BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct.

Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined.

In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to accept the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence. As the Authority has not accepted the complaint, the correspondence has not been summarised.

A complaint about a Fair Go item broadcast on 5 August was sent to the broadcaster on 1 September, and TVNZ responded in a letter dated 15 September.

Section 9(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 provides that the Authority shall not accept a complaint referred to it after the expiry of 20 working days. It reads:

s.9(1) The Authority shall not accept a complaint referred to it under section 8(1)(a) of this Act after the expiry of the period of 20 working days beginning with the first working day after the day on which the complainant received from the relevant broadcaster notice of its decision in relation to the complaint.

Mr Radisich’s solicitor received the response on 16 September. The referral was dated 12 October, and was received by the Authority on 15 October. As it was received after the expiry of 20 working days, the Authority declined to accept the complaint. It advised the complainant that it had no discretion to accept a complaint which had been referred out of time.

When he received this advice, Mr Radisich’s solicitor submitted that the referral complied with the time limits because the date of the letter of referral was within the 20 working day time limit. He also argued that the postal acceptance rule applied and that the date of posting should be treated as the date of actual referral to the Authority.

The Authority does not agree with this interpretation of section 9(1). It considers a commonsense reading of the provision leads to the conclusion that the Authority is not in a position to accept or not accept a complaint unless it has received it, and therefore referred must mean actual receipt by the Authority. Accordingly it declines to accept the complaint as the referral did not comply with the statutory time limits.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to accept the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 November 1998