BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An accident which occurred near Taupo involving a fire truck, and which resulted in

injury to three firefighters, was the subject of investigation in an item on 20/20

broadcast on 25 March 1996 at 7.30pm.

The New Zealand Fire Service, through its solicitors, complained that its possible

culpability in the accident was misrepresented because the report upon which the

programme was based was a draft report only, and contained a number of errors. The

item, it maintained, did not treat the report in a truthful, accurate, balanced, impartial

or fair manner, and thus was in breach of broadcasting standards.

TV3 responded that the item was not primarily concerned with the report, but that it

set out to examine the report's conclusions and the conditions under which Taupo

firefighters worked. The item, it continued, also drew attention to the wider issue of

cost cutting in the Fire Service and staff morale. It declined to uphold any aspect of

the complaint.

Dissatisfied with that decision, the Fire Service referred the complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint that standards G4, G6,

G19 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice were breached.

Decision

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

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). They have also viewed an

unedited interview with the Chief Executive of the Fire Service, a tape of which they

requested as part of their deliberations. As is its practice, the Authority determines

the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Programme

A 20/20 item broadcast on 25 March 1996 at 7.30pm investigated an accident which

occurred near Taupo in which a fire truck crashed, injuring three of the firefighters, one

seriously. On the basis of the findings of an Occupational Safety and Health Service

(OSH) report prepared after the accident, the item questioned the safety of the

vehicle, pointing to defects in the tyres and door hinges, to the amount of overtime

worked by the firefighters in the weeks preceding the accident, and the generally poor

morale of staff at the Taupo station.

Accusations of cost-cutting were put to the Chief Executive of the NZ Fire Service,

and the suggestion was made that the safety of the firefighters was being compromised

by a Fire Service programme of staff attrition.

The item also focused on the man who was most seriously injured in the crash, who

expressed his belief that poor maintenance of the vehicle and mechanical failures

caused the crash. He acknowledged that there was driver error, but considered that

had the tyres been sufficiently roadworthy, the driver could have avoided the crash.

The Complaint

The NZ Fire Service, through its solicitors, complained that the item was unfair and

unbalanced because it created the impression that "the cause of the accident was the

Fire Service requiring exhausted firefighters to drive a mechanically unsafe fire

appliance." The Fire Service claimed that the OSH report, upon which the programme

was based, was released without authorisation and provided to TV3 through the

firefighters' union.

The Fire Service alleged that the highly critical report was released prior to the

completion of the investigation and contained a number of conclusions which were not

supported by the evidence. It pointed out that OSH, through its policy manager,

issued a media release apologising for release of the report in that form, noting that the

early release might have compromised the Fire Service's right to a fair hearing. OSH

had indicated in its media release that in order to complete the report, it would need to

scrutinise the evidence gathered, and obtain an explanation from the Fire Service.

Three days later, the complaint continued, the Minister of Internal Affairs also issued

a media statement, attaching a copy of the Fire Service's report to him, which

addressed a number of the issues raised in what was described as the draft OSH

report.

According to the Fire Service's complaint, it would have been abundantly clear to TV3

that there were concerns about the accuracy of the draft OSH report. The fact that the

report was a draft, that it was subject to review, and that the investigation was not

complete, were factors emphasised by Mr Cummings, the Chief Executive of the Fire

Service, when he was interviewed by TV3. However, the Fire Service noted, TV3

appeared to ignore the controversy which surrounded the contents, recommendations

and release of the OSH report, and proceeded to broadcast a programme which was

based on the premise that the findings of the OSH report were conclusive.

The Fire Service complained that the programme's failure to acknowledge that the

report was provisional, or that there were doubts concerning its contents and findings,

breached broadcasting standards. It also objected to the suggestion that the Fire

Service had sought to cover up the OSH draft report, emphasising that it had

cooperated fully with OSH during the investigation and had made no attempt to

suppress the facts.

TV3's Response

In a brief response, TV3 initially explained that the story, drawing on the OSH report,

examined a number of safety issues, and used as its central theme one fireman who

was left a paraplegic as a result of the injuries he suffered in the accident. It

considered the issues were dealt with fairly and declined to uphold the complaint.

In a more detailed response to the Fire Service's referral to the Authority, TV3 dealt

with matters raised in the original complaint. It advised that it had examined the

complaint under standards G1, G4, G6, G14, G19 and G20 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. Standards G1, G4 and G6 require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

any programme.

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

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

The other standards read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that

the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or the overall views expressed.

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

only be done by judging each case on its merits.

TV3 emphasised that the programme examined the conclusions of the OSH report and

the conditions under which the Taupo firefighters worked, and highlighted the larger

issue of cost-cutting within the Fire Service and possible implications for public

safety. TV3 rejected the contention that the OSH report was a draft one and, referring

to the media release issued by the Fire Service, suggested that media releases were

sometimes issued to ensure an organisation was seen in the best possible light.

Referring to the Minister of Internal Affairs' press release, TV3 suggested that he was

wrongly informed about the draft nature of the report. It reiterated its belief that the

report was complete and that the Minister had subsequently been informed that it was

not in draft form.

TV3 then examined the aspects of the programme raised in the complaint which the

Fire Service alleged breached the standards.

1. Hours of Work

The Fire Service quoted the OSH report's findings that "it is impossible to say that

the long hours on duty were contributing factors to this accident". However, the Fire

Service noted, the programme stated:

According to this report by an inspector from the safety watchdog, OSH, the

fire engine Tom and his mates crashed in was unsafe, the men fatigued from

working too many hours.

