BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Reform of the Matrimonial Property Act was the subject of an Assignment

programme broadcast on TV One on 31 August 1995 from 7.30–8.30pm.

Mr Zohrab, secretary of NZ Men's Rights Association, complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was biased because it did not

give the Association's views and those of others opposed to changes in the legislation,

and that it discriminated against men and fathers.

Observing that the programme was not dealing with gender issues, TVNZ pointed out

that there was a broad consensus on the need for reform of the Matrimonial Property

Act and that it was inevitable, when highlighting the inadequacy of the 50-50 split of

assets, that women were more likely to be affected by the proposed changes since

they were generally the custodial parents and, as the custodial parent, their earning

potential was less than that of their former spouse. It rejected the complaints that the

programme lacked balance and that it discriminated against men. Dissatisfied with that

response, Mr Zohrab, on the Association's behalf, referred the complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

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

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

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

An Assignment programme broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on TV One on

31 August 1995 at 7.30pm canvassed views of politicians, lawyers and others on the

need for reform of the Matrimonial Property legislation.

The New Zealand Men's Rights Association (NZMRA), through its secretary, Peter

Zohrab, complained that the programme was biased because it did not reflect the

views of men's groups which opposed changes to the legislation. In addition, the

NZMRA alleged that the programme discriminated against men and fathers because it

denied them the opportunity to have their views publicised and further, that it

reinforced the bias in society and in the courts against fathers gaining custody of their

children.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards

G6 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require

broadcasters:

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

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

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of

the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational

status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or

political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or

current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or

dramatic work.

Emphasising that the programme was not about child custody but was concerned with

changes to the Matrimonial Property Act which would result in fairer division of

matrimonial property on the dissolution of marriage, TVNZ asserted that there was

general consensus about the need for such reform. It considered that there was no

reason for it to invite comment from groups such as NZMRA since the programme

was not about gender issues but about some of the weaknesses inherent in the present

legislation. While it acknowledged that women were more likely to be custodial

parents than men, it noted that the proposed change meant that men who had

abandoned their career and earnings to become the custodial parent would also be

entitled to receive a greater than 50% share of the matrimonial property. To the

allegation that the programme breached standard G13, TVNZ responded that it did not

accept that it discriminated against men or represented them as inherently inferior and

declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint. It also pointed out that even if it did

do so, exemptions were provided for matters of fact (G13(i)) and genuinely-held

opinion (G13(ii)).

In the Authority's assessment, the programme examined the inherent unfairness of

splitting matrimonial property on a 50-50 basis when the custodial parent's needs

were inevitably going to be greater than the non-custodial parent's. The Authority did

not perceive any bias against men, although it acknowledged that the programme

reflected the reality that women would, in most cases, be the custodial parents and

therefore be disadvantaged financially. However, it agreed with TVNZ that it was

clear from the programme that the proposal to move away from the 50-50 division of

property was designed to benefit the custodial parent of either gender. The Authority

declined to uphold the complaint that the programme lacked balance.

Turning to the standard G13 aspect, the Authority rejected the allegation that the

programme represented men and fathers as inherently inferior because it perpetuated a

stereotype that only women were custodial parents. In the Authority's view,

parental status does not comprise a section of the community recognised under

standard G13. Nevertheless, even if it did, the Authority considered that it was

accurate to reflect in the case studies used that the more common situation was where

the mother was the custodial parent. It declined to uphold this aspect of the

complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
December 1995

Appendix

NZ Men's Rights Association's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 23

September 1995

The Secretary of NZ Men's Rights Association (NZMRA), Peter Zohrab of

Wainuiomata, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of

Assignment on TV One on 31 August at 7.30pm. The programme examined the

proposed reform of the Matrimonial Property Act.

NZMRA alleged the programme did not give men's groups such as itself an

opportunity to present their opinions. NZMRA noted that only one individual

expressed a view opposing the reform of the 50-50 split of property and he was just a

private individual, lacking the standing of an organisation.

NZMRA asserted that the fact that the Chief Judge of the Family Court came out in

favour of the reform did not imply that contrary views should never be presented, but

just emphasised that the law was biased against men and fathers.

Secondly, NZMRA alleged that the programme discriminated against men and fathers

and against the legitimate rights of men's and father's groups to have their views

publicised. Because every person in the programme spoke as if it would be women

who would benefit from a change in the 50-50 formula, NZMRA alleged that the bias

in society and in the courts against fathers getting custody of their children was

reinforced. NZMRA wrote:

Marriage and de facto relationships in New Zealand are fast becoming a

method by which a woman acquires children and more than half the assets of

the father, and then lives off the taxes of the (mainly male) taxpayers. This

fact was not allowed to be presented in the programme in question.

NZMRA alleged that the one person who spoke against the reform of the legislation

was fighting for custody and that that point was virtually concealed by the

programme.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 10 October 1995

At the outset TVNZ expressed its disagreement with NZMRA's suggestion that the

matters raised in the programme were concerned with gender issues.

