BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The search and rescue operation for two Bay of Islands fishermen lost when their

boat, the "Allison J", overturned in rough weather in November 1994 was examined in

a 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV2 between 7.30–8.30pm on 14 May 1995. The

item reported that the families of the dead men asked why the rescue operation had

taken so long to mount and why local experts had not been invited to join the search.

The operation was described as one of the "great scandals of New Zealand Search and

Rescue".

The District Police Commander in Northland and the Civil Aviation Authority

complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was

inaccurate in parts and unbalanced. Each complainant listed a number of alleged

specific inaccuracies and maintained that the item gave insufficient consideration to the

officially requested independent report of the operation which concluded that there

were no significant grounds for criticism of the official agencies.

Disputing each specific alleged inaccuracy and arguing that the official report did not

bring the matter to an end when the relatives of the dead and the local people felt that

some key matters had not been answered, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, each complainant referred their complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority upheld both complaints that the item was

unbalanced and ordered TVNZ to broadcast a summary of the decision and an

apology to the complainants.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and

have read the correspondence - summarised in the appendices - which includes a

transcript. As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaints without a

formal hearing.

The Programme

The "Tragedy of Errors" was the title of a 60 Minutes item broadcast on 14 May. It

dealt with the unsuccessful search for a boat – the "Allison J" and the death of its

crew. The crew consisted of two fishermen on what was described as a routine cruise

and who had set off flares which were seen on shore. The tone of the item was set in

the introductory comments when the reporter said:

This is the story of one of the great scandals of New Zealand Search and Rescue.

Two fishermen, two cousins, left to drown in a sea of bureaucracy. Two

drownings that the local community say should never have happened. They say

rescue officials could have recovered survivors, not bodies, not boats.

The two fishermen, the reporter continued, "did everything right to stay alive".

The item included interviews with the family members and, the reporter commented:

In any rescue, time is of critical importance, you have to move quickly and

surely. So you've got to ask yourself who would have had the skills and the

proximity to save the Allison J that fateful night. The so called experts, miles

away in Whangarei and Wellington or the local people who know these waters

like the backs of their hands and have the boats to search in all conditions?

A person who fished commercially in the area was interviewed and said that the boat

had been about half a mile from shore. A local who had seen a distress flare spoke of

watching the boat through binoculars and spending the following three hours passing

information to the Police which, he believed, was then relayed to a boat, the

"Ruawaka", searching for the "Allison J".

But, the item continued, the skipper of the "Ruawaka", in initiating a search, had acted

on advice from a neighbour and had not received any information from the Police. The

skipper was interviewed and confirmed that he had begun the search without hearing

from the Police.

As another important point, the reporter commented:

And time was running out for the two drowning men. Remember they were first

spotted and Police alerted while it was still daylight. Time enough for a rescue

helicopter to be sent from nearby Whangarei but Police waited too long to call

for the rescue chopper.

However, the reporter added, by the time the rescue helicopter received the call at

8.39pm, there was insufficient daylight to conduct a search. Moreover, the item

observed, had the call been made at 8.10pm – when the police were notified of the

flares – the two men might have been saved.

Another local commercial fisherman, Vern Tonks of the Whangaruru Radio Rescue

Service, was interviewed and said he was not asked to help. In addition, a commercial

fisherman from nearby Tutukaka said although he was in the area he was also not

asked to assist. One person from Tutukaka who was called on, Craig Sutherland, said

that he had assisted in looking for the bodies the following day.

The item reported the official response had been, at 2.00am the next morning, to ask

for an Air Force Orion to join the search.

There was a reference to an Independent Board of Inquiry which had investigated the

operation and which, despite minor criticisms, concluded that the officials had done all

they could for the missing men. However, the reporter stated, no one from the Rescue

Co-ordination Centre was willing to be interviewed about why the rescue went "so

deadly wrong".

The item finished with the comment:

One final point. We asked Whangarei Police why they waited a critical thirty

minutes before calling for a rescue helicopter. They maintain there was no delay,

that they called for the helicopter as soon as they learned of the emergency.

The Independent Report

At the request of the Director of Civil Aviation, Captain C B Thompson, marine

consultant, and Mr S W Quayle, aviation consultant, inquired into the search for the

"Allison J". It was recorded that the crew set off at least two hand-held red distress

flares – at about 7.50pm and 8.15pm. After the first flare was seen by locals, Mr

Collins, a DOC ranger, drove to a nearby vantage point, saw the "Allison J" low in the

water and, after seeing the second flare, asked his wife to call the police.

The record (noting that there were inaccuracies) included the following conflicting

information:

2010  Whangarei Police received report of flare sighting and called Whangarei

helicopter but advised too dark to operate.

About 2030  Whangarei Police advised of flare sightings.

The following points are made in the report under the heading Evaluation of the above

facts:

1. The flare sighting occurred about 45 minutes before dark.

2. The first report received of the sighting by Whangarei Police was about 20

minutes later.

3. The DOC ranger [Mr Collins] was called by a resident of Bland Bay about

20 minutes after the sighting.

4. The ranger went to a vantage point, set up a communications link with the

Police until well after dark and reported very unfavourable weather

conditions.

5. Whangarei Police called for a local helicopter search but was advised that

pending darkness prevented the helicopter's use.

6. A resident called out a local boat RUAWAKA which sailed about 40

minutes after the first flare sighting.

The next section was headed Comment on the above and recorded:

1. Unfavourable weather and loss of daylight mitigated against faith in the

success of the operation from the start.

2. The locals acted positively and responsibly, placing substantial faith in the

DOC ranger who acted as effectively as could be expected in the

circumstances.

3. The flare sighters believed they saw the vessel almost disappear from sight

due to becoming largely submerged. This information appears not to have

been adequately conveyed to or recorded by the Police.

4. The search by RUAWAKA in darkness, in unfavourable weather and

initially in the wrong place was little more than a gesture. (No suggestion

of criticism is intended on the efforts of the owner and his crew).

The report summarised its findings:

It is understandable that the local residents and the families of the deceased

voiced their criticisms at an early stage and this was due largely to ignorance and

misinformation concerning some relevant facts, and of a proper understanding of

an SAR operation.

Regardless of whether or not the facts support grounds for criticism three

factors weigh heavily in bringing about a sense of discontent in those close to the

scene of an SAR operation. They are:

1. the inability of individuals to be able to 'do something', with its

accompanying sense of frustration.

2. the fact that they may appear not to have been consulted when they have

local knowledge, even though such knowledge may be of little real

assistance in the particular case.

3. the concept that a search can be effectively conducted from inside a room

remote from the scene of the action.

In this case we have not found significant grounds for criticism of the conduct of

the NRCC, the Police or other agencies involved in the SAR operation.

The Police provided the Authority with a copy of the Independent Report.

Standards

Both complainants alleged that the broadcast was inaccurate on a number of specific

points and, overall, unbalanced. The complaints were assessed by TVNZ under

standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which require

broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

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

The Complaint from the Police

Overall, the Police complained that the item focussed excessively on the concerns of

the locals and the victims' whanau and that insufficient emphasis was given to the

finding in the Independent Report to the effect that there were no significant grounds

to criticise the actions of those involved in the Search and Rescue operation. Nine

specific points are raised in the complaint:

1)  As the crew did not carry a marine VHF radio and was travelling too fast, they

had not done "everything right to stay alive" as the item maintained.

2)  Three local experts had been involved in the search, Messrs Collins, Austin and

Blomfield.

3)  No one at Rawhiti had been told of the emergency until the next day, as the item

stated, because it was some distance from where the flare was sighted and the

"Allison J" was not reported overdue until the following day.

4) Mr Collins, who saw a flare and the boat, estimated that the boat was some four

miles out but, when interviewed for the broadcast, was not asked for this

information. Instead, the opinion of locals that the boat was half a mile out was

given during the broadcast by a person who did not see a flare.

5) Mr Austin on the "Ruawaka" was relayed information from Mr Collins.

6) Mr Austin who, when advised by a local of the flare before the Police were

advised of the flare sighting, initiated a search and, the Police remarked:

The action on the part of the locals in mounting their own search and in

delaying calling the Police may have some bearing on the outcome of the

search.

7) The Police said the helicopter was called within six minutes of being advised of

the flare sighting. The programme cited the Independent Report time of 29

minutes which, the Police emphasised, was incorrect. Moreover, the complaint

stated, 60 Minutes had been told that the Independent Report was incorrect on

this point.

8) Neither the Police nor local Search and Rescue personnel had been advised of the

Whangaruru "volunteer radio rescue service" established by Mr Tonks in 1993.

9) The item was incorrect to state that the "Coda" had found the bodies. It was

diverted to pick them up after they had been located during an aerial search.

TVNZ's Response to the Police Complaint

TVNZ dealt with the nine specific points:

1) TVNZ said that there was no evidence that the "Allison J" was travelling too

fast and given the circumstances, it carried appropriate and adequate equipment.

In addition, it pointed out that, contrary to the instructions in the relevant

manuals, the National Rescue Co-ordination Centre was not informed as soon as

the Police began a class 2 search.

2) TVNZ questioned the extent of the experience of the locals named by the Police

and asked why those with an intimate knowledge of the local sea conditions

were not used.

3) TVNZ said it was important for the programme to record that the locals were

not informed of the search as the Police debrief had emphasised the importance

in such searches of vessels and visual searches when looking for people in the

water.

4) Mr Collins had not given 60 Minutes an eye witness account of sighting the flare.

The broadcast had included the opinion of an experienced commercial fishing

operator.

5) If the information from Mr Collins was relayed to Mr Austin on the

"Ruawaka", TVNZ asked, why was he searching in the wrong place?

6) If Mr Austin had not begun a search, TVNZ pointed out, there would have been

no boat search.

7) There was, TVNZ maintained, confusion as to the time of the first call to the

rescue helicopter. The information received from the Police on 4 May was too

late to incorporate into the item but, TVNZ noted, the Police comment was

included at the end of the broadcast.

8) Lack of official awareness of the Whangaruru service was not that service's

responsibility in view of the steps taken by Mr Tonks to advise the search and

rescue authorities of the service.

9) Describing the point as semantic, TVNZ said that the item was not incorrect as

the "Coda" was looking for the bodies and recovered them.

TVNZ said the broadcast did not breach the requirements for accuracy in standard G1.

As for the requirement in standard G6 for balance, TVNZ argued that "strenuous

efforts" had been made to obtain Police comment. That had included sending a fax

containing eight questions to the Police on 27 April to which the answers were

received on 4 May.

Expressing regret that they had not been interviewed, TVNZ argued nevertheless that

the Police could not "cry foul" after they had been given the opportunity to put their

point of view.

Further Correspondence

The details of the continuing correspondence which arose as the Police and TVNZ

commented to the Authority on the points raised by each other is contained in

Appendix I.

In summary, the Police stood by the nine points of complaint set out in the original

letter and insisted that the item was unbalanced. TVNZ persisted in the

appropriateness of its responses to each issue and maintained that the item was not

unbalanced.

There were two matters which the Police emphasised. The first was the minimal

delay between the time that they were notified of the flare and time they contacted the

rescue helicopter and, secondly, their response to TVNZ's request for an interview.