The item then went on to describe the number of hours worked by the crew, and to

claim that the Taupo fire station was seven full-time members short. According to the

Fire Service, this implied that excessive work hours contributed to the accident. It

noted that when Mr Cummings was interviewed, he was asked to comment on the

hours of work, and that he had explained that the number of hours quoted exceeded the

number on the payroll records and further, that a proportion of the so-called work

hours was in fact rest time. In addition, the Fire Service continued, Mr Cummings had

pointed out that only one of the fire fighters involved in the accident had been on duty

during the previous shift, during which there were no call-outs, and they had only been

on that particular shift for two hours. These comments, the Fire Service noted, were

edited out of the final programme.

TV3 pointed out that the sentence quoted by the Fire Service was taken out of context

and that the full text read:

...although it is impossible to say that the long hours were contributing factors

to this accident, it is possible to state that controls had not been put in place

by management to take all practicable steps to minimise the risk of harm

occurring.

The OSH report, TV3 noted, emphasised that it was the responsibility of the

employer to take steps to protect the health and safety of its employees. TV3

contended that its summary of the inspector's concerns regarding the hours worked

was a fair one, particularly as the inspector found that most of the crew had averaged

working weeks of up to 70 or 80 hours in the weeks preceding the accident. In

addition, it pointed out that the story acknowledged the inspector's conclusion that

the accident might not have been preventable, and also questioned the firefighters'

decision to work overtime. It considered it was perfectly reasonable to question

whether firefighter fatigue and long hours worked indicated that the Fire Service was

failing in its responsibilities as an employer to provide a safe working environment.

2. Tyres on the Fire Appliance

The Fire Service objected to the programme's suggestion that a factor in the accident

was the depth of tread on the vehicle's tyres, and to the implication contained in

comments made by one of the injured firefighters, who, when he saw the vehicle after

the accident stated:

Now I see the condition of the tyres that the driver had to deal with, there,

right there is the cause of the accident. The Fire Service was scared of you

seeing this fire engine. You know they have left the damning evidence right

there...but to save money on a tyre on their frontrunning or any fire engine is

criminal negligence. It is just absolutely criminal negligence.

The Fire Service pointed out that four days prior to the accident the vehicle had

passed its Certificate of Fitness check, a fact which was known to TV3, but which

was not reported on the programme. The vehicle inspection certificate showed that all

tyres on the vehicle had the required minimum tread. That information was also

known to the OSH inspector, but not included in the draft report. Although Mr

Cummings made clear during the interview that the tread of the tyres met all safety

requirements, that segment of the interview was edited out of the programme. The

Fire Service complained that the editing of the interview created a totally misleading

impression.

TV3 contended that it fairly summarised the OSH report when the programme stated

that there were:

...other shortcomings, the depth of tread on the tyres, and the mismatch of old

tyres with new ones which could have caused the vehicle to become unsteady

or unstable.

It denied that the report stated that any of the tyres had illegal tread depths, and

maintained that the injured firefighter's comment about the depth being 1.5mm was his

genuinely-held opinion.

TV3 acknowledged that its staff were aware that the vehicle had passed a Certificate

of Fitness check and that all the tyres had the required minimum legal tread depth.

However, it stressed, the Fire Service itself adhered to a standard in excess of the

minimum legal standard and the vehicle did not meet those criteria. TV3 contended

that the real issue was the imbalance between old and new tyres on the vehicle, and it

considered this matter was dealt with fairly and reasonably in the interview with Mr

Cummings.

3. Door Hinges on the Appliance

The Fire Service complained that a great deal of emphasis was placed on the door

hinges and the alleged injuries caused to firefighters by the failure of those hinges. It

noted that the draft OSH report alleged that the door hinges constituted a hazard and

that a planned programme of regular replacement had not been put in place. However,

the Fire Service pointed out, the programme suggested:

Then there are the door hinges which snapped causing two doors to fall off,

one of the main contributing factors to the extent of injuries suffered according

to the inspector...

In fact, the Fire Service continued, there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation

that the injuries were caused by any failure of the door hinges. Viewers were left with

the impression that a hinge failure had directly caused the injuries.

With respect to the composition of the hinges, the Fire Service observed that much

was made of the fact that the bronze alloy hinges were being replaced with stainless

steel ones. It noted that this was simply because that was what the manufacturer was

delivering to the Fire Service. Although the point was made by Mr Cummings, the

Fire Service argued that viewers would have missed it because he was simultaneously

presented with a document purporting to be a memorandum from the supply office

regarding the replacement of hinges. It considered that viewers would have been left

with the impression that faulty hinges were left on the appliances with the Fire

Service's knowledge and that faulty hinges contributed to Mr Scott's serious injuries.

The Fire Service repeated that there was no evidence that hinge failure caused injury,

noting that in his interview, Mr Cummings made the point that the two hinges which

suffered the most damage in the accident did not break.

TV3 accepted that the OSH report did not substantiate the allegation that the injuries

were caused by a failure of the hinges. However, it maintained, the OSH report

blamed the hinges when it stated:

...one of the main contributing factors to the extent of the injuries caused to the

injured workers was the fact that the off side front and rear door, on coming

into contact with the ground, caused the hinges to snap.

