BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Assignment, broadcast at 7.30pm on TV One on 5 September 1996, profiled and

analysed three of the minor political parties. Meet the Press broadcast at 9.45pm on 8

September interviewed the leaders of two of these parties.

Mr Trevor Rogers MP, leader of the New Zealand Conservative Party, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd that the omission of the Conservative Party from both

these programmes resulted in broadcasts which were unbalanced and unfair. He argued

that the Conservative Party held a significant role in the political environment.

TVNZ explained that for its election campaign coverage, it had divided the political

parties into three groups. The first category involved the four major parties which

could expect with some confidence to be represented in Parliament. The second

comprised minor parties which TVNZ believed had a reasonable expectation to

achieve representation in Parliament after the election on 12 October. The third

category consisted of those parties which did not have a realistic expectation of

winning representation. TVNZ's policy was to include coverage of the latter group

only when merited on grounds of newsworthiness and as the Conservative Party was

part of this group, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Rogers on the Party's behalf referred the

complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

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

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

A general election was held in New Zealand on Saturday 12 October 1996. It involved

the MMP voting system for the first time, which replaced the FPP voting system, and

20 political parties registered with the Electoral Commission The New Zealand

Conservative Party was one such registered party.

TVNZ broadcast a number of programmes which focussed on the election. It

broadcast a weekly series entitled Meet the Press and its weekly current affairs

programme, Assignment, examined some of the political parties.

Mr Trevor Rogers MP, Leader of the Conservative Party, complained to TVNZ that

he and his party were excluded from each of these series. Before a formal complaint

was received, Mr Rogers was advised by TVNZ how it intended to structure its

coverage of the election campaign. TVNZ wrote (4 September):

This election we determined that there were four major parties which could

expect, with a considerable degree of certainty, to win representation in

Parliament and to be potentially involved in the formation of any coalitions.

Those parties are National, Labour, New Zealand First and Alliance.

We also identified a second category of parties which had a reasonable

expectation that they would achieve some representation in Parliament. They

are Christian Coalition, ACT and United. Christian Coalition achieves its place

in this category by virtue of our One Network News/Colmar Brunton poll

showing them breaching the 5% threshold on two occasions in the last month.

The United party achieves its position by virtue of the very strong showing by

Peter Dunne in the Ohariu-Belmont electorate which, as you point out, means

United no longer needs to achieve the 5% threshold in order to obtain

representation. ACT has a reasonable expectation on both counts either by

virtue of its overall party vote (in recent polls it has been fringing the threshold)

or by the performance of an individual candidate such as Richard Prebble.

Parties in this second category are the ones 'Assignment' was required to profile

and analyse. With regard to Meet the Press, party leaders in category one are to

be questioned on their own for a full hour while leaders of category two parties

are sharing a single programme.

The final category consists of other parties who, in our best judgement, do not

appear to have any realistic chances of winning representation. It is intended

that while they not be specifically represented in any of our election campaign

special programmes they should feature in our regular daily News and Current

Affairs output.

Although we reached our decisions prior to the Electoral Commission publishing

its allocation of free time for opening and closing addresses, it is of some interest

that, broadly speaking, the Commission has reached the same conclusions as

TVNZ's News and Current Affairs.

Mr Rogers' first formal complaint focussed on the Party's exclusion from the

Assignment programme broadcast on 5 September which covered what he described as

the "three, so called, smaller political parties". He alleged a breach of s.4(1)(d) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989 and standards G6, G14 and G20 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

In his complaint, Mr Rogers pointed out that he had been an MP for six years and

leader of the New Zealand Conservative Party since 1 January 1996. Recording some

of the positions he had held in Parliament, Mr Rogers said that the Party's opinion

poll rating was rising as expected. He wrote:

It is a sincere political party, having made, and continuing to make, earnest

endeavour in the political and electoral arenas. It is the Party's intention to

achieve representation in the next Parliament primarily by winning constituency

seats and hence side-stepping the 5% party vote threshold. Provided it is

accorded objective, impartial and fair treatment by the news media, the Party is

confident of achieving this.

It is therefore clear that the views of the New Zealand Conservative Party must

properly be considered to be significant.

He later complained to TVNZ that there were three points dealt with in Assignment

which, by omitting any reference to the role of the Conservative Party, resulted in a

programme which was unbalanced.

Mr Rogers, as leader of the New Zealand Conservative Party, referred to the same

background material and alleged a breach of the same standards when he complained

about his exclusion from Meet the Press broadcast on 8 September. That programme,

he observed, purported to provide a forum to examine the views of the "minor"

parties.

TVNZ assessed both complaints under the nominated standards. Section 4(1)(d) of

the Act requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with:

(d) The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are

discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are

given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme

or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Standard G6 requires broadcasters:

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

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

Standards G14 and G20 read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

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

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present

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

by judging every case on its merits.