As for the first matter, the Police said that when the complaint was referred to the

Authority, the confusion about the time probably originated from the resident who

rang the Kawakawa Police. The evidence suggested that the resident's estimate of

2010 hours was incorrect as being too early.

With regard to participation by the Police in the item, the letter referring the complaint

to the Authority reported:

... Police were willing to be interviewed and assumed all along they would be.

The officer responsible for search and rescue in Whangarei, Senior Sergeant Henehan,

had followed Police General Instructions when first contacted by 60 Minutes. These

procedures, known to current affairs researchers, involved working through the

Regional Media Co-ordinator. 60 Minutes was advised that Mr Henehan was

prepared to be interviewed but when arrangements were completed, 60 Minutes said

that although the broadcast was 10 days away, it would be too late to incorporate the

interview into the broadcast. The Police commented:

One suspects it suited the programme's agenda to do enough to pay lip service

to standard G6 but to actually do little to accommodate an official, on air

response.

As previously stated, this programme concentrated on the concerns of some

locals and of some of the victims, and neglected to accurately convey facts and

circumstances surrounding the search. These circumstances, now known, were

at the time not known to those controlling or participating in the search.

It is of major concern that unqualified opinions have been given credence by a

television programme with no response by persons qualified to respond.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ enclosed copies of the faxes between the Police

and itself seeking either an interview or answers to specific questions. One fax from

the Police, TVNZ observed:

... did not contain an offer as suggested by [the Regional Media Coordinator]

that the Police would be "happy to enlarge in the course of an interview". The

producer concluded that the answers contained the definitive police response.

There was no suggestion that Senior Sergeant Henehan would "be only too

happy to appear on the show" and that he was quite prepared to answer any

questions put to him.

As for the time of the telephone call, TVNZ noted that 2010 hours was the time

included in the Independent Report. Perhaps, it asked, the Kawakawa police were not

prompt in forwarding the report to Whangarei.

In reply, the Police produced a report from Clear Communications which had traced

the call as having been made at 2029 to the Russell Police Station. Responding to the

point about being unavailable for an interview, the Police also noted:

At no stage did the Northland Police, or the Auckland Police Media Liaison

Section, decline an interview. It is departmental policy (previously forwarded to

you) not to decline such requests unless there are good reasons to the contrary.

The Police also forwarded information to the Authority about the Coroner's inquest

into the death of the two men. The press report ("Northern Advocate" – 6 July 1995)

noted that one of the family members, who on the 60 Minutes item had been critical of

the Police, was pleased that many of his concerns had been answered by the enquiry.

The Coroner exonerated the searchers from any blame.

TVNZ pointed out that the enquiry had occurred some months after the broadcast,

commenting:

The police make reference to comments from Mr Matiu Clendon who appeared

on "60 Minutes" and was one who was critical of the manner in which the

search was conducted. His change of heart following the Coroner's inquest was

because of facts which did not emerge until the inquest was held – facts which

the family had been pleading for at the time the broadcast was made.

As for the time of the call, TVNZ said that some ambiguity remained – over whether

the call was made to the Kawakawa or Russell Police. It noted:

The importance of that first call cannot be under estimated, as was made clear in

the item. Enclosed is the Electricity Helicopter publicity pamphlet which states

that it could be in that area within minutes. The item on "60 Minutes" quite

properly asked tough questions about the actions taken by rescue services after

the call was made.

The Complaint from the Civil Aviation Authority

Because the item did not distinguish between the Police and their conduct of a class II

search and the class III operation co-ordinated by the National Rescue Co-ordination

Centre (NRCC) in Lower Hutt, the CAA said it also spoke for the Police in describing

the item as unbalanced and inaccurate in parts.

The CAA began by criticising TVNZ for using unnamed contributors who, at the

beginning of the broadcast, described the rescue as a shambles. It was unbalanced, the

CAA continued, as the Independent enquiry it had commissioned – and to which 60

Minutes referred – found that generally there were no grounds for criticising the

agencies involved. The item also reported that the CAA declined to comment and, the

complaint reported:

When invited to comment, the Civil Aviation Authority pointed out that the

independent report had only just been released to the deceased families, and until

such time as they had had the chance to study it, it would be improper for CAA

to comment. In the event the TV programme went ahead without CAA

comment.

Six specific inaccuracies were noted.

1) The cruise was not routine as claimed as one crew member had advised his

partner that they would shelter if necessary in the expected bad weather.

2) The flares were sighted in the vicinity of a "maelstrom" with high winds and

choppy seas.

3) The "Allison J" carried limited emergency equipment which included only one

buoyancy vest.

4) It was incorrect to report that the men were expected home for tea on the 21st as

the boat was not reported overdue until the morning of the 22nd and there had

been an earlier indication of the intention to seek shelter if necessary.

5) Three skippers from Tutukaka were asked to help – not only one as reported –

but two declined.

6) Despite assertions to the contrary, local experts were asked to assist. Mr

Collins, the DOC ranger, saw the second flare, reported it and stayed in

communication with the Police. Of his own volition, Mr Austin undertook a

night search in unfavourable conditions on the "Ruawaka" and the marine radio

stations at Russell and Kerikeri sought assistance, unsuccessfully, from boats in

the sea. Moreover, the use of an Orion was not a waste of time in view of its

radar and its infra-red detection sensor. The CAA noted:

The Orion is the best search aircraft at night over water in New Zealand

and stayed on until it could carry out a visual search during daylight.

Other aircraft from Whangarei, Auckland and RNZAF helicopters were

also used. When the partially submerged hull and later bodies were found

by the aerial search, the RCC called on local vessels to assist in the

identification/recovery phase.

TVNZ's Response to the CAA

Explaining the technique used in the item to introduce the people interviewed and that

the criticisms included in the item were not made anonymously, TVNZ responded to

the balance complaint with the following observation:

TVNZ detects in your letter an implication that because something was

contained in the independent report, that should be an end to the matter.

However, "60 Minutes" discovered that relatives of the dead and local people

felt that some key concerns were not met by the report. Revealing such disquiet

is a legitimate role of investigative journalism. That an "official" report has been

issued and fairly reported is no reason to prevent a reporter from revealing and

examining questions which continue to bother local people and which are of

more general public interest because they involve a national system of search and

rescue.

As for the omission of any CAA comment, TVNZ said that the refusal to appear on

camera was unequivocal. The CAA had been given an opportunity to respond and it

was now too late to cry "foul".

As for the alleged factual inaccuracies:

1) The crew member's partner was told shelter would be sought if, not when, bad

weather was encountered.

2) The weather conditions on the night, as the Police debrief made clear, were in

dispute. The official record described the conditions as "moderate".

3) TVNZ quoted the Police report to the debrief that there were two life jackets

and maintained that the two men "did everything right to stay alive according to

conventions".

4) Shirley Te Nana, the widow of one of the deceased men, said on the programme

that the men were expected home for tea as her husband had told her that.

5) TVNZ explained that only one boat from Tutukaka was involved in the search

and the debrief did not record that other boats were requested to help.

6) Maintaining that the CAA was citing the Independent Report, TVNZ said that

it was not concerned about what was done but:

... what might have been done better.

It added:

On the specifics, Mike Austin was not asked by the Police or the Rescue Co-

ordination Centre to go out looking for the "Allison J". He took it upon himself

to go. It seems that information which might have assisted his search was not

passed on to him and because of that he was searching in the wrong place.

TVNZ quoted a lengthy extract from the RCC's Air Directing Officer of Wellington at

the debrief about the capability of the equipment carried by the Orion and maintained

that the broadcast comment was accurate.

Further Correspondence

When its complaint was referred to the Authority, the CAA cited 14 extracts from the

script which, it said, were inaccurate. In addition to the points noted above, it said

that the boat used by Mr Tonks of the Whangaruru Fire Service was inadequate for a

night search. It also asked why, if Mr Tonks operated a volunteer radio rescue service

as he had stated, he had not heard the numerous "all stations" broadcasts seeking help

from the Kerikeri and Russell Marine Radio on Monday night. "No local mariners",

the CAA commented, "responded to these pleas for help".

Under the heading "Environmental Conditions", the CAA recorded:

[The reporter] initially states that "when darkness fell they set off their flares".

This is correct. She also states that DOC Ranger, Mike Collins, flashed his

headlights in recognition of the flares which would have been pointless if it

hadn't been at least dusk or dark. She later states that "the Police were alerted

while it was still daylight" and a helicopter from Whangarei could have been sent

to rescue these men in daylight. Yet the first knowledge of their distress was

when the flares were ignited during darkness. Her own contradictions are never

acknowledged.

The points made about "local experts" were similar to those in the police complaint.

The CAA expanded on the absence of any comment from it included in the item and,

under the heading "Refusal to Appear", wrote:

TVNZ's response also states that the authorities' refusal to appear on camera

and answer the various questions raised was unequivocal. On the day the CAA

representative was phoned and asked to appear on TV by a very "pushy" male

to answer questions, the independent report had only just been posted to the

families concerned, and it was felt that making any comment at that stage would

have been inappropriate. To date no further contact has been made by TVNZ or

the next-of-kin regarding the report on the "Allison J" search.

The CAA concluded by pointing out that the Independent Report recorded that the

initial criticisms from the local residents were largely based on a misunderstanding of

the SAR operation and that the Report found no significant grounds to criticise the

agencies involved in the search.

The CAA later forwarded the newspaper account of the Coroner's findings.

In its response to the referral, TVNZ dealt with each of the matters raised. It denied

any inaccuracies and pointed out that Russell radio was contacted by the family of one

of the fisherman on the evening and was not advised of the emergency. TVNZ also

noted that there seemed to be some confusion in the CAA between the Whangaruru

volunteer radio rescue service run by Mr Tonks and the Whangaruru Fire Service run

by Mr George. It noted that the person who referred to the sighting of the flares

about half a mile out never claimed to have seen the flares herself. Under a heading

"Refusal to Appear", TVNZ remarked:

If the CAA representative considered that he could not make a comment at the

stage that he was phoned, the question arises as to why he did not advise the

reporter when he would be available.

TVNZ concluded:

Although the Independent Inquiry may not have found significant grounds for

criticism, it is clear through their report that there are a number of concerns as to

the way the search for the Allison J was co-ordinated. We re-iterate what we

said in this regard in our letter to [the CAA] of 8 June and indeed all the points

that we made in that earlier letter, most of which would point out are not

commented upon in the referral by the Civil Aviation Authority.

In its final comment, the CAA acknowledged that the "Allison J" carried two life

jackets but maintained that the vessel had set out with inadequate equipment for the

weather conditions not unexpectedly encountered. It maintained that the programme

was unbalanced and had been made to fit a preconceived story line.

In response, TVNZ described the CAA's comment about a preconceived story as

"insulting" and maintained that the item raised some "proper and pertinent"

questions, noting:

We find it ironic that the accusation of a lack of objectivity and balance has come

from an organisation that refused all offers to itself participate in the programme.