TV3 advised that it understood that Mr Scott (the most seriously injured firefighter)

was trapped in the door of the vehicle and, having made his own investigations as to

how he suffered his injuries, had concluded that he suffered a broken back as a result

of the door slamming shut on him. Accepting that it may be impossible to determine

exactly how he was injured, TV3 considered that his conclusion was entirely

reasonable. TV3 denied that the story blamed Mr Scott's injuries on a broken hinge,

although it advised that its staff observed that one hinge on that particular door had

come off.

TV3 disagreed with the Fire Service's view that the hinges were being replaced by

stainless steel ones simply because that was what the manufacturer was providing. It

referred to a memo dated 8 October 1992 which identified a problem with the existing

hinges, and which it stated were prone to cracking.

It denied that Mr Cummings' remarks regarding the hinges would have been lost on

viewers, arguing that it was not unreasonable to expect him to comment on the

memorandum which dealt specifically with one of the issues being discussed. It

pointed out that the story did not attribute Mr Scott's injuries to the broken hinges

but to a door which snapped back on him, breaking his back. Acknowledging that it

was probable the doors swung open, causing the hinges to break, TV3 maintained that

it was nevertheless the OSH inspector's view that the two doors fell off, and that was

one of the main contributing factors to the extent of the injuries suffered.

4. Conclusion

The Fire Service advised that it understood that the author of the OSH report had been

removed by OSH management. It also noted that the vehicle inspector found that the

vehicle appeared to have been well maintained prior to the accident, and that the police

who investigated the accident found no fault with the appliance or with Fire Service

procedures and concluded that the accident was caused by driver error.

The Fire Service objected to the fact that the programme emphasised the aspects of

the OSH report which, it contended, were inaccurate and inadequate and that it

compounded those inaccuracies and inadequacies by presenting the report as if it were

a conclusive document, even though it knew there were serious doubts about the

evidence and the findings.

Although Mr Cummings was interviewed, the Fire Service contended that the editing

of his interview, and the meagre amount of time accorded his contribution in the

programme, resulted in the programme lacking accuracy, objectivity and impartiality,

and meant that Mr Cummings was not dealt with justly or fairly.

TV3 accepted that a vehicle inspector had found the vehicle to be well maintained.

Commenting on the police report, it acknowledged that its conclusion, reached some

weeks after the broadcast, attributed the accident to driver error. In TV3's view, that

did not negate the broader issues raised by the OSH inspector and the firefighters. It

considered the concerns of the firefighters at Taupo, and what they saw as a gradual

running down of the Fire Service, was a valid story.

With respect to the interview with Mr Cummings, TV3 considered he had an adequate

opportunity to respond and that his interview was edited in a fair and balanced

manner.

The Authority's Findings

At the outset, the Authority observes that the industrial background to the crash of

the Taupo fire appliance raises sensitive political and emotional issues for the Fire

Service, the Union and the firefighters themselves. The 20/20 story, which purported

to examine both the OSH report's conclusions and through it, the conditions under

which the Taupo firefighters worked, was also intended to draw attention to the

possibility of public safety issues resulting from reported low staff morale and cost

cutting within the Fire Service.

The first matter the Authority has to resolve is the status of the OSH report, which

was apparently leaked to TV3 prior to its official release.

The status of the OSH report was questioned by the Fire Service, which insisted that

it was a draft. The Authority's own investigations revealed that although the report

was released prematurely when it was still in draft form, it was not changed later, even

though there were claims by the Fire Service that it contained major errors and

allegations unsupported by the evidence, and there had been no opportunity given to

the Fire Service to refute it.

The Authority recognises that there is some ambiguity concerning the status of the

OSH report. It understands that it was a working document which would not

necessarily be expected to be released in such a form, and certainly not without legal

advice. The status of the report –which remains officially unresolved – is central to

the issue of fairness in the programme and the Authority accepts that it cannot

determine its status with any finality, despite having made attempts to do so. It

notes, however, that the government agencies involved both issued disclaimers in the

wake of its premature release, and that the substance of these tended to confirm the

Fire Service's perspective.

The Authority has been presented with no evidence – other than TV3's belief – that

this perspective is invalid. Thus, it accepts that the report was in draft form when it

considers the effect of its release, and its impact on the programme's approach. The

impression given, it concludes, was to make the opinion of an individual (the OSH

inspector) seem to be that of OSH itself, without his report having undergone the

process of controls and checks that would be expected, given OSH's reponsibilities.

The Authority considers that there was no reason why TV3 could not use such a

document as the basis for a programme provided that it made the status of the

document clear, and did not imply that it had any official sanction. It believes that

TV3 had grounds to accept that the report was in draft form only, and therefore had a

responsibility to convey its limitations clearly to the viewer.

Fairness demands that before a report such as the one prepared by the OSH inspector

is finalised, it is put to any party which is the subject of comment. It is evident that

this process had not occurred in this case.

The Authority accepts that TV3 may not have fully acquainted itself with the details

of the normal procedure of drafting and releasing OSH reports, but believes it had a

responsibility to do so. Whatever the case, the facts as presented, implying unusual

intervention by the Fire Service, appear to the Authority to have given an unwarranted

impression that could be expected to colour the viewer's interpretation of the Fire

Service's reaction to the release. The Authority notes that TV3 acknowledged it knew

the status of the OSH report was questioned, and was aware of the reasons why its

findings were being challenged by the Fire Service.

The Authority notes that the purpose of the OSH report was to investigate workplace

safety issues, whereas the second report, prepared by the police, investigated the

cause of the crash. Thus any police conclusion would be based on different criteria,

and would not necessarily invalidate the OSH report's conclusions.