In its reply to the complaint about the Conservative Party's exclusion from

Assignment, TVNZ referred to the structure devised for its election campaign coverage

outlined in its 4 September letter (above). While noting the matters advanced by Mr

Rogers, TVNZ commented:

Despite these arguments it cannot be denied that to date your party has achieved

recognition in only two of the last four One Network News/Colmar Brunton

Polls with a showing of 0.4 percent in the most recent poll.

Further, TVNZ said, it was not aware of any evidence that the Party was likely to win

a constituency seat. Accordingly, it did not accept the argument that either the

Party's or Mr Roger's views were significant in the current political climate or election

campaign to the degree that justified their inclusion in the programmes complained

about. Moreover, it did not uphold any of the specific allegations of a lack of balance.

TVNZ rejected the points about the degree of the Party's and Mr Roger's significance

in its reply to the complaint about his exclusion from Meet the Press. It pointed out

the programme was not introduced as one involving the leaders of minor parties, but of

the leaders of the minor parties "who might well have an influence on the formation of

the next government".

When he referred the complaints to the Authority, Mr Rogers argued that TVNZ, in

basing its allocation of election coverage almost entirely on its interpretation of

selected opinion polls, had paid scant regard to its statutory duties. He considered

that this process had involved TVNZ in prejudging the election.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ pointed out that, faced finally with 32 political

parties:

... it was imperative that we had in place a structure which allowed us to

broadcast comprehensible news and current affairs material in which the focus

was on news and analysis relevant to viewers, and which itself stood up to

scrutiny as being inherently newsworthy, as well as being fair and balanced.

As it was of the view that it reflected the reality of the political landscape, TVNZ

denied that it was telling people how to think. It maintained that it had been

scrupulously fair in its dealings with Mr Rogers and it had offered Mr Rogers the

opportunity to advance information confidentially to justify the Party's inclusion in

another category.

In its determination of these complaints, the Authority is taking care not to participate

in hindsight analysis. It appreciates that TVNZ, before the campaign started, had to

develop some criteria to provide coverage of the parties taking part in the first MMP

election. In view of the MMP system and the changing political affiliations of some

MPs over the past three years, it was reasonable to assume that the new Parliament

could well contain either representatives from a larger number of political parties than

at present and/or a larger number of representatives from the smaller parties currently

represented in Parliament.

The Authority is of the opinion that the guidelines contained in TVNZ's letter of 4

September above provide a process which deals with the realities and which also

complies with its obligations in regard to balance. Nevertheless, it was important that

flexibility was retained during the campaign and TVNZ has reassured the Authority on

this point.

The Authority considers that TVNZ's coverage of the New Zealand Conservative

Party was appropriate given the range of parties contesting the election and the

support enjoyed by the party as measured in polls throughout the campaign.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 November 1996

Appendix I

New Zealand Conservative Party's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd -

6 September 1996

Trevor Rogers MP, leader of the New Zealand Conservative Party, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about the Assignment programme broadcast at 7.30pm on

TV One on 5 September 1996. The programme which covered three of the smaller

political parties, he maintained, breached s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and

standards G6, G14 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

By way of background, Mr Rogers explained that he had been an MP for six years,

initially with the National Party and, since January 1996, as leader of the New

Zealand Conservative Party. He had been the chair of the Parliamentary Commerce

Select Committee since 1993 and, he wrote:

I have played a robust role in both Parliament and New Zealand politics in

general. I have taken stands on various and several issues of political and social

importance and have frequently been the subject of news media publicity, both

local and national.

Pointing out that he had acted as a Member of Parliament effectively and responsibly,

that he held significant views on matters, and that he was a leader of a Party which

was contesting six constituency seats and offering a Party List of 20 candidates, Mr

Rogers said the Party intended to win constituency seats at the forthcoming election

and thus side-step the 5% party vote threshold. He observed:

Provided it is accorded objective, impartial and fair treatment by the news media,

the Party is confident of achieving this.

On the basis that the New Zealand Conservative Party was a significant party, Mr

Rogers said that TVNZ's failure to allow it an opportunity to advance its view on

Assignment on 5 September, despite requests, amounted to a breach of s.4(1)(d) of the

Act.

Mr Rogers alleged a breach of standard G20 as TVNZ relied on opinion polls as the

basis for deciding into which category to slot a political party and, consequently, had

not judged every case on its merits as required by the standard.

A breach of standard G20, Mr Rogers continued, amounted to a breach of standard G6

and, he commented:

The broadcaster showed neither balance nor impartiality nor fairness in its

dealings with myself and the Conservative Party in the matter of the programme

complained of. There were a number of claims made by or on behalf of parties

featured in the programme that the Conservative Party vigorously contests. The

fact that both the Party and I were denied the opportunity to rebut these claims

in context constitutes a breach of this standard.