In its reply, the CAA enclosed the actual weather forecasts for the Coromandel Brett

area for 20-23 November. Winds of 15 to 40 knots together with rough to very rough

seas offshore were a common theme. The CAA also pointed out that TVNZ had made

only one request to it for an interview. The organisation, it added, had earlier been

concerned about the families' reactions to the deaths which was the main reason for

commissioning an Independent Report. Arguing that the Coroner's findings were

relevant, the CAA wrote:

It shows that the information to allay the family concerns was there all the time

and could have been used in the programme. It could have been easily uncovered

had an investigative journalist been concerned enough to probe and present all

the facts.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority's task is to determine the complaints referred to it about the 60

Minutes item, "The Tragedy of Errors", broadcast on 14 May. It is not required, nor

does it have the ability to do so, to conduct an investigation into the Search and

Rescue Operation conducted off Whangaruru in November 1994.

The operation was investigated by two independent consultants commissioned by the

Civil Aviation Authority and their report was available, and referred to, during the

item. It concluded that there were no significant grounds to criticise those involved in

the search. The Coroner was also required to look at parts of the search in his

investigation into the causes of the death of the two men on the "Allison J". His

report, of which the Authority has only a newspaper account, was released after the

60 Minutes item had been broadcast. The Coroner, it was reported, exonerated the

searchers.

The Authority has the consultants' report. However, to repeat, it is concerned about

the matters in the programme which were raised by the complainants – not with the

adequacies of the procedures used in this search and rescue operation.

The complainants referred to a number of specific matters in the broadcast which they

considered were factually inaccurate and each argued that the programme, overall, was

unbalanced.

Because most of the alleged factual inaccuracies raised points on which the

independent consultants and the Coroner were the appropriate people to judge, the

Authority has not attempted to reach finite conclusions. For example, the Authority

does not have the information to decide whether the "Allison J" carried sufficient

emergency equipment, whether it was travelling too fast for the conditions, and its

exact positions when the flares were seen. Nevertheless, the Authority, will look at

each alleged factual inaccuracy. It will do so not to determine the specific factual

dispute, but to consider the impression given by the item's reference to the matter.

The Applicable Broadcasting Standard

Balance, in the Authority's opinion, is the principal concern to each complainant. In

deciding whether the operation was justifiably described as one of the "great scandals

of New Zealand Search and Rescue", the Authority has taken into account the

impression left by the matters claimed to be factual inaccuracies.

There is, however, one matter – when the Police were advised of the flare sighting -

which is central both to TVNZ and the complainants. As a consequence of the time of

advice of the flare sightings, the question is raised whether the Police called for the

rescue helicopter in 6 or after 29 minutes. As with the other factual disputes, the

Authority is not able to reach a conclusive decision on the point. However, because of

the centrality of the issue, it will address the matter in some detail.

The impression given by the item's reference to the points which the complainants

alleged were inaccurate, especially the time taken to call the rescue helicopter and

TVNZ's interaction with the complainants in the preparation of the programme, will

be matters to be taken into account when the Authority determines the complaint

about balance.

Despite the factual disagreements, as noted above the Authority regarded the alleged

breach of standard G6 as the substance of each complaint. It considered that the

appropriate way to determine the complaints was to assess its impressions and

findings against the criteria in standard G6 – ie the requirements for balance,

impartiality and fairness. Moreover, the Authority wants to emphasise that those

requirements applied to TVNZ whether or not the Police or the CAA cooperated. In

other words, broadcasters must comply with the standards: they are not the

responsibility of parties dealt with in a programme.

Alleged Factual Inaccuracies – Police

The Police alleged nine specific factual inaccuracies.

(i) Doing everything right

Whereas TVNZ claimed that the crew of the "Allison J" did "everything right to stay

alive", the Police argued that the boat carried insufficient emergency equipment and

was travelling too fast for the conditions.

The Authority does not intend to resolve this disagreement. However, it noted that

the statement which was broadcast played an important part in the item's overall

theme that the disaster was substantially the fault of deficiencies in the search and

rescue operation.

(ii) Local experts were not called on to search

In its attempt to decide on the weight of this point to the item's theme about the

inadequacies of the search, the Authority noted that some locals who could be

described as experts did participate. But it gained the opinion that there could have

been others – especially boat owners – who would also have been able to contribute to

the search. Overall, the impression given by the item was again strongly critical of the

search and rescue operation.

(iii) No one at Rawhiti was told of the emergency until the next day

The Authority felt this point added to the critical approach towards the search and

rescue operation.

(iv) The flares were sighted about half a mile out

The distance of the "Allison J" from the shore when the flares were sighted was one of

the more important factual disputes. The suggestion in the item that the "Allison J"

was relatively close to shore – but her crew was not rescued – added to the criticism of

the competence of the search organisation.

(v) Relaying information to the "Ruawaka"

(vi) Mr Austin's search in the "Ruawaka"

(vii) Timing of the first call for the rescue helicopter

This central point is discussed fully below.

(viii) Whangaruru volunteer radio rescue service

(ix) The recovery of the bodies by the "Coda"

Points (v), (vi), (viii) and (ix) each added to the criticism directed by the item at the

organisation of the search.

(vii) Timing of the first call for the rescue helicopter

The item contained the following exchange between the reporter and Mr Baine of the

Whangarei Rescue Helicopter service.

Reporter: We asked him [Mr Baine] to find out when Police made that all

                important call to bring out the chopper.

Baine:     We could say quite clearly that the call came in at eight thirty-nine

               and at eight thirty-nine it was dark and too late for the helicopter to

               operate in that weather effectively.

Reporter: Police would later claim in official reports that they called for the

               Rescue Helicopter at ten past eight, half an hour earlier than they

               actually did. It's just one of the many puzzling aspects of a rescue that

               went horribly wrong. Why is that time discrepancy so important?

Baine:     If we had got the call early enough in daylight we would have

               responded and we would have responded with trained people to do

               the job that they would have been asked to do.

Reporter: Could those men have been saved?

Baine:    Quite possibly we could have helped in that situation and probably

              saved those lives.

The item, at its conclusion, included the following comment from the reporter:

One final point. We asked Whangarei Police why they waited a critical thirty-

minutes before calling for a rescue helicopter. They maintain there was no delay,

that they called for the helicopter as soon as they learned of the emergency.

The excerpt is included as it was fundamental to TVNZ's case (as TVNZ

acknowledged) that the search and rescue was, to quote some locals shown on the

item, "a shambles" and "a total cock-up".

The adequacy of including the Police comment in the above concluding statement is

considered below. At this earlier point in the broadcast, having interviewed an official

from the helicopter rescue service, the reporter maintained that the Police were tardy,

if not negligent, in not making the call when they were first advised of the emergency.

The section on the Independent Report on this matter (summarised on p.3 above)

recorded that that report was used by TVNZ in the preparation of the programme.

The report recorded that the Police were advised of the flare sightings at both 2010

and 2030. The report did not highlight this discrepancy, nor were the alternatives

included in the broadcast. However, it was apparent from the Independent Report

that there was some disagreement about this highly contentious piece of information.

The Police response to that contention was broadcast by TVNZ at the end of the

programme. In dealing with the complaint about the alleged factual inaccuracy, the

Authority observed that the item was presented in such a way as to suggest strongly

that 29 minutes elapsed between the time the Police were notified of the emergency

and the decision to call for the helicopter. That passage of time, the item implied, was

one of the major deficiencies of the search and rescue operation.

Although noting the impression given by the item on this matter, the Authority was

not prepared to determine the factual dispute as to whether the Police were advised at

8.10pm or 8.30pm. In its correspondence with the Authority, the Police have

provided a report for Clear Communications of a call to the Russell Police Station at

8.29pm and, it was said:

... available now is documentary evidence that shows Police received their initial

notification of the incident at 2029 hours. I surmise that the time of 2010 hours

was obtained originally from the maker of the call who was incorrect in her

estimate of the time. Kawakawa Constables have always maintained they

received this call at about 2030 hours.

In response, TVNZ argued:

But there is now clear ambiguity about whether the call was made to Kawakawa

police or Russell – or whether it was diverted from Russell to Kawakawa.

The importance of that first call cannot be underestimated, as was made clear in

the item. Enclosed is the Electricity Helicopter publicity pamphlet which states

that it could be in that area within minutes. The item on "60 Minutes" quite

properly asked tough questions about the actions taken by rescue services after

the call was made.

The impact of this dispute will be canvassed again when the item's balance is

assessed.

Alleged Factual Inaccuracies – CAA

The CAA listed six alleged inaccuracies in its complaint to TVNZ. As some dealt

with matters on which the Authority is not competent to rule (as explained when

dealing with the matters which the Police described as factual inaccuracies), the

Authority does not intend to comment on any except the last two, other than to note

that they were included as part of the item's theme that the operation was a "great

scandal". Those matters complained about by the CAA were:

First, it was incorrect to report that the "Allison J" was on a straight-forward

routine cruise (a) as one crew member had advised his partner that bad weather

was expected and (b) that a "maelstrom" was taking place when the flares were

sighted. Further, (c) the "Allison J" carried limited emergency equipment and

(d) the boat was not reported overdue until it was more than 12 hours late. It

was also incorrect to state (e) that only the local skipper at Tutukaka was asked

to help. Two other requests for assistance were made but were declined.

The other point (f) dealt with an aspect of the allegation that local experts were not

called upon to assist. Besides mentioning the three locals named by the Police, the

CAA also referred to the operator of the marine radio station at Kerikeri who, along

with his counterpart in Russell, had unsuccessfully sought assistance from boats in the

area. He had subsequently maintained a watching brief.

As a further point, the CAA claimed that the use of infra-red detection by an Orion

was not, as the item claimed, "a waste of time". It was the best aircraft available. On

this matter, the Authority accepted that TVNZ was entitled to speculate on both the

usefulness and cost of an Orion. The CAA concluded its complaint to TVNZ:

When invited to comment, the independent report had only just been released to

the deceased families, and until such time as they had had the chance to study it,

it would be improper for CAA to comment. In the event the TV programme

went ahead without CAA comment.

The referral to the Authority elaborated on some of these matters (see Appendix II)

but, because of the Authority's approach to the alleged factual misrepresentations as

involving matters of balance, it has not summarised them further in this decision.

Summary of the Authority's response to the alleged factual inaccuracies

By way of summary of the complaints about the alleged factual inaccuracies, the

Authority records that the complainants disputed some of the matters advanced and,

as explained above, it has decided to deal with them by assessing whether the item

dealt with these issues in a way which was balanced and fair to the parties.

The Complainants' Reaction to TVNZ's request to participate

Both complainants argued that they had been given an insufficient opportunity to

comment. The CAA's complaint is noted above. In response, TVNZ said that the

CAA had unequivocally refused to appear on camera observing:

TVNZ notes that, having been given the opportunity to appear on the

programme and having declined that opportunity, the Civil Aviation Authority

can hardly now cry "foul" if it feels that its viewpoint has been inadequately

reflected on "60 Minutes".

What more can a broadcaster do than offer the opportunity to respond to

matters such as those raised in the programme?

With regard to the aspect of the CAA complaint that TVNZ's efforts on this matter

added to the item's contravention of standard G6, the Authority did not accept that

TVNZ's efforts to obtain the CAA's response were, in view of the CAA's negative

reply, sufficient to comply with the standard.