The OSH report dealt with the safety of the vehicle and its perceived defects;

workplace practices, including use of seat belts and storage of equipment within the

cab; hours of work; and driver training. It concluded that all staff involved were

working in excess of normal hours; that the failure to use seatbelts was the

responsibility of the employer; that equipment carried in the cab was not securely

fastened; that there was no system to ensure that driver training was ongoing; that two

tyres on one side of the vehicle had limited tread while the two on the other side were

new; and that the Fire Service had not put in place a programme to replace faulty door

hinges. The report recommended prosecution of the Fire Service for breaches of the

Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. However, no action was taken. The

Police report concluded that driver error was the cause of the crash, but no

prosecution ensued because of the extent of the injuries suffered by the driver.

The programme focused on three matters in particular that the report raised: the hours

of work, the tyres and the door hinges, all of which were examined in the context of

the workplace environment at the Taupo station. Some of the balancing comment

provided by Mr Cummings in his interview (the unedited version of which was

requested, and viewed, by the Authority) was not included in the final programme.

Thus viewers did not see his explanation that the hours worked by the crew included a

substantial amount of rest time; that the men had only just come on duty when the

accident occurred; that the vehicle had received a Certificate of Fitness four days

previously, and that the tyres met that required standard; that the staff at the Taupo

station had been offered extra staff to ease the work load, but had declined the offer,

choosing to work overtime instead; and that the door hinges which suffered the most

damage in the accident did not break.

While the Authority accepts that the OSH report highlighted significant staff and

equipment problems at the Taupo station, it regards the omission of the balancing

comments from Mr Cummings as unfair both to him and to the Fire Service.

With respect to the allegations about the safety of the vehicle, the Authority accepts

that the questions concerning the door hinges, the tyres and the hours of work are

matters which are still disputed by the parties. It makes no finding as to the accuracy

of the facts broadcast, but considers that the failure to acknowledge that there were

two opposing but equally plausible interpretations of the key facts resulted in the

item being unbalanced. It accepts that it was appropriate to include the opinion of the

now paraplegic firefighter that his injuries were caused by the failure of the door

hinges and the tyres having insufficient tread. However, it observes that the

programme did not present objective and conclusive evidence to support his belief that

these were the major cause. The Authority considers it should also have been stressed

that none of the men was wearing seatbelts, though they had been instructed to do so

at all times, and this was on record; that gear was not stowed properly in the cab; that

the vehicle was possibly being driven too fast for the conditions; and that there was no

evidence either that the tread of the tyres was below the legal minimum, or that the

mismatch of tyres was a factor in the accident.

The Authority concludes that the interview with Mr Cummings was edited in such a

way that it excluded clarification of some of the important allegations made in the

OSH report. In addition, having viewed the unedited interview with Mr Cummings,

the Authority decides that the editing of the interview distorted his position because it

excluded those crucial elements of his argument.

The Authority holds that the item as broadcast was unfair and unbalanced because it

did not deal fairly with the Fire Service, or with Mr Cummings. Further, in spite of

warnings that the report was a draft, TV3 persisted in using the report as the focus of

its investigation as if it had official status, a course of action which the Authority

considers resulted in overall unfairness.

The Authority declines to determine the standard G1 aspect of the complaint, noting

that some aspects were disputed by the parties themselves. As explained in the

preceding paragraphs, it upholds the complaints that standards G4, G6, G19 and G20

were breached.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that

aspects of the 20/20 item broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 25 March

1996 at 7.30pm breached standards G4, G6, G19 and G20 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. In view of the seriousness of the breach, the Authority

imposes the following order.

Order

Pursuant to s.13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders TV3

Network Services Ltd to broadcast a brief summary of this decision, approved by

the Authority, arising from the complaint about the item broadcast on 20/20 on

25 March 1996. That statement shall be broadcast on 20/20 within 20 working

days of the date of this decision.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
17 December 1996

Appendix

New Zealand Fire Service's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 15 April 1996

The New Zealand Fire Service, through its solicitors, complained about an item on

20/20 broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 25 March 1996.

The item concerned an accident involving a fire truck near Taupo which resulted in

serious injuries to some of the firefighters. According to the item, a report by the

Occupational Health and Safety Service (OSH) was critical of the Fire Service and

suggested that it should be prosecuted under the Health and Safety in Employment

Act 1992.

The Unauthorised Release of the OSH report

The Fire Service noted first that the release of the report had not been authorised, and

that it was in draft form only. Further, it argued, some of its conclusions were not

supported by the evidence. According to the Fire Service, media coverage at the time

made clear that there were serious concerns about the accuracy of the report. It

referred to a letter from Mr Wilson of OSH to the Firefighters Union pointing out

there was no evidence to support certain assumptions in the OSH report. It also

noted that a news release from OSH had apologised for the release of the report prior

to any decision regarding prosecution and on the same day the Fire Service issued its

own media release regarding the unauthorised publication of the report and, in spite of

the producer of the programme being advised prior to the programme that the report's

conclusions were under review and that it had not been finalised, the report formed the

basis for the programme.

The programme suggested that the Fire Service had sought to cover up the draft

report. In fact, the complaint recorded:

...the Fire Service had simply sought to answer the inaccuracies and

misconceptions in the document and have the matter revisited. The Fire

Service had cooperated fully with OSH throughout the investigation and had

at no time sought to avoid its responsibilities or suppress the facts. Without

any basis whatsoever, your programme suggested otherwise.