It pointed out that the programme found that there was general consensus about the

need to reform the Matrimonial Property legislation. Particularly highlighted was the

inadequacy of the present 50-50 property split. It noted that it was inevitable that

women were likely to feature prominently in this discussion because they were

generally the custodial parents and their earning power was less. There was no

suggestion that the same would not apply to men who were custodial parents. TVNZ

added:

The programme was not about who should have custody of the children, but

concerned how matrimonial property might most fairly be shared.

TVNZ repeated that the programme was not dealing with a gender issue and there was

no reason why NZMRA and other organisations should be invited to take part. It

was not a programme about child custodial matters, but an examination of the

weaknesses in the present regime.

TVNZ reported that the programme canvassed the views of many professionals with

expertise and found a broad consensus on the need for reforms. It suggested that it

would have been improper for a programme to create controversy over the need for

reform when it seemed no significant opposition exists. TVNZ noted that the fact

was that a large number of women gained custody of their children and that they could

be financially disadvantaged as a result.

To the suggestion that it concealed the fact that the person who spoke out against the

reforms was fighting for custody, TVNZ responded that there was no attempt to

conceal that information. It noted however that the custody matter was before the

Family Court and therefore it was unable to publish details of the case.

With respect to the alleged breach of standard G6, TVNZ considered that the concerns

of politicians and legal experts were clearly stated. It did not consider that the matters

raised by NZMRA were relevant to the subject being considered.

Turning to standard G13 TVNZ did not accept that men were discriminated against or

represented as inherently inferior because of their gender. It also drew attention to the

exemptions (i) and (ii) under standard G13. It declined to uphold either aspect of the

complaint.

NZMRA's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 29 October 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold its complaint, NZMRA referred it

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

NZMRA examined in detail TVNZ's responses to points raised in its complaint.

Maintaining its criticism that the programme was biased, it asserted that TVNZ had

colluded with the government to shut down any debate about the proposed changes to

the legislation. NZMRA contended that TVNZ was obliged to seek comment from a

wide variety of spokespeople, not just lawyers and politicians.

To TVNZ's assertion that no significant opposition to the reforms existed, NZMRA

maintained that avoiding asking those who were opposed inevitably led to the

conclusion that no opposition existed. Since the reforms had not been debated

publicly, NZMRA asked how TVNZ could be sure that there was no opposition. It

questioned TVNZ's decision to limit its research into a political issue to professionals,

noting that on other contentious issues, it sought the views of lay people.

Responding to TVNZ's argument that the programme was not about a men versus

women issue, NZMRA said that TVNZ should have consulted men's and women's

organisations to find out what constituted a men versus women issue and that, in its

view, TVNZ was patronising, offensive and autocratic in denying that it was. It

wrote:

TVNZ systematically refrains from consulting any men's or father's

organisations on this, or any other, topic, and so it has absolutely no idea what

constitutes men vs women issues. In making a ruling of this kind, TVNZ

betrays its real nature as a propaganda agency, bent on pushing a particular

(Feminist) ideology - at taxpayers' expense.

NZMRA asserted that TVNZ's refusal to see matrimonial property matters as a men

vs women issue was illogical and arbitrary. It pointed out that the programme

assumed that women would be custodial parents and the proposed law was intended

to adjust the division of the marital assets to provide better for custodial parents.

Therefore, it argued, it followed that those who would thereby suffer a decrease in

assets were men.

Turning to the issue of discrimination, NZMRA asserted that TVNZ confused this

with the balance point. It repeated that the programme reinforced a stereotype which

showed women as being the custodial parents.

NZMRA accepted TVNZ's explanation that it could not provide more detail on the

case of the one father who did comment because the matter was still before the court.

NZMRA concluded by stating that it believed the programme restricted its research to

politicians and professionals because the people who made the programme were in

favour of the legislation and wanted it to pass without opposition from outside

parliament.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 13 November 1995

TVNZ repeated its view that NZMRA was mistaken in believing that the issue in the

programme was one in which men and women were pitted against each other.

It specifically denied that it was a "propaganda agency" bent on pushing a "particular

(feminist) ideology at taxpayers' expense."

It concluded that comment from organisations such as NZMRA would be a diversion

away from the subject and would detract from the audience's understanding of a

complex issue.

NZMRA's Final Comment - 19 November 1995

When asked to make a brief final comment, the Association questioned TVNZ's

judgment in declaring that the issue was not a men versus women one. It believed that

TVNZ should have consulted a relevant pressure group (such as NZMRA) before

making such an arbitrary judgment.

NZMRA described as tendentious a statement by a lawyer interviewed when he said

that the current Matrimonial Property Act "ripped women off". It considered that

the present regime ripped men off, not women, and that the future Act would do the

same.