to Visions contributing to the cost of the funeral (although we later received submissions from the broadcaster maintaining there was no reason for the reporter to believe any such considerations were in play: ‘…the story reflect[ed] how the payment was received by the Tenant. …potential tikanga or other cultural reasons for the payment were not raised by either [the Tenant or Visions], and the Tenant’s perspective was important to be conveyed in the context of the discussion’).

[82]  We gave serious thought as to whether the possibility that some viewers might make a negative inference in relation to the baby’s death, was unfair to Visions. However ultimately, we came back to the fact that Visions was given multiple opportunities to respond to Visions Tenant 2’s allegation that she was forced to leave Visions Tenant 1’s accommodation while in labour. In light of this, we do not consider this part of the broadcast resulted in unfairness to Visions.

[83]  For these reasons we find no breach of the fairness standard in relation to Visions as an organisation.

Tiny Deane

[84]  Guidelines to the fairness standard state that doorstepping an individual or organisation as a means of obtaining comment will normally be unfair, unless all legitimate and reasonable methods of obtaining comment have been exhausted.²² Doorstepping refers to the filming or recording of an interview or attempted interview with someone, without any prior warning.

[85]  We do not consider the reporter doorstepping Deane was unreasonable or unfair in the circumstances. As detailed above, the broadcaster had made contact numerous times in an effort to obtain Deane’s comment as CEO of Visions and Tigers Express Security, to respond to allegations discussed in the broadcast. The doorstepping was clearly a last resort. While the reporter had already been advised that the organisations did not wish to make any further comment on the matters, given the very high public interest in the issues, and the importance of including Deane and his organisations’ perspective, it was reasonable for the reporter to make one last attempt at obtaining comment this way.

[86]  It was also reasonable to expect that a public-facing organisation, in receipt of a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars, as well as advice via legal representation, would engage with these matters and provide someone to front much sooner than the day before the Sunday broadcast.

[87]  Visions is also concerned that the excerpts of phone calls with Deane featured in the programme unfairly represented the communications between him and the reporter. Visions raised this concern under the accuracy standard as well, however we consider it is more appropriately dealt with under the fairness standard in terms of whether the selected excerpts fairly reflected the conversations overall.

[88]  There were three excerpts of phone calls between Deane and the reporter featured – two in ‘coming up’ teasers for the first and second parts of the broadcast where Deane rebuffed the reporter and stated ‘go through the right channels from now on’ – and one with the following dialogue:

Deane:            Probably one of the biggest in New Zealand. I look after more families than the Salvation Army. Emerge, Lifewise, and they are in the whole of New Zealand.

…

Deane:            Legally I cannot talk about that.

Reporter:        Oh, why is that?

Deane:            Because we're in a collective.

Reporter:        What does that mean?

Deane:            It means that we're governed.

Reporter:        Governed by? By who?

[89]  We obtained from the broadcaster the full transcripts of the reporter’s conversations with Deane. Having reviewed those as well as the timeline of contact (para [46] above), we are satisfied the above excerpts fairly represented the overall tenor of the reporter’s many communication attempts, which largely consisted of a refusal to comment on the questions raised. The full phone transcripts did not contain any further substantive comment from Deane that we think was necessary to include in the interests of fairness.

[90]  We also note the broadcast featured Deane’s comments (when the reporter doorstepped him) of ‘The people who have made those claims. You come back with their names and then we can talk. …I don't know who they are or if they give me permission to talk about them. And then I can discuss matters with you.’ These comments portrayed Deane’s concern about protecting client privacy.

[91]  We therefore have not found any unfairness to Deane.

Tigers Express Security Ltd

[92]  Visions has raised concerns that it was unfair to Tigers Express Security to interview a security professional and board member of the New Zealand Security Association, who made several allegations about Tigers Express Security staff, and who Visions says is a competitor.

[93]  We do not consider the choice of interviewee gave rise to any unfairness to Visions. The background of/perspective brought by the interviewee was clearly indicated to viewers through identifying his role as a board member of the NZSA and as a security professional. He also identified that he was aware of the allegations ‘Because the licensed guards working there are telling me’ – and in any case the allegations he spoke of were echoed by other sources used in the programme. The broadcaster also maintained he had no commercial interest as far as this sector in Rotorua. The interviewee’s remark (also raised in the complaint), ‘I will argue they shouldn’t have been able to [gain a security license]’ was presented as his own opinion rather than that of the NZSA.