Hours of work

The programme suggested that one of the reasons for the crash was that the

firefighters were working too many hours. The Fire Service pointed to the OSH

report which stated that it was "impossible to say that the long hours on duty

contributed to this accident".

The issue of fatigue, long hours and overtime was put to a Fire Service representative

during the interview given for the intended broadcast, who answered the questions in

detail, providing full particulars of the hours worked. This response, however, was

not included in the programme. In addition, the Fire Service wrote:

Mr Cummings [of the Fire Service] also challenged the accuracy of the

purported time schedules used in the OSH draft report and referred to by your

interviewer. For instance Mr Cummings pointed out that only one of the

firefighters had worked the previous shift during which there were no call outs,

and the firefighters had only been on that particular shift for two hours. Again

this part of Mr Cummings' answers was edited out.

Tyres on the Fire Appliance

The Fire Service pointed out that although much was made of the condition of the

tyres at the time of the accident, this appliance had, four days prior to the accident,

undertaken a certificate of fitness check with the Vehicle Testing Station and had

passed that test. It noted that in order to pass, the tyre tread had to average 1.5mm of

tread across at least two-thirds of the tyres. The vehicle inspection report showed

that the tread on five of the six tyres was 2mm or more.

The allegation about the state of the tyres as a cause for the accident was put to the

Fire Service representative when he was interviewed - and he stressed that the vehicle

had received a certificate of fitness four days before the accident and that the tyres

were of the required standard. Those remarks were not however, included in the

programme broadcast. The Fire Service commented:

There is no basis whatever for the suggestion in your programme that a lack of

tread depth on the tyres contributed to the accident. Although Mr Cummings

made it clear to the interviewer that the tyres had met all safety requirements,

this aspect of Mr Cummings' interview was edited out leaving a totally

misleading impression.

Door hinges on the Appliance

The Fire Service observed that together with the unsubstantiated allegations regarding

the tyres, the programme also put a great emphasis on the hinges and the injuries

allegedly caused by a failure of the hinges. It noted that the OSH report alleged that

there was a problem with the door hinges but that a programme of regular replacement

had not been put in place.

The Fire Service argued that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that

the injuries were caused by any failure of the door hinges. It added:

This point was never made in your programme and viewers were left with the

impression that a hinge failure had directly cause Mr Scott's major injuries in

particular.

With respect to the composition of the hinges, the Fire Service pointed out that the

reason the bronze hinges were being replaced with stainless ones was merely that that

was what the manufacturer was providing. That point was made by Mr Cummings in

the programme but, in the Fire Service's view, the point would have been lost to

viewers because at the same time a document was presented which purported to be a

memorandum from a supply officer in the Fire Service and which, according to the

reporter, referred to bronze alloy hinges. In fact, it noted, the memorandum merely

referred to hinges.

The Fire Service complained that viewers were left with the clear impression that

faulty hinges had been left on fire appliances with the Fire Service's knowledge and

that had contributed to Mr Scott's paraplegia. It stressed that there was no suggesting

of hinge failure or of the doors causing injury. It noted that Mr Cummings had made

this clear in his interview as well as that the two hinges which suffered the most

damage in the accident did not break. These remarks were edited out of the

programme.

Conclusion

The Fire Service noted that the author of the draft report had been removed from the

matter by OSH management.

It also pointed out that Vehicle Testing New Zealand had inspected the appliance after

the accident and had found that the vehicle appeared to be well maintained and there

was no evidence of mechanical malfunction.

In addition, the police had investigated the accident and found no fault with the

appliance or with the Fire Service. The police report concluded that the accident was

caused initially by the driver being on the wrong side of the road and having to swerve

to avoid oncoming traffic. The police would not proceed with a prosecution because

of the driver's medical condition following the accident.

The Fire Service concluded the programme emphasised those aspects of the OSH draft

report which were in fact inaccurate and inadequate. It added:

The programme further compounded those inaccuracies and inadequacies by

presenting the OSH draft report as a conclusive document highly critical of the

Fire Service when the television personnel knew that there were serious doubts

about the evidence and the findings. Those doubts have now been found to be

confirmed. This is the very outcome of which your personnel were warned

prior to and at the time of the making of the programme.

In addition, the Fire Service continued, accusations were made about the state of the

fire appliance and the Fire Service's management procedures which were not even

contained in the OSH draft report (in particular the implication that excessive work

hours had contributed to the accident and that the vehicle's door hinges were faulty

causing the injuries suffered.)

Although Mr Cummings of the Fire Service was interviewed, it contended that the

editing of his interview and the disproportionately meagre amount of time accorded his

contribution in the programme resulted in the programme lacking accuracy, objectivity

and impartiality and meant that he was not dealt with justly and fairly.

The Fire Service claimed that standards G1, G4, G6, G14 and G20 were breached.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 28 June 1996

In a brief response, TV3 first summarised the content of the item. The story, it noted,

dealt with the details of the crash and drew on a report by an OSH inspector which

examined a number of safety issues including hours of work, use of seatbelts, storage

of equipment in the cab of the vehicle, the state of the tyres, the door hinges and

management of health and safety systems. It used as its central theme one fireman

who was left a paraplegic as a result of the accident. TV3 observed that responses to

various assertions made in the programme were sought from Mr Cummings, the Chief

Executive of the Fire Service.

TV3 concluded that the item focused on important issues and did so fairly. It

considered it had met its obligations under the Broadcasting Act and accordingly

declined to uphold the complaint.