To comply with the standard, the Authority observed that the efforts required to

obtain a party's comment must be related, among other matters, to the importance of

the party's contribution and to the degree of criticism which is directed at that party.

The item's criticism directed at the CAA, especially at its apparent arrogant

unwillingness to cooperate, was powerful. The Authority was firmly of the view that

the extent of the criticism required that the CAA be given more than one opportunity

to respond because, as noted above, it is the broadcaster's prime responsibility to

comply with the standards. As TVNZ's efforts were insufficient in the

circumstances, the Authority decided that this aspect of the CAA's complaint – that

standard G6 was transgressed – was substantiated.

The absence of any Police comment during the broadcast was a major Police concern

and both TVNZ and the Police have supplied the Authority with considerable

information about the discussions between them. TVNZ's approach to the Northland

Police for an interview with the officer in charge of search and rescue was, as is

required by Police General Instructions, handled initially by the Police's Regional

Media Services. On 27 April, TVNZ faxed the Regional Media Services eight specific

questions for reply by 5.00pm on the 28th.

Because of the difficulty in complying with that deadline, TVNZ accepted a Police

request to extend it and answers to each question were faxed to TVNZ on 4 May.

The Police (Regional Media Services) wrote:

Please find attached two pages, in response to your faxed questions. You will

note that one page is a copy of the Police log on the incident from 2033hrs

through to 2217hrs that same day, 21.11.94.

The second contains typed answers, which I hope sufficiently explain the

actions of Police on the night in question.

If you require any further information, please contact me immediately as I will

have to liaise with Senior Sergeant Henehan, Whangarei on this matter. He is

currently working night shift which means I will have to try and contact him at

his home.

TVNZ commented to the Authority, in view of the this reply:

The attached fax was received from Senior Sergeant Pearson [Regional Media

Services] on 4 May. It had attached a copy of the Police Log and answers to 60

Minutes queries. The letter did not contain an offer as [later] suggested by

Senior Sergeant Pearson that the Police would be "happy to enlarge in the course

of the interview". The Producer concluded that the answers contained the

diffinitive (sic) Police response. There was no suggestion that Senior Sergeant

Henehan would "be only too happy to appear on the show" and that he was

quite prepared to answer any questions put to him. That was certainly not the

Producer's impression, and we have no reason to doubt his version of what took

place.

The Police responded:

At no stage did the Northland Police, or the Auckland Police Media Liaison

Section, decline an interview. It is departmental policy ... not to decline such

requests unless there are good reasons to the contrary.

In reply, TVNZ wrote:

We remind the Authority once again that the police and the rescue centre were

offered the opportunity to be interviewed on camera for this programme. They

declined.

The police view was summed up in a studio piece at the end of the item. The

steps taken to give the police every opportunity to comment should not be

forgotten.

The exchange has been recorded in some detail as, in the Authority's opinion, it was a

matter of considerable concern. As will already be apparent in this decision, the 60

Minutes item was highly critical of the search and rescue operation and, in particular,

the Northland Police. In view of the extent of criticism, the Authority was required to

consider when deciding whether the standards had been transgressed, whether TVNZ,

as it argued, had made "strenuous efforts" to give the "Police every opportunity to

comment."

The date of the request and the date of the broadcast were the first matters which the

Authority examined. It has, in the past, received complaints from organisations which

allege that they have been given insufficient time by an investigative broadcaster to

research and comment on questions put to them by the broadcaster. Generally, the

Authority's attitude has been to display little sympathy with such complainants,

especially if they are large organisations. In today's environment, the Authority

recognises that such organisations must be prepared to respond speedily. In the

current complaint, the Police were faxed eight questions on 27 April and asked for a

reply the following day. Due to other matters, a reply on 4 May was acceptable in

the circumstances.

Just as the Authority expects organisations to react speedily to the media, it considers

that broadcasters should also operate by the same rules. Put simply, the Authority

does not accept, as the TVNZ claimed, that information received on 4 May – 10 days

before the item was broadcast on 14 May – was received too late for inclusion in the

item. On this aspect of the Police complaint, the Authority concluded that the

requirement for balance, fairness and impartiality was not achieved.

Furthermore, the Authority did not accept that the 4 May fax from the Police could be

construed as a refusal to cooperate further. Rather, taking into account the reference

to Senior Sergeant Henehan, the Authority considered that it was part of an on-going

dialogue. This matter is taken up below.

Balance, Impartiality and Fairness – standard G6

As its final comment on the Police complaint, TVNZ put the issue this way to the

Authority:

The final question we request the Authority asks itself is – was this report a

reasonable and balanced summary of a matter of public interest as it stood on 14

May this year? If it was, we submit that the police must fail – regardless of

what might have happened since.

The Authority has made one small addition to this question in determining the

complaint. Was it a balanced summary of the matter as at 14 May on the information

which was then available – or which could have reasonably been acquired at the time?

In dealing with the question, the Authority was in no doubt that it was legitimate to

report the concerns held by the families and the locals.

The complainants have stressed the Coroner's report – which was not released until

July – and the change of attitude shown by some family members to that displayed in

the item on 14 May. The first paragraph of the report in the "Northern Advocate" on

6 July summarising the Coroner's report began:

The brother of one of two men who drowned in an accident that sparked a

controversial search of Whangaruru Harbour says an inquest has answered many

family questions.

A little later it reported:

In a brief statement to the court just before Mr Mahood delivered his findings

yesterday, Matiu Clendon – Eru Clendon's brother – said he "didn't really

realise" some of the facts in the case which had emerged during the inquest.

The article's headline stated:

Searchers free from blame – coroner

The Authority was tempted to ask the question – why did TVNZ not reach that

conclusion in an item involving investigative reporting? However, as the broadcast

was substantially concerned with putting the views of the crew's whanau and as it did

not include interviews with the police and search and rescue authorities, the Authority

was able to understand why the item approached the matter in the way it did.

Nevertheless, TVNZ had the Independent Report and as, TVNZ said, it was entitled

to question that report's conclusions. However, that report, because it contained the

views of the Police and the CAA, gave TVNZ the material against which to test its

judgments.

Overall, the Authority was required by the complainants to determine whether the

presentation of information gathered was sufficient, when measured against standard

G6, to advance the conclusions it did. The Authority began by considering the item's

introduction which stated:

Reporter: Imagine this, you're out for a routine cruise in your boat and you get

               into trouble. Your vessel is sinking and you're in the water, but you

               know you're in luck because you're close to shore, you have life-jackets

               on and your distress flares have been seen. All you have to do is tread water

               and wait to be rescued. Right? Wrong, dead wrong in the case of two Bay of

               Islands fishermen, as you're about to hear. The haunting glimpse of an

               upturned fishing boat. This is the story of one of the great scandals of New

               Zealand Search and Rescue. Two fishermen, two cousins, left to drown in a

               sea of bureaucracy. Two drownings that the local community say should never

              have happened. They say rescue officials could have recovered survivors, not 

              bodies, not boats.

Several themes were established in this introduction. It was a sensitive issue – the

death of two fishermen – and it would be dealt with in an emotive way. It was also a

matter of some magnitude – a great scandal – about which the viewer was to be told.

Indeed, because of that claim, the onus was clearly placed on TVNZ to produce the

evidence in support. That onus was increased in view of the emotive impact of the

dramatic re-enactments used in the programme.

The next substantive matter broadcast in the item was the claim that the help of the

locals was not requested. A little later, a person who fished commercially said the

"Allison J" was sighted about half a mile off shore.

In the section of the alleged factual inaccuracies, the Authority questioned the

accuracy of the comment about the absence of the use of local assistance. The claim

about the distance from the shore where the flare was seen, it noted, seemed to be

made by an eye-witness. Subsequent correspondence showed that this person was

not an eye-witness. The item interviewed one person who had seen the flare, the local

DOC ranger, but had not asked him about that point. If it had, the item would also

have recorded that he suggested that the "Allison J" was some four miles off shore.

Although the viewer was not advised, the half mile estimate was another "fact" in

dispute.

There was also the question about the time which elapsed between the notification to

the Police of the emergency and the call for the rescue helicopter. Like the issue of

"local" help and the distance from shore of the "Allison J" when the flares were

sighted, it was not without an alternative explanation as valid as the one given during

the broadcast. The broadcast, however, by omitting that material suggested that there

was only one interpretation. The first two issues, the use of local assistance, and the

distance of the "Allison J" off-shore, required greater exploration in order to ensure

full compliance with the balance standard. The third question, the time lapse before

the call for the rescue helicopter, because of its importance, the Authority concluded,

was unquestionably also dealt with inadequately under standard G6.

Search and rescue operations are matters of public interest, as TVNZ argued,

especially when operations are not successful and there are deaths. The Authority has

had access to sufficient information to suggest that the operation reported on by 60

Minutes probably did not amount to a text book example. Having decided to

investigate the search and having raised some valid questions, the Authority was of the

opinion that the onus was on TVNZ to investigate the questions and report on them

in a way which was fair to the parties.

The search and rescue authorities – especially the Police – were the objects of intense

criticism. In view of the extent of that criticism, the Authority decided that TVNZ

had an obligation to try very hard to obtain a response. Whereas showing a door being

shut in the face of a reporter might well be a cliche, it would represent the extent of the

efforts the Authority considered to be necessary on this occasion in view of the

material contained in the item. It was not sufficient to believe that the fax from the

Police quoted above on p 19, amounted to such a denial – especially when the

broadcast was not transmitted for another 10 days. Further, as noted above, one call

to the CAA was insufficient in the interests of fairness, in view of the extent of the

criticism of the search and rescue operation contained in the broadcast.

In failing to substantiate the claim that the Operation was "a great scandal", the

Authority concluded that TVNZ had breached standard G6 by failing to comply with

the requirements for balance, impartiality and fairness.

For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast

by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on 60 Minutes on 14 May

breached standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

As will be apparent, the Authority decided that the 60 Minutes item, "Tragedy of

Errors", fell substantially short of the requirements in standard G6 for balance,

impartiality and fairness. It was not a satisfactory piece of investigative journalism in

that while it criticised the search and rescue activities extensively – especially those of

the Police, it gave both the Police and the CAA inadequate opportunities to comment.

Moreover, it failed to give adequate emphasis to the ambiguities inherent in the story.

Accordingly, the Authority believes that an apology and correction are necessary.

Order

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

Television New Zealand Limited to broadcast a brief summary of its decision

and an apology to be approved by the Authority, arising from the 60 Minutes

broadcast between 7.30–8.30pm on Sunday 14 April 1995. The broadcast shall

be made on a 60 Minutes programme between 7.30–8.30pm on a Sunday within

one month of the date of this decision or at such other time as approved by the

Authority.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith M Potter
Chairperson
30 November 1995

Appendix I

New Zealand Police's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 17 May 1995

The District Commander of the Northland Police District (L G Lilly) complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on 60 Minutes between 7.30 -

8.30pm on 14 May 1995.

The Police and the Northland Marine Search and Rescue organisation, he wrote,

maintained that the item which dealt with the search for the "Allison J" and crew off

Whangaruru on 20/21 November 1994 was unbalanced and inaccurate. Nine specific

points were listed.