[94]  Further, Deane was made aware of the allegations regarding Tigers Express Security and given ample opportunity to respond, but did not provide a substantive response beyond denying the claims. 

Emergency housing tenant and family

[95]  There is nothing to suggest EH Tenant and his two children were unfairly exploited by the programme. EH Tenant willingly participated in the broadcast, and consented to his children appearing.

Conclusion on fairness

[96]  For these reasons, we have not found any breach of the fairness standard and do not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Privacy

[97]  The privacy standard²³ states broadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual. It aims to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.²⁴ It seeks to protect their dignity, autonomy, mental wellbeing and reputation, and their ability to develop relationships, opinions and creativity away from the glare of publicity. However, it also allows broadcasters to gather, record and broadcast material where this is in the public interest.²⁵

[98]  There are typically three criteria for finding a breach of privacy:

• The individual whose privacy has allegedly been interfered with was identifiable.²⁶
• The broadcast disclosed private information or material about the individual, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.²⁷
• The disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.²⁸

[99]  Visions has alleged a breach of privacy with respect to two groups of individuals in the broadcast.

Woman walking down Fenton Street with two children

Identification

[100]  An individual may be identifiable in a broadcast even if they are not named.²⁹ Individuals must be identifiable beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matter dealt with in the broadcast.³⁰

[101]  While noting the establishing shot of the woman and her children was only shown fleetingly for two seconds, we consider it is possible they were identifiable beyond family and close friends, especially if the frame was paused and scrutinised. From the shot, it is possible to make out a woman pushing a toddler in a pram, with a small child walking beside them. It is possible to make out the approximate ages of the children, the colour and type of clothing the individuals are wearing, and the type of pram. It was also clear the individuals were being filmed on Fenton Street in Rotorua, walking past the ‘Cleveland Motel’.

[102]  We also note the complaint correspondence suggests the woman had in fact been recognised in the programme by whānau and community members, as well as strangers.

Reasonable expectation of privacy

[103]  The next question is whether the broadcast disclosed private information or material about the woman and her children, over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.³¹ Factors relevant to this assessment include, but are not limited to:³²

• whether the content is in the public domain
• whether the content is intimate, sensitive or traumatic in nature
• whether the individuals could reasonably expect the content would not be disclosed
• children under the age of 16 can reasonably expect high levels of privacy.

[104]  While  a person will not usually have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place (ie one generally accessible to, and/or in view of, the public) such an expectation may exist where it is objectively obvious from the circumstances that the individual is particularly vulnerable.³³

[105]  Visions has advised the woman and her children were clients of Visions who had been relocated to Rotorua for protection reasons, and that the inclusion of the shot caused significant harm and distress to them, creating a need for extra security and protection measures to be put in place.

[106]  We accept this is a highly unideal situation, and that broadcasting this shot created a risk to the woman and her children by disclosing her location. However, ultimately, the woman and her children were filmed on a public street as part of an establishing shot, and there were no ‘objectively obvious’ circumstances suggesting they were particularly vulnerable.

[107]  We do not agree with Visions’ argument that it should have been obvious to the camera crew that they were, or potentially were, vulnerable as it is likely the crew saw them entering or leaving an emergency housing motel – there is no evidence that this is the case (TVNZ strongly disputes that), and in any event this would not have automatically indicated that they were particularly vulnerable. We also note the broadcaster’s assertion the camera crew was in plain sight meaning it was open to the woman to advise the camera crew at the time that she did not wish to be filmed.

[108]  In the absence of any suggestion these individuals were vulnerable, we consider they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy being filmed walking down Fenton Street and it was open to the broadcaster to include the shot in the broadcast.

[109]  Accordingly, we do not need to go on to consider the third limb of the privacy test (whether disclosure would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person). Overall, while we sympathise with the situation of the woman and her children, we have not found a breach of their privacy in this instance.

[110]  We do however consider the broadcaster’s actions after having been made aware that the woman remained concerned with her and her children featuring – of removing the footage on YouTube and adding a blur to the shot on the TVNZ+ version – were appropriate.