The Fire Service's Referral to the Authority - 19 July 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, the Fire Service, through its solicitors, referred the

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

Act 1989.

It repeated that it considered the programme breached section 4(1)(d) and (e) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989 and standards G1, G4, G6, G14, and G20 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Fire Service made clear that it wished to be heard at a formal hearing and to make

submissions in writing to the Authority in relation to its complaint.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 30 July 1996

TV3 made a detailed response to the Fire Service's original complaint. It did not

accept that the programme "primarily concerned the unauthorised release" of a "draft

report". Instead, it asserted, the programme examined both the report's conclusions

and the conditions that firefighters at Taupo worked under. It also drew attention to

cost cutting within the Fire Service, and staff morale, with the possible implications

for public safety.

TV3 advised that it was aware of conflicting views between the Fire Service and its

staff who worked on the programme about the OSH report. While the Fire Service

referred to the report as a "draft report", TV3 noted that the OSH Operations

Manager confirmed that it was, and always was, a final report. Further, in the days

prior to a news story on 15 March, OSH confirmed to TV3 that the report was a final

one. TV3 observed that the one unusual aspect of the OSH investigation was that one

government department was investigating another and that raised a legal issue as to

whether one agency could prosecute the other. A decision made later was that the

Labour Department could not prosecute.

TV3 confirmed that the OSH report criticised the Fire Service and concluded that the

Fire Service should be prosecuted under the Health and Safety in Employment Act

1992.

TV3 acknowledged that the information that OSH was "seriously considering a

prosecution" appeared to be contradicted by a letter from OSH to the secretary of the

Firefighters' Union. It pointed to a conversation on 8 May 1996 between a 20/20

producer and Mr Wilson of OSH that an OSH solicitor advised that while there was

not at that stage sufficient evidence to take a prosecution, the Fire Service had been

sent a letter requiring it to follow up and report back on action it was taking

concerning several issues raised in the report.

With respect to the news release from OSH "apologising" for the leaked report, TV3

responded that it understood that the statement regretted the release of the report but

did not refute its contents. Accepting that the Minister made the statement as quoted,

TV3 responded that it did not necessarily have an impact on the 20/20 story, provided

that the story was balanced and fair and met the requirements of the Broadcasting Act

1989. TV3 suggested that the Minister, when he referred to the draft report, was

wrongly informed.

To the criticism by the Fire Service that the 20/20 staff failed to read the press releases

sent by the Fire Service, TV3 responded that it put the most contentious issues raised

in the response to Mr Cummings for his response. In addition, the programme

referred to the Fire Service's attempts to discredit the report and the OSH inspector's

findings. TV3 accepted that the producer was informed of the Fire Service's view that

the report was of a draft nature.

It regarded the Fire Service's claim of a dismissive attitude by TV3's staff as entirely

inaccurate.

Hours of Work

The report noted that the firefighters had been rostered on for long hours for some

months prior to the accident. TV3 noted that the Fire Service only partially quoted a

sentence from the report. The full sentence was:

...although it is impossible to say that the long hours were contributing factors

to this accident, it is possible to state that controls had not been put in place

by management to take all practicable steps to minimise the risk of harm

occurring.

TV3 noted that the report went on to say that the responsibility for the health and

safety of employees lay with the employer and the employer had a duty to take all

practicable steps to ensure their safety. In this case, the report continued,

management had not taken all practicable steps to ensure the welfare of its employees

because the station was undermanned. In TV3's view, it was accurate to summarise

the report's findings by stating in the programme that the vehicle was unsafe and the

men fatigued from working too many hours. While it accepted the inspector found it

impossible to say that the long hours were contributing factors, it noted that he was

sufficiently concerned to recommend that the Fire Service be prosecuted.

Furthermore, it pointed out those comments were made at the beginning of the

programme when the reporter was setting the scene. Later in the story, it noted, she

challenged the injured firefighter about the long hours of overtime worked, suggesting

that the firefighters themselves were out to get all the overtime they could and could

not blame management for that.

Noting that the Fire Service rejected most of the conclusions reached by the OSH

inspector, TV3 advised that that did not necessarily invalidate them. It noted the key

areas were explored with Mr Cummings of the Fire Service.

TV3 did not believe its programme attributed the accident to the long hours worked.

That was an issue of concern for the OSH inspector. With respect to how the hours

were calculated, TV3 noted that the OSH inspector and the Fire Service disagreed over

which method (payroll records or computer printouts of hours rostered) was more

accurate. Nevertheless, both parties agreed that the men at the Taupo fire station were

working long hours.

Tyres on the Fire Appliance

TV3 denied that the story stated that the tyres had illegal tread depths. That was a

remark made by Mr Scott, the injured fireman, and was his genuinely-held opinion.

TV3 acknowledged that all the tyres had the required minimum tread depth, although

it referred to the Vehicle Inspection Report which showed that the right rear tyres

were the most worn. It also noted that the Fire Service's own policy is to have tread

depth of 3mm over two thirds of the tyre surface. It wrote:

It is obvious the fire appliance involved in the crash did not meet the Fire

Service's own criteria, although the tread depths were within legal tolerances.

TV3 contended that the real issue was the imbalance between new and worn tyres

because one or more of the tyres had considerably less tread than the others.

To the Fire Service's contention that its staff should have substantiated the claim

about the tread on the tyres, TV3 responded that they made their best endeavours to

examine the tyres but were ordered away from the property where the vehicle was

held by a member of the Fire Service.