1) While the crew had carried life-jackets and flares, they had not, as the item

claimed, done "everything right to stay alive" as the boat did not carry a marine

VHF radio and had been travelling too fast for the conditions.

2) Contrary to the item's claim that local experts were not called on to join the

search, the names of three local experts who were used were given - Mike

Collins, the local DOC ranger, Mike Austin, a local charter boat operator, and

Richie Blomfield, a local radio operator who controlled the search.

3) With regard to the item's claim that the people at Rawhiti were not told of the

emergency until the next day, the complainant noted that Rawhiti was some

distance from where the flare was sighted and the "Allison J" was not reported

overdue until the next day.

4) The local woman who said the flares were possibly half a mile out had not seen

the flares. The local DOC Ranger (Mike Collins) who was also interviewed saw

the flares from a good vantage point and estimated that they were four miles out.

"Why" asked the complainant, "was Mike Collins' eye witness account of the

location not used?"

5) The Police were constantly in contact with Richie Blomfield of Russell Radio

who relayed information from Mrs Collins to Mike Austin. Yet the item

claimed, incorrectly, that the Police did not relay information to Mr Austin.

6) The Police agreed that Mr Austin started a search in response to a call from a

local and, the complaint continued:

At this stage the Police had not been made aware of the flare sighting. The

action on the part of the locals in mounting their own search and in

delaying calling the Police may have had some bearing on the outcome of

the search.

7) The Police called the rescue helicopter six minutes after being advised by Mrs

Collins of the flare sighting. The programme quoted an independent inquiry

report which referred to an alleged delay of 29 minutes despite being advised of

that report's error and despite having been given a copy of the police log

recording the correct time. The Police added:

The Whangarei Police take strong exception to the accusation that there

was a delay of 29 minutes before calling the rescue helicopter, by which

time it was too late.

8) Neither the Police nor the local SAR (Search and Rescue) personnel had been

advised of the Whangaruru "volunteer radio rescue service" established at Easter

1993.

9) The charter boat "Coda" did not search and find the bodies as the item

maintained. It was directed to pick up the bodies after they were found

following an aerial search.

The complainant commented:

Your programme concentrated on the concerns of locals and of the whanau of the

victims, and neglected to accurately convey facts and circumstances surrounding

the search. These circumstances, now known, were at the time not known to

those controlling or participating in the search.

An independent report acknowledged the criticisms of the local residents and families

of the deceased which, it said, were based on a misunderstanding of some relevant

facts and the role of the SAR. Nevertheless, the Police added, the report stated that

there were no significant grounds to criticise the action of those involved in the SAR

operation.

The independent report was prepared by Captain C B Thompson and Mr S W

Quayle, a marine and aviation consultant respectively, and began:

At the request of Mr K W Ward, Director of Civil Aviation, on 6 December

1994 the two undersigned, acting as a team, accepted instructions to enquire into

the procedural aspects of the National Rescue Coordinating Centre (NRCC)

during the above search and to prepare an independent report in compliance

with the Terms of Reference set out in Mr Ward's letter of the same date to

Captain C B Thompson.

The Police sought a retraction and apology from TVNZ.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 2 June 1995

TVNZ said it had assessed the complaint under standards G1 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The item, it said, had dealt with the

following issue:

You will recall that the item investigated the search and rescue operation for two

Bay of Islands fishermen lost when their boat, the "Allison J", overturned in

rough weather. It appeared the men had been wearing lifejackets and had

managed to fire distress flares from the boat, about half-a-mile offshore. The

families of the dead men had asked why, in those circumstances, it took so long

to mount a police/rescue co-ordination to save the men, and why local experts

were not invited to join the search.

It then proceeded to deal with the more specific points raised in the complaint.

1) The independent review noted that the relevant Manuals required that the

Marine Duty Officer was to be advised should a red flare be sighted while, at the

same time, the Police were to begin a class 2 search with local resources.

However, despite the sighting of the a red flare, TVNZ continued:

In this case, the police elected to initiate a class 2 search, and it was only

when this operation proved unsuccessful that the National Rescue Co-

ordination Centre was notified. This resulted in a delay of approximately

2 hours and 25 minutes in the preparations for getting an Orion search

aircraft airborne.

The independent review did not record the unconfirmed claim that the "Allison

J" was travelling too fast and, TVNZ concluded on point 1:

It seemed to the [Complaints] Committee that, set against the context of

many other fishing boat tragedies that have occurred in New Zealand

waters over the years and have justifiably led to police questions about the

competence of their crews, those aboard the "Allison J" did indeed do

"everything right to stay alive" ... life jackets, flares, a CB Radio.

2) Giving some background information and questioning the extent of the

experience of the local experts named by the complainant, TVNZ said that the

accounts:

... reflect a group of volunteers bravely trying to do their best to help - but

they seem to fall short of qualifying as local "experts".

In that context, it did not seem to the [Complaints] Committee

inappropriate to ask as to why local people with intimate knowledge of

local sea conditions at night were not called in.

3) TVNZ regarded as important the timing of the advice to the local people that a

flare had been sighted. Because no one on the coast knew of the emergency until

the next day, they were unable to assist. TVNZ then cited the Rescue Co-

ordination Centre's administration officer (Mr McLean) who, at the official

police debrief, emphasised the importance of vessels in the water and visual

searches when looking for people in the water. In his report, Mr McLean

commented:

The second thing I would say, again in hindsight, if the Ruawaka, and

other vessels too could have been put into the area where Collins saw the

person and searched downstream, searching down on the grid very slowly,

carrying out that technique, I think it would have been the only way we

would have recovered anyone alive. But that's in hindsight because we

didn't really know that the boat had sunk. We were at that stage looking

for a vessel in the water.

In these circumstances TVNZ regarded the time when the people at Rawhiti

were told of the story as germane as, consequently, they were not given the

chance to participate in the search.

4) TVNZ said that Mr Collins had not given 60 Minutes an eye witness account of

how far the boat was from shore. The programme had included the opinion of

an experienced commercial fisherman with an intimate knowledge of the area.

5) TVNZ was perplexed by the claim that Mr Austin was relayed the correct

information from Mr Collins, adding:

If it is as you say, how is it that accurate information was not relayed to

Mike Austin on the "Ruawaka"? On the basis of the information he

received he was searching the wrong place.

6) TVNZ said that the item acknowledged that Mr Austin initiated his own search,

observing that had he not done so, no boat search would have been mounted

although two distress flares had been sighted. TVNZ commented:

In light of the events recounted in the programme, and outlined in the

independent report, the [Complaints] Committee found it hard to accept

your suggestion that locals actually hampered the search for the men.

7) TVNZ maintained that there was confusion as to the timing of the first call for

the rescue helicopter. Because of the confusion, the police were asked for

further information on 27 April and the reply, on 4 May, arrived too late to be

incorporated into the item. However, at the end of the broadcast, it was stated:

A final point. We asked Whangarei Police to explain why they waited a

critical thirty minutes before calling for a rescue helicopter. They maintain

there was no delay ... that they called for a helicopter as soon as they

learned of the emergency.

8) In view of the steps taken by the Whangaruru "Volunteer Radio Rescue Service"

to advise the Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Wellington of its existence, then it

was not the Service's fault that the SAR services in Northland were not aware of

its existence.

9) Describing this point as one involving semantics, TVNZ said the "Coda" was

investigating the hull and the debris when asked by the helicopter to recover the

bodies. TVNZ continued:

The script said of the local skipper, Craig Sutherland, "officials asked for

help - but not until the following day. By then he was looking for bodies -

not survivors. And that's exactly what he found, and recovered".

It did not seem to the committee that this was an inaccurate description of

"Coda's" role.

TVNZ then assessed the complaint under the nominated standards. It said that there

were no inaccuracies and thus standard G1 was not contravened. With respect to the

other standard, TVNZ began:

In studying G6, the [Complaints] Committee was conscious that despite the

obvious and commendable efforts of "60 Minutes" to talk to as many as

possible of the people involved in the "Allison J" affair, there was an absence of

police input into the programme. It was explained that strenuous efforts had

been made to seek police comment but these had been to no avail.

Its request to Senior Sergeant Mike Henehan, the Search and Rescue Co-ordinator for

Northland, was referred to the Police in Auckland who asked for a list of questions.

Eight questions were included in a fax sent on 27 April and the answers arrived on 4

May and included a response to the timing point noted in (7) above.

TVNZ expressed regret that the police declined to be interviewed, adding:

However, the failure of one party to agree to be interviewed is not a cause to

abandon a work of investigative journalism especially when the reporter and

producer concerned have clearly shown great diligence in contacting all relevant

individuals involved in the "Allison J" search.

With respect, the committee felt that the police cannot in fairness decline to be

interviewed, and then cry "foul" when a programme appears in which they feel

their views have not been properly represented.

The committee concluded that G6 was not breached.

While TVNZ is sorry that you are dissatisfied with this broadcast, it does not

believe that it strayed outside the bounds of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

Accordingly, your complaint was not upheld.

The Police's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 19 June 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, the Acting District Commander of the Northland

Police (A J Collin) referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The referral addressed the nine points

raised in the original complaint.

1) The crew of "Allison J" did not, the police averred, do "everything right to stay

alive". In addition to the absence of a VHF radio, a dinghy, an EPIRB and a

waterproof torch were not carried. A named person with extensive boating

experience had described the boat speed of the "Allison J" as suicidal and the

crews' actions as "foolhardy and idiotic". The Police added:

The cause of the foundering was never an issue at the debrief, which was

held solely to examine the search operation.

It is questioned which expert gave TVNZ the opinion that the ALLISON J

crew "did everything right to stay alive".

2) In view of TVNZ's comments about the limited expertise of the named locals

used by the Police, the referral recorded their experience. In response to

TVNZ's comment that other locals should have been utilised, the police noted

the comment in the independent report that Mr Tonks (of the Whangaruru

Volunteer Radio Rescue Service) was "possibly lacking in SAR experience".

The Police concluded on this point:

Mike Austin did search in the wrong location, even though (in addition to

receiving directions from Russell Marine Radio) an observer from the

shore with a marine VHF radio was directing him to the location of the

flare sighting. This perhaps is testimony to the difficulty of mounting a

marine search in darkness in poor conditions. It is repeated that as a

charter boat skipper in a well equipped boat, he is considered an expert for

the role required of him.

3) TVNZ, the Police argued, had not responded to the question why it had been

necessary to inform the people of Rawhiti of the emergency. The comments

made by Mr McLean of the RCC quoted by TVNZ, it added, were explicitly

made with the benefit of hindsight.

4) Observing that TVNZ's investigative report which was screened should have

obtained the information from Mr Collins about how far the boat was from

shore, the Police wrote:

To give hearsay opinion of the distance from someone who is obviously a

detractor of the search, is grossly unbalanced and unfair. That the

Complaints Committee describes TVNZ as having "gone into this matter

very carefully and very diligently" is beyond logic.

The Police continued:

On the one hand, TVNZ has raised the fact that Mike Austin was

incorrectly searching inside Danger Rock, yet on the other hand the

programme asserted that the flares were "possibly a half mile out". This

distance puts the craft well inside Danger Rock.