The lack of an opportunity to rebut statements meant that the programme left an

inaccurate impression and thus contravened standard G14.

In conclusion, Mr Rogers pointed out that the period of current interest defence did

not apply as TVNZ had failed to issue an invitation to him to appear on the

forthcoming Meet the Press series. He finished:

It is my firm opinion that the overall attitude of Television New Zealand News

and Current Affairs toward the New Zealand Conservative Party and myself as

Leader is materially detrimental to our respective election campaigns. I therefore

ask you to consider this complaint as a matter of urgency.

Appended to the complaint was a letter to TVNZ dated 3 September in which Mr

Rogers registered his concern at being excluded from the Assignment programme on

smaller parties on 5 September. TVNZ's reply of 4 September advised Mr Rogers

that it had determined that National, Labour, New Zealand First and Alliance were

expected to be the four major parties in the new Parliament. The second category

which could, on the basis of opinion polls, expect to be represented were the Christian

Coalition, ACT and United. These parties, it continued, would be covered in special

programmes and, it noted, the Electoral Commission had reached the same conclusions

about probable representation in its allocations to political parties.

TVNZ pointed out to Mr Rogers that poll support for the Conservative Party was

below that for some other small parties, but should its ratings increase, it added, it

would re-assess the situation. Meanwhile, it ended:

On a more positive note let me again assure you that you can expect the

Conservative Party to appear in our coverage of campaign matters on our daily

News and Current Affairs programmes.

Further Correspondence

In a letter to TVNZ dated 7 September in reply to TVNZ's letter of 4 September

explaining the categories into which parties had been divided to assess probable

representation in Parliament, Mr Rogers maintained that his perspective was outlined

clearly in the formal complaint and, he wrote:

I suggest that it is my job to assess the Conservative Party's electoral chances,

the voters' job to confirm them and your job in the meantime to conduct your

affairs in accordance with the appropriate legislation. If you continue to do this,

I shall continue to protest.

This, you understand, is not my preferred course but one you have forced on

me. I have no shortage of other business to which I would rather give my

attention at this time as, I am certain, do you. If you would be gracious enough

to admit that a re-evaluation of your coverage criteria is in order at this stage and

offer reasonable opportunity for my party and me to present our points of

view, I am sure you would find my acceptance equally gracious.

When acknowledging the complaint on 6 September 1996, TVNZ asked for more

details of the assertions in the Assignment programme which the Conservative Party

contested.

In reply, Mr Rogers said that the matters on the Assignment programme which he

wanted to contest were:

(a) The claim that United affected government policy on the surtax. Mr

Rogers said that he was responsible for the initiative to reduce it.

(b) The suggestion that the three minor parties dealt with could play a

significant role. As there were more than three minor parties which could

be influential, the statement was inaccurate.

(c) The reference that "all three minor parties" were looking to cross the

threshold of one electorate seat or 5% of the party vote. As the three

parties listed were selected by the programme's producer, a more careful

selection of words was necessary to avoid any inaccuracy.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 September 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ began:

The Managing Editor of TVNZ's News and Current Affairs in a letter to you of

4 September has already explained to you the structure of our election campaign

coverage. It is the belief of our News and Current Affairs team that this

structure will give the fullest possible scrutiny of all the parties which are likely

to have a major impact on election day.

It is not the role of TVNZ or any other organ of the news media during the

election campaign to act as a publicity agent for any party or candidate.

TVNZ explained that this approach was endorsed by the Broadcasting Standards

Authority in determining a complaint from the Christian Heritage Party after the

general election in 1993.

TVNZ then considered the Party's arguments that it was different from the other

minor parties, and reported:

Despite these arguments it cannot be denied that to date your party has achieved

recognition in only two of the last four One Network News Colmar Brunton

Polls with a showing of 0.4 percent in the most recent poll. We read in your

letter that "in spite of holding public opinion polls and their interpretation by

the news media in no high regard, the party in (sic) nonetheless interested to

note its showing in recent such polls which is rising to a level consistent with the

party's expectations". We have yet to sight any verifiable polling (or indeed any

other reliable evidence) which would indicate that any candidate from your party

is likely to win a constituency seat (which is clearly the case with the United

Party and Hon. Peter Dunne's candidature in the Ohariu electorate) or reach the

5 percent party vote threshold.

As there was no verifiable evidence that the Party's views were significant, TVNZ

maintained that s.4(1)(d) was not breached. Taking into account the three points made

by Mr Rogers in his letter of 9 September, TVNZ decided:

None of these points, in our view, alter the compelling editorial reasons for our

selection of the parties which participated in the Assignment Programme. Our

selection of parties by using poll results was accepted by the Broadcasting

Standards Authority in the aforementioned decision as not being in breach of

Standard G20.