TV3 considered that it fairly represented the OSH inspector's view when it stated

"other shortcomings, the depth of tread on the tyres, and the mismatch of old tyres

with new ones which could have caused the vehicle to become unsteady or unstable."

Door Hinges

TV3 accepted that the report did not substantiate the allegation that the injuries were

caused by any failure of the door hinges. However, it noted that the report blamed the

hinges when it said that a contributing factor to the extent of the injuries was that the

hinges snapped when the doors hit the ground.

It believed that Mr Scott's conclusion that his back was broken when the door

slammed on him was a logical one. It suggested that given the violence with which the

vehicle overturned, it might be impossible to determine exactly how he was injured.

However, in TV3's view, Mr Scott's conclusion was an entirely reasonable one.

TV3 pointed out that the voice over was carefully scripted to ensure there was no

confusion over the hinges and whether they might have contributed to the injuries. It

wrote:

The hinges were not referred to in the context of Mr Scott's broken back until

after it had been explained that the door had "burst open then slammed shut on

him". The word "then" was introduced at the start of the next sentence to

make it clear that the door hinges were a separate issue.

TV3 denied that the story blamed Mr Scott's injuries on a broken hinge.

TV3 did not accept the Fire Service view that the bronze alloy hinges were being

replaced with stainless steel merely because that was what the manufacturer was

delivering. It observed that its staff had a copy of a 1992 memo acknowledging that

the bronze alloy hinges were far from satisfactory and were prone to crack. In

addition, it reported, many firefighters were concerned about the hinges.

With respect to Mr Cummings' remarks about the safety of the hinges, TV3 did not

agree that his point would have been lost on viewers, nor did it believe it unreasonable

to have him comment on a Fire Service memorandum which dealt with the hinges.

TV3 considered that the statement in the item that bronze alloy hinges were

substandard and were replaced as and when they broke was a fair and accurate

summary of the OSH inspector's comments on the hinges. It noted that the story did

not attribute Mr Scott's injuries to the broken hinges, but to a door which snapped

back on him. It also pointed out that Mr Cummings was able to make several relevant

points about the accuracy of the OSH report and the safety of the hinges.

TV3 accepted that it was probable the doors swung open, causing the hinges to break.

It noted the story did not dispute this and also reported the OSH inspector's view

that the injuries were more serious because the two doors fell off.

To the Fire Services' argument that there was no suggestion that the hinge failure

caused the injuries, TV3 responded that it was the OSH inspector's view that one of

the main contributing factors was the fact that when the doors hit the ground, the

impact caused the hinges to snap.

Conclusion

TV3 reported that it understood the author of the report had not been "removed" but

had simply moved on to another project. It accepted that a vehicle inspector who

assessed the vehicle after the accident found that it had been well maintained.

Referring to the Police report, which found that the accident was caused by driver

error, TV3 responded that the police role was simply to identify the immediate cause

of the crash. TV3 observed that that conclusion was reached some weeks after the

20/20 story but did not, in its view, negate the broader issues raised by the OSH

inspector and the firefighters. It considered the OSH report, together with the

concerns of the firefighters at Taupo about what they saw as the gradual running down

of the Fire Service, was a valid story, adding:

...many of the firemen welcomed the report as confirmation that their fears and

concerns about the Fire Service were justified.

TV3 did not accept that the programme made accusations about the state of the fire

appliance and the Fire Service's management procedures, emphasising that those

issues were raised by other parties.

It considered that Mr Cummings was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to

the issues raised in the story and that his interview was edited in a fair and balanced

manner.

It concluded:

The Committee accepts the view of staff who worked on the programme that

the Taupo fire crash became a particularly sensitive political issue for both the

Fire Service and the Firefighters Union. The 20/20 programme steered its way

carefully through a barrage of conflicting statements and arguments as the Fire

Service engaged in a major public relations exercise to discredit the OSH Report

and the views of firemen at the Taupo station.

The Fire Service's Final Comment - 16 August 1996

Through its solicitors, the Fire Service commented on TV3's response to the

Authority.

In the Fire Service's view, the overwhelming focus of the programme was the accident,

the injuries suffered by the firefighters and the causes of both the accident and the

injuries. It noted that TV3 had sought to argue that the programme had a much wider

brief and addressed issues under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.

While the OSH report may have addressed those issues, the Fire Service repeated:

The programme primarily concentrated on the accident and viewers would

have been left with the clear impression that the cause of the accident was the

Fire Service requiring the exhausted firefighters to drive a mechanically unsafe

fire appliance.

The Fire Service contended that it was totally misleading for TV3 to assert that the

programme sought to examine both the report's conclusions and the conditions under

which the firefighters in Taupo worked as well as to draw attention to cost cutting and

the effect on staff morale and implications for public safety. In fact, the Fire Service

continued:

The programme sought to highlight the injuries suffered by one firefighter in

particular and sought to apportion blame for the accident, and those injuries,

on the Fire Service. Viewing the programme as a whole, in our client's view.

that is the impression that would be left with any viewer. Notwithstanding

the fact that the OSH inspector's report had already been called into question

prior to the broadcast of the programme and the fact that, subsequently, driver

error was identified as the cause of the accident, the programme did not call

into question the contents of the report but sought to paint the report as

unquestionably accurate.

The Fire Service provided documents which, it asserted, showed that serious doubts

were cast on the content of the OSH report before the 20/20 broadcast. Those

included a letter from Mr Wilson of OSH to the Secretary of the Firefighters' Union,

the OSH news release of 15 March 1996, the Fire Service media release of 15 March

and the media statement of the Minister of Internal Affairs of 18 March.