5) In view of the situation explained and the circumstances at the time, the Police

insisted that the comment "The Police did not relay information to Mike

Austin" was incorrect.

6) The Police did not object to the statement that Mr Austin initiated a search but

to the inference in the item that the officials procrastinated while Mr Austin

acted. Mr Austin, it added, was contacted by the locals some 30 minutes before

the Police were informed.

7) Describing the timing point as "crucial to the thrust of the programme", the

Police acknowledged the confusion but maintained that there was no delay on

the Police's part. It wrote:

The Complaints Committee suggests that because the time was recorded in

the official report, it was entitled to be used. It would seem therefore that

the time of 2010 hours is virtually admitted as being incorrect. Surely

investigative reporting requires the truth to be put forward.

A considerable proportion of the programme was devoted to this point.

That a short addendum was the only response is unfair and unbalanced.

8) In response to TVNZ's claim that Mr Tonks had advised the Rescue Control

Centre (RCC) of the existence of the "Radio Rescue Service", the Police noted

that the RCC denied that it had received the letter. Furthermore, the

neighbouring radio operators had never heard of it and, if Mr Tonks maintained a

24 hour watch on Channel 16 as he claimed, he would have been aware of the

search. The Police concluded on this point:

There are currently over 1000 licensed shore marine radio stations in New

Zealand. Mr TONK's radio station has been used during annual fishing

contests since 1993. There is no evidence to suggest it was more widely

utilised.

That the Complaints Committee suggests Mr TONKS went through the

proper procedure when he (allegedly) wrote to the RCC shows an

ignorance of SAR matters. The RCC is not an "umbrella" organisation.

Again the point is made that this programme obviously did not seek

opinions from SAR experts, or from others, who may have been able to

redress inaccuracies such as this issue.

9) The Police persisted that it was arguing over a point of substance - not

semantics - as the item was wrong to imply that the "Coda" was instrumental in

finding the bodies.

The Police then dealt with TVNZ's claims that "strenuous efforts" had been made to

obtain Police comments. It began:

One of the major breakdowns in the production of this programme and probably

the principal area of Police concern was the failure of 60 Minutes to facilitate an

interview with the Police involved in managing the search.

Contrary to the Complaints Committee's findings, Police were willing to be

interviewed and assumed all along they would be.

When contacted by TVNZ, Senior Sergeant Henehan followed the standard procedure

- known to current affairs researchers - of referring the questions to the Auckland

Media office. A copy of Police General Instruction M85 detailing the procedure was

enclosed for the Authority's information.

The Regional Media Services Co-ordinator (Senior Sergeant David Pearson) advised

the 60 Minutes producer (Mr Comerford) that Mr Henehan was prepared to be

interviewed on the question line supplied. A report of that contact was also attached

to the referral. However:

Mr COMERFORD told MR PEARSON the following week it was too late to

incorporate the interview, even though the programme was still 10 days off.

The Police continued:

Very little effort was made by 60 Minutes producers to incorporate a Police

perspective. When MR PEARSON advised MR COMERFORD on 28 April of

problems in getting answers to his questions, Mr COMERFORD told him a

reply early the following week would be satisfactory. He did not say it would

be too late to incorporate an interview.

One suspects it suited the programme's agenda to do enough to pay lip service

to standard G6 but to actually do little to accommodate an official, on air

response.

The Police summarised their concerns:

As previously stated, this programme concentrated on the concerns of some

locals and of some of the victims' families, and neglected to accurately convey

facts and circumstances surrounding the search. These circumstances, now

known, were at the time not known to those controlling or participating in the

search.

It is of major concern that unqualified opinions have been given credence by a

television programme with no response by persons qualified to respond.

Citing the independent report in support of their contention, including the comment:

In this case, we have not found significant grounds for criticism of the conduct of

the NRCC, the Police or other agencies involved in the SAR Operation.

the Police repeated the claim for a retraction and an apology.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 10 August 1995

After seeking and obtaining the Authority's permission for extra time in which to

respond to the referral due to the illness of its Programme Standards Manager,

TVNZ's reply initially dealt with the nine points specifically raised.

1) Explaining that the first flare was sighted at 1950 hours, the second at 2015 and

that by 2030 the boat seemed to have sunk, TVNZ asked what extra information

could have been given by the "Allison J". While an emergency position indicator

radio beacon (EPIRB) might have assisted the aircraft which began a search at

0202 the next day, it would not have helped the "Ruawaka" in its search.

Moreover, relatively few boats along that coast carried the beacon because it was

sheltered from the prevailing wind.

A VHF radio would have been of little assistance once the boat capsized and no

evidence was given as to whether either a dinghy or waterproof torch were

carried.

At the SAR debrief on 12 December 1995, Mike Austin the owner of the

"Ruawaka" advised that he had a base CB in his home and that he had not heard

any May-day calls from the "Allison J" which had carried a hand-held CB.

The evidence of the witness at Matapouri cited by the police was not given to

the independent enquiry and, noting that the witness was not named. TVNZ

stated:

We have no evidence as to the time of this alleged sighting or what the sea

conditions were at Matapouri which would have been a number of hours

prior to the sinking when a boat of similar description was seen travelling

north. We are not sure in fact of the relevance of this unsourced comment.

The witness is not referred to in the evidence given at the inquiry nor was

he or she it would seem present at the Debriefing. It is mentioned just

briefly in the Introduction of the Debrief. The speed is now described as

Ôsuicidal' (rather than Ôexcessive') and the actions of the crew as

Ôfoolhardy and idiotic'. We have no evidence as to speed being a factor in

this tragedy - so why has the complainant added this opinion?

2) Standing by its previous comments about the named local experts' lack of

suitable experience, TVNZ attached an article from the "New Zealand Herald"

which set out the views of the experienced local experts that the chances of one

vessel finding two seamen in the water "was relatively remote". The police had

not used the Harbour Warden, Mr Vern Tonks, who, although lacking in SAR

experience, knew what craft and personnel would have been available.

Asking why did the police take evidence only from one of its three "local

experts" - Austin but not Blomfield and Collins - TVNZ said that Mr Collins of

DOC had limited knowledge of the sea and questioned whether Mr Austin had

the required expertise to conduct a search at night. One expert named by the

police, Jon Cullen, the operator of the Kerikeri marine radio service had minimal

input. Furthermore:

As reported in the 60 Minutes item the Harbour Master at Tutukaka was

not notified of the emergency and a number of the vessels based there

would have been able to have quickly been in the area, if called upon.

3) Despite enquiries from the Rawhiti people to Russell Marine Radio, they were

not advised of the emergency. TVNZ added that the radio operator (Richie

Blomfield) was not present at the debrief.

4) The difference in the estimates of the position of the "Allison J" when the flares

were sighted, TVNZ wrote, could be explained by the distance the vessel drifted

between the first and second flares.

5) If the police were continually in contact with Mike Collins through Mrs Collins

and Richie Blomfield, TVNZ asked, why was the search by the "Ruawaka" at

least initially in the wrong area. Moreover, the Inquiry Team's report suggested

that the information from the flare sighters was either inadequately conveyed to

or incorrectly recorded by the police.

6) As for Mr Austin initiating a search before the Police were advised of the flare

sighting, TVNZ commented:

If Mr Austin had not undertaken a search on Ruawaka there is no evidence

that the Police would have sent any vessel to sea that evening!

7) As for the time taken to call the rescue helicopter - 29 minutes, TVNZ stood by

its initial report. The first call, it said, was to the Kawakawa police station. The

independent inquiry team recorded 2010 as the time of the flare sighting. TVNZ

declined to accept the police's contention on the point.

8) TVNZ declined to comment further on this point.

9) The programme did not report that the "Coda" had found the bodies but had

recovered them from the water.

By way of introduction to its general comments, TVNZ began:

We strongly disagree with the assertion that the Police were willing to be

interviewed for the programme. 60 Minutes approached the Northland Search

and Research co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Mike Henehan of Whangarei for an on

camera interview. He declined and referred us to the Auckland Police

Headquarters. The Auckland Police Public Relations Officer told the

programme's producer that the Police would not consider the request for an

interview until a storyline had been provided together with a list of questions.

The policy of our Current Affairs programmes is not to provide storylines. The

impression was clear that the police would only be prepared to make a comment

under preconditions.

As the deadline approached, TVNZ added, the Police were again asked to respond.

Attaching the fax dated 4 May received from Senior Sergeant Pearson, TVNZ said that

as it did not offer an interview, it was taken as the definitive Police response.

Furthermore, TVNZ denied that Mr Pearson had later telephoned a 60 Minutes

representative to offer the interview.

In conclusion, TVNZ stated that the lengthy argument alleging a breach of standard G6

contained in the original complaint was not sustained.

The Police's Final Comment - 28 August 1995

In the final comment on behalf of the Police, Senior Sergeant M R Henehan advised

that he had obtained two further pieces of information. First, Clear Communications

had traced the call from a local at Bland Bay to the Police informing them of the flare

sighting and a record was attached showing that the call was made at 2029 hours.

Secondly, the report of the Coroner's Court hearing into the deaths of the two

fishermen (released after the date of the broadcast) recorded the Coroner's finding that

the parties involved in the search had done their best. Further, the brother of one of

the fishermen - who had appeared on the 60 Minutes programme and had criticised the

search - was now reported as being satisfied with the efforts having heard the facts

explained at the hearing. The media report of the Coroner's hearing (dated 6 July) was

attached.

The Police then responded to the nine points above:

1) Pointing out that TVNZ had still not named the marine expert it had consulted

and that it appeared to be someone who lacked expertise on marine matters, the

Police said that TVNZ, by mainly relying on the debrief which was not attended

by all the involved parties and had not considered the operation in detail, had

failed to gain a full understanding of the matter.

2) As the "Allison J" was thought to be afloat, the initial search was carried out

with one boat equipped with radar. With hindsight, the Police continued, it was

now acknowledged that the "Allison J" probably sank soon after dark.

Maintaining that Mr Collins, Mr Austin and Mr Blomfield were experts for the

roles required of them, the Police said they were each invited to the debrief. Mr

Collins could not attend and Mr Blomfield was ill. The Police noted that it was

wrong to refer to material given at the debrief as "evidence".

Moreover, Jon Cullen was a Marine Search Adviser who, although he did not

take an active part in the full search, had maintained a "watching brief" well into

the night. The Police commented:

TVNZ's comments here graphically illustrate their (or their adviser's)

ignorance of Marine Search and Rescue matters. Enquiries of little more

than a cursory nature would have clarified the important role of the

adviser.

Here, as in other searches, much work goes on behind the scenes. Jon

CULLEN is a highly respected authority on Marine SAR, and played a

major role in this search. TVNZ should have approached him for his

input.

3) No further comment.

4) In regard to the flare which Ms Thompson was referring to, the Police pointed

out that she had not seen it herself and that the comment from others indicated

that it was well outside Danger Rock.

5) It was incorrect to state that the Police did not convey information to Mr

Austin.

6) No further comment.

7) While the caller might have said that the call was made at 2010 hours,

documentary evidence was now available that the Police were notified at 2029

hours.