Children featured with Visions Tenant 1

[111]  It is not a breach of privacy where the person concerned has given informed consent to the disclosure or intrusion.³⁴ A parent or guardian, or other person aged 18 or over in loco parentis (standing in the shoes of the parent or guardian), can consent on behalf of a child under the age of 16 years, but the broadcaster must be satisfied that the broadcast is not contrary to the best interests of the child.³⁵

[112]  TVNZ has advised that the relevant parent (who also participated in the making of the programme) consented to these children taking part. Further, while we acknowledge Visions’ concerns for the children, questioning whether the broadcast was in their best interests, we consider the broadcaster met its obligation to be satisfied the programme was not contrary to the children’s best interests. Their participation was minor, they were not in distress, nor was there anything to indicate they were detrimentally affected by being filmed. It appeared the camera crew treated the children sensitively and respectfully (including buying food for them). We also note the strong public interest in featuring them in the broadcast, to show the effect of issues with emergency housing on children, and agree with the broadcaster’s submission it was not contrary to their best interests to highlight their plight.

[113]  On this basis we find no breach of these children’s privacy.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
9 August 2023

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Visions of a Helping Hand’s formal complaint – 3 October 2022

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 1 November 2022

3  Visions’ referral to the Authority – 29 November 2022

4  TVNZ’s further comments and attachments – 22 December 2022

a.  Copy of privacy complaint from woman featured in broadcast – 28 September 2022

b.  Copy of TVNZ’s response to privacy complaint – 1 November 2022

5  Visions’ further comments – 10 February 2023

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 2 March 2023

7  Visions’ further comments and attachments – 15 March 2023

a.  Correspondence between Visions and Sunday reporter

b.  Social media comments

c.  Summary of events re Visions Tenants 1 and 2

d.  Visions client concerns re Sunday programme

8  TVNZ’s further comments – 17 April 2023

a.  Correspondence between Visions and Sunday reporter

9  Copy of Visions’ written statement (3 September 2022) provided by TVNZ – received 24 April 2023

10  TVNZ providing text and phone records between Sunday reporter and Deane – 24 May 2023

11  Visions advising no submission on provisional decision – 30 June 2023

12  TVNZ’s submissions on provisional decision – 12 July 2023

¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
² “MP calls for investigation into Rotorua emergency housing” 1 News (online ed, 5 September 2022); NZ Herald (online ed, 20 October 2022); Felix Desmarais “Rotorua emergency housing motels: End to widespread use of motels may be in sight” RNZ (online ed, 24 November 2022); Felix Desmarais “New agreement seeks to reduce Rotorua emergency housing motel use to ‘near zero’” RNZ (online ed, 9 December 2022); Kelly Makiha “Emergency housing improvements: Public pressure makes Rotorua ‘best city in the world’ again” NZ Herald (online ed, 5 March 2023)
³ Kristin Hall “Undercover report – Rotorua’s emergency housing crisis exposed” 1 News (online ed, 4 September 2022)
⁴ Kristin Hall “Nats, Te Pāti Māori want Rotorua emergency housing investigated” 1 News (online ed, 5 September 2022)
⁵ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Guideline 5.1
⁷ Felix Desmarais “Rotorua emergency housing: Tabuteau claims government will stop ‘out-of-towners’ coming to city” RNZ (online ed, 9 July 2022); “Four fires in seven months in Rotorua emergency accommodation” RNZ (online ed, 18 July 2022); Amanda Cropp “Moteliers paid millions for housing the homeless reject claims they’re onto a ‘get rich quick’ scheme” Stuff (online ed, 24 July 2022); Leonard Powell “Rotorua business owners blame emergency housing for crimes” RNZ (online ed, 16 August 2022)
⁸ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁹ Guideline 5.3
¹⁰ Benn Bathgate “Rotorua homeless charity hits back at Sunday programme claims” Stuff (online ed, 9 September 2022); Maryana Garcia “Rotorua emergency housing: Visions of a Helping Hand Trust supporting more than 2000 families” NZ Herald (online ed, 9 September 2022); Kristin Hall “Nats, Te Pāti Māori want Rotorua emergency housing investigated” 1 News (online ed, 5 September 2022)
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15
¹² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15
¹³ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
¹⁵ Guideline 6.1
¹⁶ Guideline 6.2
¹⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
¹⁹ Guideline 8.4
²⁰ Guideline 8.4
²¹ Guideline 8.2
²² Guideline 8.5
²³ Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁴ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 19
²⁵ Commentary, Standard 7, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 19
²⁶ Guideline 7.2
²⁷ Guidelines 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6
²⁸ Guidelines 7.3 and 7.8
²⁹ Guideline 7.2
³⁰ Guideline 7.2
³¹ Guidelines 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6
³² Guideline 7.4
³³ Guideline 7.6
³⁴ Guideline 7.10
³⁵ Guideline 7.11