In particular, the Fire Service noted that the OSH news release indicated that the

report had still not been completed. Further, it observed, it was not just the Fire

Service which was concerned about the contents of the OSH report, and that OSH

itself had expressed concerns.

To TV3's accusation that the Fire Service had embarked on a public relations exercise

to discredit the report, the Fire Service responded that its primary concern was to

ensure that a proper investigation was carried out.

The Fire Service considered the reference to its trying to discredit the report as

emotive and unbalanced. Again it rejected the accusation that it was not interested in

finding out the truth about the cause of the accident.

Turning to the statement in the programme that it was impossible to state that the

long hours of work contributed to the accident, the Fire Service suggested that the

purpose of the reference to the long hours of work was to draw attention to the alleged

failures by the Fire Service to take all practicable steps to minimise harm. It pointed

out that the draft OSH report attributed no blame for the accident to the hours worked

by the firefighters, whereas the programme's references to the hours of work left

viewers in no doubt that excessive work hours contributed to the accident. It added:

Any suggestion by TV3 that the programme was dealing with wider issues

such as cuts in the Fire Service's operating budget, as it does in the second full

paragraph on page 5 of its letter, fails totally to recognise that it is the crash

itself, the causes of the crash, and the injuries suffered which are the primary

focus of the programme.

The Fire Service rejected the suggestion that the firefighters had been working

excessive hours, especially as those involved in the accident had only just come on

duty when the accident occurred.

With respect to the discussion of the depth of the tyre treads, the Fire Service argued

that even though the story did not state categorically that they were illegal, viewers

would have been left with the impression that the tyres were in a poor state of repair

and that defects in the tyres were a cause of the accident. The programme focused on

Mr Scott's criticisms of the tyres, based not on an expert investigation but merely a

superficial view of the tyres after the accident. The Fire Service asserted that could

hardly be described as balanced investigative journalism.

It repeated that the impression viewers were left with was that the tyres were

defective and those defects were a direct cause of the accident. The Fire Service

asserted that the tyres were not defective and were not a contributing factor to the

accident. It also pointed out that the tyre featured in close up with Mr Scott was the

tyre which was severely damaged by the impact of the accident itself.

Turning to the question of whether the door hinges may have caused the injuries and

TV3's argument that Mr Scott himself made his own investigations into how his

injuries were caused and had reached a logical conclusion that they were caused by the

door slamming shut on him, the Fire Service responded that Mr Scott's own analysis

of his injury was not sufficient for the purposes of a current affairs investigation.

The Fire Service argued that viewers were left with the impression that the mechanical

failure of the door hinges caused the injuries. It added:

If the draft OSH report made an unsubstantiated allegation then that should

have been made clear in the programme by TV3. It was not. Our client rejects

the statement by TV3 that the programme did not blame Mr Scott's injuries on

a broken hinge.

The Fire Service enclosed a copy of the memorandum presented on the programme for

Mr Cummings to respond to regarding the hinges. It repeated its objection to the

manner in which it was placed before Mr Cummings at the interview and also pointed

out that it did not deal with bronze alloy hinges.

Conclusion

The Fire Service rejected all of TV3's explanations in its conclusion. In particular, it

did not accept that the story was reported in good faith, nor did it accept that it was

balanced. It maintained that Mr Cummings' contribution was insufficient especially

as he was the only person to present a contrary view about the cause of the accident.

In addition, the programme alleged that the Fire Service had sought to discredit and

rubbish the draft OSH report in an attempt to cover up the findings.

The Fire Service objected to TV3's statement that "[t]he 20/20 programme steered its

way carefully through a barrage of conflicting statements and arguments as the Fire

Service engaged in a major public relations exercise to discredit the OSH report and the

views of the firemen at the Taupo station." It maintained that that statement

reinforced the fact that TV3 did not find it important that the accuracy of the OSH

report was being questioned. In its view, the statement illustrated that TV3 was only

interested in criticism of the Fire Service and that was still the case now, even though

it was known that driver error was the sole cause of the accident.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 30 August 1996, the Authority sought from TV3 a copy of the draft

OSH report upon which the investigation was based, and asked for clarification as to

whether it was regarded as a final report. It also requested a field tape or a transcript

of the interview with Mr Cummings.

On 12 September, TV3 provided a copy of the tape and advised that there was only

ever one report and it was the one on which the story was based. It drew to the

Authority's attention the fact that there was nothing in the report to suggest it was a

draft, and noted that it only became a draft when the Fire Service referred to it as such

when it tried to discredit the document and shift responsibility for the accident away

from the Fire Service.

When this material was referred to the Fire Service's solicitors, they responded on 24

September that TV3 misrepresented the position when it said that it was only the Fire

Service press releases which referred to the report as draft.

By telephone a request was made for a copy of the report written by the Chief

Executive of the Fire Service to the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Mr Wilson of OSH was spoken to by telephone and asked about the status of the

OSH report and what was meant by describing it as a draft. Notes of that

conversation were sent to the parties

In a letter dated 24 October, TV3 responded that it stood by its original comments

about the status of the OSH report. It noted that Mr Wilson of OSH had a different

understanding of the status of the report.

The Fire Service, in a letter dated 1 November, noted that Mr Wilson confirmed the

draft nature of the report. It also suggested that Mr Wilson's comments about the

attitude of the researcher demonstrated further the lack of balance, impartiality and

fairness with regard to the programme.