8) No further comment.

9) No further comment.

The Police concluded:

I reiterate that the tone of the programme was unbalanced and focused only on

the concerns of the locals and whanau of the deceased. The makers obviously

have a shallow grasp of Marine Search and Rescue matters and have not sought

advice from experts or spoken in full to those involved in the search.

At no stage did the Northland Police, or the Auckland Police Media Liaison

Section, decline to an interview. It is departmental policy (previously forwarded

to you) not to decline such requests unless there are good reasons to the

contrary.

The refusal of the National Rescue Co-ordination Centre to be interviewed was

mentioned on the programme. If the Northland Police had also refused, why

was there no similar comment?

TVNZ's Response to the Police's Final Comment - 6 September 1995

As is its practice, the Authority sent TVNZ a copy of the Police's final comment for

its information. It chose to respond on some points.

First, while acknowledging that the Coroner's findings would be pleasing to the Police,

TVNZ said that they were not relevant to the broadcast as the hearing took place

some months after the broadcast.

Noting that the 60 Minutes item dealt specifically with the concerns of the family

members, TVNZ reported:

The police make reference to comments from Mr Matiu Clendon who appeared

on "60 Minutes" and was one who was critical of the manner in which the

search was conducted. His change of heart following the Coroner's inquest was

because of facts which did not emerge until the inquest was held - facts which

the family had been pleading for at the time the broadcast was made.

Mr Clendon's comments were relevant at the time of the broadcast, and

accurately reflected his view at that time.

Shirley Te Nana, widow of one of the men on the "Allison J", also spoke critically of

the search during the broadcast and TVNZ enclosed a letter from her as she had

considered the broadcast to be responsible.

TVNZ also commented:

We find it convenient and ironic that Senior Sergeant Mike Henehan (the search

and Rescue Co-ordinator for Northland) has now found information from Clear

over the timing of the first call.

However this does not solve one vital problem. In his original fax in response to

"60 Minutes", he says the call was received by Kawakawa police. Through the

new document we are now told it was made to Russell police.

The Senior Sergeant told "60 Minutes" that the independent report was wrong

to say the police were informed at 2010 hours. But there is now clear ambiguity

about whether the call was made to Kawakawa police or Russell - or whether it

was diverted from Russell to Kawakawa.

The importance of that first call cannot be underestimated, as was made clear in

the item. Enclosed is the Electricity Helicopter publicity pamphlet which states

that it could be in the area within minutes. The item on "60 Minutes" quite

properly asked tough questions about the actions taken by rescue services after

the call was made.

Describing the Police comments as patronising, TVNZ said that some staff members

had considerable maritime expertise and were fully able to grasp the details. TVNZ

concluded:

We remind the Authority once again that the police and the rescue centre were

offered the opportunity to be interviewed on camera for this programme. They

declined.

The police view was summed up in a studio piece at the end of the item. The

steps taken to give the police every opportunity to comment should not be

forgotten.

The final question we request the Authority asks itself is - was this report a

reasonable and balanced summary of a matter of public interest as it stood on 14

May this year? If it was, we submit that the police complaint must fail -

regardless of what might have happened since.

Appendix II

Civil Aviation Authority's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 23 May

1995

The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority (Kevin Ward) complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd about an item on 60 Minutes broadcast by TV2 between 7.30 -

8.30pm on 14 May 1995. The item had featured the search for the "Allison J" and its

crew at Whangaruru on 21/22 November 1994.

The letter began:

This search was carried out initially as a Class II operation by the NZ Police and

subsequently as a Class III operation co-ordinated from the National Rescue Co-

ordination Centre in Lower Hutt, Wellington. While it would normally be

improper for the RCC to comment on actions carried out by the Police, the

programme made no differentiation between the two agencies and accordingly

the CAA feels free to observe that in its view the programme was unbalanced,

contained factual inaccuracies and implied that SAR authorities contributed to

"one of the great scandals of New Zealand Search and Rescue".

Dealing first with the complaint about the lack of balance, the CAA said the rescue

was described not only as a "great scandal" but also by two unidentified people

respectively as a "shambles" and "a total cock-up".

The CAA disputed those observations. It had commissioned an independent report

and although that report was acknowledged and shown briefly by the broadcaster, its

conclusion was not emphasised. The report, the CAA commented, had found

generally that there were no grounds for criticism of the agencies involved. Allowing

two unidentified people to give their judgment while ignoring the report, the

complainant continued, was "clearly in breach of normal investigative reporting

standards".

The complaint then listed a number of alleged factual inaccuracies (listed a) to f)).

First, it was incorrect to report that the "Allison J" was on a straight-forward routine

cruise (a) as one crew member had advised his partner that bad weather was expected

and (b) that a "maelstrom" was taking place when the flares were sighted. Further, (c)

the "Allison J" carried limited emergency equipment and (d) the boat was not reported

overdue until it was more than 12 hours late. It was also incorrect to state (e) that

only the local skipper at Tutukaka was asked to help. Two other requests for

assistance were made but were declined.

As the final factual inaccuracy (f), the complainant said:

Despite assertions to the contrary, local experts were called upon to assist.

Mike Collins, the Department of Conservation Ranger, received notice of the

first flare sighting, saw the second sighting and reported it to the Police and

stayed in communication with the Police. The marine radio stations at Russell

and Kerikeri broadcast for assistance from boats in the area, but had no replies.

Mike Austin undertook a night search for two hours or more in most

unfavourable conditions.

In addition, the use of infra-red detection by an Orion was not, as the item claimed, "a

waste of time". It was the best aircraft available.

As the last point in the complaint, the CAA stated:

When invited to comment, the Civil Aviation Authority pointed out that the

independent report had only just been released to the deceased families, and until

such time as they had had the chance to study it, it would be improper for CAA

to comment. In the event the TV programme went ahead without CAA

comment.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 8 June 1995

Assessing the complaint under standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ dealt with each of the specific points raised in the

complaint.

In relation to the complaint about the description of the rescue as a "shambles" and a

"cock-up", TVNZ said that the speakers were identified later in the item as Mr Vern

Tonks (Harbour Master at Oakura Bay) and Mr Andrew Grey (skipper of an ocean-

going trawler). Their opinions TVNZ added, were shown during the programme to be

based on extensive knowledge of both the local area and of search and rescue practice.

The item, TVNZ pointed out, also featured the independent report and pertinent

paragraphs were highlighted. TVNZ also recorded:

TVNZ detects in your letter an implication that because something was

contained in the independent report, that should be an end to the matter.

However, "60 Minutes" discovered that relatives of the dead and local people

felt that some key concerns were not met by the report. Revealing such disquiet

is a legitimate role of investigative journalism. That an "official" report has been

issued and fairly reported is no reason to prevent a reporter from revealing and

examining questions which continue to bother local people and which are of

more general public interest because they involve a national system of search and

rescue.

TVNZ then considered the alleged factual inaccuracies listed (a) to (f). First, it said,

one of the crew told his partner that they would seek shelter if they encountered bad

weather - not that bad weather was expected.

The second point (b) dealt with the weather conditions and, TVNZ said, as the Police

debrief and the broadcast acknowledged, that the actual conditions were in dispute.

TVNZ also questioned CAA's description of the emergency equipment carried. It

continued:

We understand the crew carried two lifejackets, hand-held flares and a hand-held

CB radio.

"60 Minutes" made it clear that nobody knows why the boat capsized but it

carried eye witness accounts which support the view that the two men did

everything right to stay alive according to conventions. At least two flares were

seen from the shore.

As for the time the two men were expected home, TVNZ said that the item reported

that Komene Te Nana's anxiety increased when her husband was not home for tea.

The item also reported that the "Coda" was searching for bodies and the debrief did

not mention any other specific requests for assistance.

As for the complaint which referred to the various activities after the flares had been

sighted, TVNZ said it seemed that the findings of the independent report were being

reiterated. However:

"60 Minutes" was concerned with Search and Rescue reaction - what happened

on the night - what might have been done better.

On the specifics, Mike Austin was not asked by the Police or the Rescue Co-

ordination Centre to go out looking for the "Allison J". He took it upon himself

to go. It seems that information which might have assisted his search was not

passed on to him and because of that he was searching in the wrong place.

With regard to the infra-red equipment carried by the Orion, TVNZ cited a lengthy

extract from the Police debrief covering the equipment's capabilities and concluded:

Given this expert opinion, it was TVNZ's view that the description of the infra-

red search given in the "60 Minutes" programme was accurate.

On the final point about how the broadcast explained CAA's response to the

inquiries, TVNZ said the CAA unequivocally refused to appear on camera. It added:

TVNZ notes that, having been given the opportunity to appear on the

programme and having declined that opportunity, the Civil Aviation Authority

can hardly now cry "foul" if it feels that its viewpoint has been inadequately

reflected on "60 Minutes".

What more can a broadcaster do than offer the opportunity to respond to

matters such as those raised in the programme?

Dealing with the specific standards, TVNZ stated that questioning the official report

did not mean that it was inaccurate and, it argued, the questions were asked in the

public interest. Further, as the CAA was offered the chance to contribute, it

maintained that neither standards G1 nor G6 were contravened. It concluded:

While TVNZ is sorry that you are unhappy about the content of the "60

Minutes" programme it does not believe that its broadcast breached programme

standards. It tackled a serious matter of public concern in a report which

showed evidence of a great deal of research and independent investigation.

CAA's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 29 June 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, R K Bracefield on behalf of the CAA referred the

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

Act 1989. Should the complaint be upheld, the CAA sought an apology from TVNZ

to all those involved in the search for the "Allison J".

The complaint then responded to a number of statements in the script.

1. "Routine Cruise, Straight Forward Cruise"

The fishermen, the CAA wrote, were running an ill-prepared boat into a storm

when everyone else had sought shelter. One of the fishermen had told his

partner not to worry if they were late as they would have sought shelter.

2. "Life-jackets on" - only one of the two was wearing a buoyancy vest and the

bodies were tied together.

3. "Fishermen who did everything right". There was minimal emergency

equipment. There was no emergency beacon, no radio, no dinghy and no life-

raft.

4. "Waiting for word". The boat was not reported overdue until the morning after

they were expected home.

5. "Local fishermen" were not told "of the emergency until the following day".

The locals knew, the CAA maintained, because they reported it to the Police. A

local boat had searched for the "Allison J" on the night of Monday 21st. Until

the SAR authorities were advised that a vessel was overdue, they could not

advise the nature of anything more than an emergency.

6. "I heard bulletins on the radio". The first bulletin in which the "Allison J" was

named was released on the morning of the 22nd. If the two men had been

expected on the Monday evening for tea, the CAA asked, why were the SAR

authorities not advised by the fishermen's partners that they were overdue.

7. "Local people have boats to search in all conditions". Mr Tonks said he should

have been sent to search on the evening of Monday 21. The CAA continued:

His boat was six metres in length, had no two-way radio for

communications, had no EPIRB, no life-raft, no flares, no search light, no

navigation equipment and no auxiliary engine. None of its crew had SAR

training. A local boat, "Ruawaka", did put to sea to search, but even with

radar equipment it found nothing.