On the basis that it was required to provide balanced coverage of the election

campaign, and as the Assignment programme was "a proper and accurate reflection of

the situation at the time of going to air", TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the

complaint.

The Party's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 9 October 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision on the complaint (and with the decision on the

complaint outlined in Appendix II), Mr Rogers on the Party's behalf referred them to

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

Mr Rogers began:

It is evident from this correspondence that the broadcaster has based its

allocation of election coverage almost entirely on its interpretation of selected

public opinion polls and paid scant regard to its statutory duties. Reference by

the broadcaster in its letter of 12 September to the allocations made by the

Electoral Commission are, of course, irrelevant for the simple reason that one

flawed decision cannot be held to justify another.

He had not expected TVNZ to act as a "publicity agent", rather he had requested that

it fulfil its duty as a responsible broadcaster.

He did consider that the "chicken and egg" example was relevant in the new MMP

environment which invoked a greater range of electoral options. He expressed the

following opinion:

My basic point remains my criticism of the overwhelming attention paid by

Television New Zealand to its interpretation of public opinion polls in

prejudging the outcome of this election. There is ample historical evidence to

show the dangers of following such a course and I note with interest a rising

swell of concern about it this time, with particular reference to TVNZ's latest

foray into opinion polling - the "worm".

The comments from the public about the worm, he observed, supported his

contention about the broadcaster's pre-occupation with telling people what to think

rather than providing fair and impartial information to enable people to think for

themselves.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 16 October 1996

On the basis that the complaints questioned the method by which it identified the

intrinsic newsworthiness of election material, TVNZ said it had been necessary, given

the presence of 32 political parties, to develop an appropriate structure.

Pointing out that the structure arrived at corresponded closely with the one used by

the Electoral Commission to allocate funds, TVNZ wrote:

It was clear to us that there was, throughout the election campaign, intrinsic

news value in coverage of the campaigns by National, Labour, the Alliance and

New Zealand First. These four parties were virtually certain to be represented

in the new parliament. There was also considerable intrinsic news value in

following the fortunes of Act, the Christian Coalition and United - three parties

which had a reasonable expectation of having some representation. The third

group, into which Mr Rogers and the New Zealand Conservative Party fell,

comprised all the other parties which, in our considered judgement, had no

realistic chance of gaining representation in parliament. News coverage relating

to these parties was to be strictly "on merit".

TVNZ noted that Mr Rogers had featured on Holmes, along with other third category

parties, and his comments on the Vote pressure group had been reported. TVNZ

argued that it had been scrupulously fair in its dealings with Mr Rogers and had made

it clear to him at the time that the categories were developed, that it would consider

further information confidentially which would justify the Party's inclusion in another

category. TVNZ considered:

We reject the claim made by Mr Rogers that TVNZ was telling people what to

think. TVNZ was in fact reflecting the reality of the electoral landscape. That

there is a "chicken and egg" situation we do not deny and that has been

acknowledged by the Authority in decision 33/94. The Authority observed in

the same paragraph that it was not TVNZ's role to act as a publicity agent. The

suggestion that TVNZ was telling voters what to think betrays a serious

misunderstanding of the role of news broadcasters in a democratic society.

We strongly disagree with the complainant's claim (paragraph 5 of his referral to

the Authority) that decision 33/94 on the lack of news coverage accorded

Christian Heritage in that year is no longer sustainable in an MMP environment.

The environment may have changed but news judgement and news values have

not. We regard the Authority's decision as entirely relevant to this discussion.

Appendix II

New Zealand Conservative Party's Complaint to Television New Zealand

Limited - 9 September 1996

Trevor Rogers MP, leader of the New Zealand Conservative Party, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about the Meet the Press programme broadcast on TV

One at 9.45pm on 8 September 1996. He considered that the broadcast breached

s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and standards G6 and G14 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The complaint, which alleged a breach of broadcasting standards because Mr Rogers

was omitted from the leaders of the minor political parties interviewed during the

programme, was similar in content to the matters recorded in Appendix I where the

Party's complaint about the 5 September 1996 broadcast of Assignment is outlined.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 September 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ repeated the matters

included in its letter of 11 September in response to the formal complaint dealt with in

Appendix I.

Dealing specifically with this complaint, it pointed out that the programme

complained about did not deal with the leaders of "minor parties" but, as the

introduction reported, "minor party leaders who may well have an influence on the

formation of the next government".

As it did not believe that the Conservative Party was entitled to participate according

to the formula used to categorise the parties contesting the election, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint.

The Party's Referral to the Authority - 9 October 1996

In a letter which referred to both programmes complained about, Mr Rogers on the

Party's behalf referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 16 October 1996

The letter summarised in Appendix I responded to both complaints.

The Party's Final Comment

The Party did not respond to the Authority's invitation to comment on TVNZ's

report to the Authority on both complaints.