8. "This is where the boat was". The commercial fisherman (Ms Thompson) who

identified to 60 Minutes where the flares were sighted had never previously

advised the police that she had seen flares.

9. "Distress flares have been seen". Although DOC Ranger Mike Collins flashed

his headlights, it was not known whether the fishermen either saw them or

understood them to mean that the flares had been seen.

10. "... authorities never asked for help". Mr Tonks was put on stand-by on

Tuesday 22 November. If he was really able to provide the service claimed in

the item, he would have heard the numerous "all stations" broadcasts for

mariners on Monday evening. However:

No local mariners responded to these pleas for help.

11. "... harbour full of fast boats bristling with sophisticated electronic equipment".

The CAA asked:

Where were all these well-equipped experts when the "all stations" calls

went out for assistance? ... The Ruawaka was well-equipped and failed to

find the "Allison J" even though she was in the search area within an hour

of the first flare sighting.

12. "Orion ... cost almost $100,000". Not only was cost irrelevant, it was also

speculative as the RNZAF has refused to disclose the costs of operating an

Orion during a SAR.

13. "Craig Sutherland ... was the only local skipper rescue officials asked to help".

Two other named skippers were asked to but declined and other vessels in the

area were also asked to assist.

14. "Rescue officials could have recovered survivors, not bodies". As it was not

known when the fishermen drowned, that statement was inaccurate.

The CAA then made a number of points under the following headings:

Environmental Conditions

The CAA wrote:

[The reporter] initially states that when darkness fell they set off their flares".

This is correct. She also states that DOC Ranger, Mike Collins, flashed his

headlights in recognition of the flares which would have been pointless if it

hadn't been at least dusk or dark. She later states that "the Police were alerted

while it was still daylight". Yet the first knowledge of their distress was when

the flares were ignited during darkness. Her own contradictions are never

acknowledged.

Helicopter

The CAA advised on this matter:

One of the first search initiatives taken by the Whangarei Police was to ask the

Northland Helicopter if it was available to search. The helicopter operators

advised they were not because their aircraft was not equipped with a night

search light.

Local Experts

The CAA explained that rescue authorities were experienced and that, as past rescues

indicated, distance was irrelevant when local knowledge was being used and adequate

communications were available.

That was the appropriate pattern for the incident dealt with in the item.

Eyewitness

DOC ranger, Mike Collins, "an excellent witness", gave the Police information which

was forwarded to Mike Austin in the Ruawaka. However, after seeing both the flare

and the boat, Mr Collins had to leave his vantage point to contact the Police and did

not see the "Allison J" sinking .

Mr Austin and the "Ruawaka""

Mr Austin began searching without first checking with the Police but, later, when

information from Mr Collins was forwarded his search was co-ordinated by the

Police. Arguing that the 60 Minutes item contradicted itself, the CAA wrote:

[Its] whole perspective hinges on the argument that locals who were experts on

these waters should have been involved in the search. Mr Austin was a local

directly involved in the search from the start, yet in [the reporter's] own words -

he needed all the help he could get because he'd never conducted a search

before.

Refusal to Appear

When TVNZ asked the CAA to appear, the independent report had only just been

posted to the families concerned and comment at that stage was felt inappropriate.

TVNZ did not contact the CAA again. The CAA concluded with extracts from the

independent report:

... it is understandable that the local residents and families of the deceased

voiced their criticisms at an early stage and this was due largely to ignorance

and misinformation concerning some relevant facts, and of a proper

understanding of a SAR Operation.

and:

In this case, we have not found significant grounds for criticism of conduct of

the NRCC, the Police or other agencies involved in the SAR Operation.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority - 15 August 1995

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ dealt with the specific points raised by the

CAA.

1) TVNZ maintained that there was no evidence that the boat was ill-prepared and,

enclosing the weather forecast from the NZ Herald for 21 November 1994,

maintained that the storm was not well publicised. Further, Mr Clendon's

comment to his partner did not necessarily indicate that the fishermen expected

bad weather.

2) Police evidence at the debrief reported that both men were wearing life jackets.

3) Expressing surprise at the CAA's knowledge of the "Allison J" as it was

allowed to sink after the bodies were recovered, TVNZ said that like most

vessels of that size in the area it did not have an EPIRB. It also appeared to

have neither life raft or dinghy.

4) While Mr Clendon's partner might not have been concerned, Mrs Te Nana was

as was made clear in her interview with 60 Minutes.

5) Radio Russell was contacted by a fisherman's family. They were not told of the

emergency.

6) The screened interview with Mrs Te Nana, TVNZ maintained, was more

applicable that the reported comments of the other couple as to when the

"Allison J" was expected.

7) Mr Vern Tonks was the Harbour Warden and lived at Oakura. The crew of the

"Ruawaka" had no SAR training and the shortcomings of radar as a tool in rescue

operations were covered at the Police debriefing.

8) Noting that Ms Thompson did not claim that she witnessed the flares, TVNZ

agreed with the complainant and hoped that the two fishermen had not had their

hopes raised falsely by seeing the car headlights flash.

9) No comment.

10) With regard to the comment that Mr Tonks was neither advised of the

emergency nor his help sought, TVNZ recorded:

We re-iterate that the Civil Aviation appear to be confused over the role of

Mr Tonks and linking him inaccurately with the Whangaruru Fire Service.

11) TVNZ continued to question why no one at Tutukaka was asked to help.

12) TVNZ maintained that it was entitled to speculate on the cost of the air

operation.

TVNZ then dealt with the comments about the environmental conditions and

maintained that it was not inaccurate to state that the flares were set off "as darkness

fell". It also maintained, with reference to the independent report, its observations

about the lack of the utilisation of local knowledge. TVNZ accepted that the local

DOC ranger was well-thought of and had acted effectively in the circumstances adding:

Surprisingly, what he had seen was not passed on by the Police to the Ruawaka.

While expressing commendation for Mr Austin, TVNZ said that there were other

fishermen with more experience and equally as well-equipped boats.

TVNZ dealt with the CAA's refusal to appear and noted:

If the CAA representative considered that he could not make a comment at the

stage that he was phoned, the question arises as to why he did not advise the

reporter when he would be available.

TVNZ concluded:

Although the independent Inquiry may not have found significant grounds for

criticism, it is clear through their report that there are a number of concerns as to

the way the search for the Allison J was co-ordinated. We re-iterate what we

said in this regard in our letter to Mr Ward of 8 June and indeed all the points

that we made in that earlier letter, most of which would point out are not

commented upon in the referral by the Civil Aviation Authority.

CAA's Final Comment - 25 September 1995

Mr Bracefield of the Civil Aviation Authority began by apologising for the late

response caused by a high work load and staff illness. He made four specific points.

1) "Routine Cruise" It maintained that the vessel was not well prepared for a

coastal cruise as it lacked a reliable means of communication, an EPIRB, a dinghy

or a life raft. The weather forecast supplied by TVNZ, he added, was a land

weather forecast whereas competent mariners obtained a marine weather

forecast.

2) "Life Jackets" It was acknowledged that both men were wearing life jackets

(the previous information had been incorrect).

3) "Fishermen who did everything right" Whereas TVNZ argued that few vessels

the size of the Allison J would have an EPIRB, the CAA maintained that most

people attempting a trip such as that of the "Allison J" would have or borrow

one. The vessel, it added, would have been awash well before the bodies were

recovered and thus it was not, as TVNZ maintained, "allowed to sink after the

bodies were recovered".

4) "Remember the terrible night waiting for word" Again arguing that TVNZ

was again not factually correct, the CAA said that Mrs Te Nana had not raised

at any time her concern with the Police. Noting that the item had used the

independent report selectively, Mr Bracefield of the CAA continued:

Further to the above, I feel a more objective documentary could have been

made if some of the footage shot by TVNZ had not been cut to fit a pre-

conceived story line. Lack of objectivity and balanced in the programme

was our main concern. The factual errors commented on above support

our contentions. Additionally we are aware from several persons who

were interviewed that critical parts of their responses were edited out, eg,

the Interview with John Baine the chairman of the Helicopter Rescue

Trust. An eye witness at the time of flare sighting and another witness, an

observer on the search vessel "Ruawaka" described the actual weather at

the time of flare sighting and afterwards during the search.

The CAA referred to the Coroner's Court findings which "exonerated" the search

authorities and enclosed a report from the Meteorological Service of the weather in the

area at the time of the "Allison J"'s passage and the subsequent search.

TVNZ's Response to the CAA's Final Comment - 3 October 1995

TVNZ advised that it believed some of the comments in the CAA's report to the

Authority of 25 September should be challenged.

First, noting that the weather report supplied was written in the past tense and,

therefore, would not have been available to the crew of the "Allison J", TVNZ argued

that the newspaper forecast gave some general indication of what could be expected.

Secondly, noting that the CAA provided information to the Authority which it had

not been prepared to provide to TVNZ, TVNZ pointed out nevertheless that it

referred to the reason why the boat was allowed to sink but had not been a matter in

dispute.

As the CAA's comments about Mrs Te Nana were based partly on an inaccurate

transcription, TVNZ urged the Authority to view the programme instead. It

cautioned:

Both Shirley Te Nana and her daughter showed their mounting anxiety and

desperation during the item. After reporting the fact that she had received no

answer from the men, expected home for tea, Shirley rang home. There was no

answer. Clearly she was on edge and wondering what had happened to them.

She heard the next morning the report of a missing boat. She then said:

I wandered round the house doing the dishes they'd left that morning ..

cleaned the car, washed the clothes and did everything and walked around

the house crying and hoping against hope that they'd find them alive.

It seems to us absurd (even insulting) to think that the overnight wait was not

one of real anxiety for Mrs Te Nana and her daughter - as it would be for any of

us placed in a similar situation.

Describing the CAA's argument that the item was based on a preconceived storyline

as incorrect and insulting, TVNZ rejected the claim that "unhelpful" quotations had

been edited out. It concluded:

We submit also that Mr Bracefield's comments about the programme providing

"an opportunity to do a worthwhile programme to educate mariners" should be

disregarded by the Authority. It seems to TVNZ that this suggestion reflects a

view that there was no reason for public concern about this particular rescue

operation. A viewing of the programme will show that the "60 Minutes"

journalists investigated and found there were proper and pertinent questions to

be raised.

We find it ironic that the accusation of a lack of objectivity and balance has come

from an organisation that refused all offers to itself participate in the programme.

The Coroner's Court findings, referred to in Mr Bracefield's penultimate

paragraph, are, as we have pointed out elsewhere, irrelevant in judging the issues

raised by this programme. What has to be understood is the state of the "60

Minutes" investigation and enquiries in May and not many months later.

Further Correspondence

In a response dated 16 October 1995, Mr Bracefield of the CAA enclosed a copy of

the marine weather bulletins issued at the time of the loss of the "Allison J" and

commented on some other points. He stressed that the item had not dealt fairly with

the report of the independent inquiry and that the CAA had been asked on one

occasion only to participate. He concluded:

The Coroner's Court finding is relevant. It shows that the information to allay

the family concerns was there all the time and could have been used in the

programme. It could have been easily uncovered had an investigative journalist

been concerned enough to probe and present all the facts.