BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The impact of social policy changes on low income housing was investigated in an

Assignment programme broadcast on TV One on 23 May 1996 at 7.30pm.

Mr Dilip Rupa complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme lacked

balance, and did not adequately investigate the Auckland City Council's attitude to the

sale of its low income rental properties.

TVNZ responded that Mr Rupa had misunderstood the theme of the programme. Its

purpose was not to examine the Auckland City Council's policy on low income

housing, but to investigate a national trend whereby government was divesting itself of

low income rental property and local government agencies were unwilling or unable to

continue to provide it. TVNZ emphasised that the matters raised by Mr Rupa in his

complaint concerned a local issue, outside the ambit of this programme.

Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Rupa referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the 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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Programme

Government policy on low income housing and its impact in various communities

throughout the country was the subject of an investigation in Assignment broadcast on

TV One on 23 May 1996. The report examined the response of some local bodies

which are involved in the provision of low-cost housing to the government's policy

decision to discontinue provision of these social services. It was postulated that

central government had been able to reduce taxes by getting out of housing low income

tenants. As a consequence, local councils had been asked to foot the bill for providing

low cost rental properties. In Freemans Bay, Auckland, tenants were outraged at the

possibility that the council was thinking of selling its properties, whereas in

Christchurch, the council had undertaken to provide affordable safe housing and had

adopted a welfare role, providing a social worker to oversee its tenants. Another

example, in Wellington, showed that the council there felt it had a limited social role.

The response of the North Shore local authorities was to sell its rental properties,

having decided that it was not in the business of providing housing, while in Lower

Hutt, the council was selling its rental houses and flats to raise money for its waste

water treatment plan.

The Minister of Housing acknowledged that the government's policy was causing

hardship to some low income residents, particularly since local government authorities

were unwilling to remain in the rental business. He noted that government had put

more money into housing by way of the housing supplement and indicated that he

was having discussions with Housing New Zealand over its statement of corporate

intent.

The programme then returned to examine the position in Auckland, where the

Freemans Bay residents were protesting about the Council's proposed sale of its

rental properties and, although a decision had not been made at the time of the

broadcast, the Mayor of Auckland was seen to favour the sale of the properties, since

in his view, it was not the Council's job to provide social services.

Those who opposed the sale of the Freemans Bay properties, including Sandra Lee

MP and Bruce Hucker, an Alliance councillor, pointed out that the sale would force

the residents to move out of the area where they had always lived and worked because

they would no longer be able to afford to live in the inner city. It was reported that

the Council hoped Housing New Zealand would show a greater degree of social

responsibility and buy the flats, thus enabling the tenants to remain.

In concluding, the report emphasised that although the Freemans Bay properties were

unlikely to remain in council ownership, a decision would not be made until the

following month.

The Complaint

Mr Rupa, a resident of Freemans Bay, complained to TVNZ that the programme

lacked depth in its exploration of the dealings of the Auckland City Council with

respect to its rental properties. Noting that the Mayor, Les Mills, emphasised that it

was not the core business of Council to be involved in residential or commercial

property rental, Mr Rupa maintained that the reporter should have asked Mr Mills

why then Council had decided to use land in Symonds Street for housing instead of a

casino, and why land acquired for a bus terminal was now a casino.

Mr Rupa argued that the reporter's observations first that Auckland ratepayers would

have to pay, one way or the other, and secondly that the protest action mounted by

Freemans Bay residents would be unlikely to alter the Council's position, was

unbalanced and unfair because it prejudged the Council's decision. He challenged

TVNZ to provide the evidence which was used to make the prediction that the

Council would sell the flats, even before the matter had been voted on. Mr Rupa

suggested that the conclusion drawn by the reporter was equal to a perversion of

justice.

With respect to the suggestion that Housing New Zealand and the Auckland City

Council were talking about the possible purchase of the properties, Mr Rupa insisted

that TVNZ was duty bound to inform the Minister of Housing that the Council had

already given a 47.5% discount on property it had sold, and that if such a discount

was demanded by other purchasers, it would cost the government $28 million.

Furthermore, he maintained, TVNZ should have asked other tenants, if they were able

to purchase at a similar discount, would they still be obliged to move. By not doing

so, he alleged that the report lacked balance.

Critical of what he described as a poor standard of reporting, Mr Rupa accused TVNZ

of taking a narrow view of the local housing issue which, he maintained, was not an

excuse for not being objective.

TVNZ's Response

As requested by Mr Rupa, TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of s.4(1)(d)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989. That section states:

4(1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its programmes

and their presentation, standards which are consistent with -

(d) The principle that when controversial issues of public

importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or

reasonable oppportunities are given, to present significant

points of view either in the same programme or in other

programmes within the period of current interest.

TVNZ suggested that Mr Rupa had misunderstood the theme of the Assignment

programme. It was not, TVNZ pointed out, an examination of the Auckland City

Council's policy towards its low cost housing properties in Freemans Bay. In fact,

TVNZ continued, the investigation had a much wider perspective and, as the reporter

indicated, was concerned with highlighting a fundamental shift in policy regarding the

housing of low income tenants. TVNZ emphasised that the story dealt with a national

issue in terms of political and economic fundamentals, whereas Mr Rupa's complaint

concerned a local issue which contained detail which was outside the scope of the

Assignment story. It noted that the situation in Freemans Bay was but one of the

examples shown, and that the policies of other councils – in Wellington, Christchurch

and the Hutt Valley – were also referred to.

TVNZ maintained that the programme achieved balance by covering the spectrum of

opinion of various local bodies. It considered that in a story with a national

perspective, it sufficed to note that in Auckland the Council was planning to sell inner

city flats which potentially would deny low income people the opportunity to live in

the inner city. Since this was an examination of social policy changes in the area of

low cost housing, TVNZ did not consider the facts and figures raised by Mr Rupa

were relevant. It declined to uphold the complaint.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority concurs with TVNZ that the programme was concerned with national

policy issues and agrees that the local examples were used for illustrative purposes

only, to show that local bodies differed in their approaches to the provision of housing

for the needy.

With respect to the reference to the Freemans Bay situation, the Authority considers

that it was used to illustrate how a local community was acting to protest the

Council's intention to sell its properties to developers who, potentially, could raise

the rents so high that the tenants would be forced out of homes they had lived in for

most of their lives. It was, in the Authority's view, useful to illustrate the human side

of the government's policies, and to show that some councils had espoused the

government line and were determined not to be involved in providing social services,

while others were prepared to continue making low cost housing available for those

who needed it.

The Authority could understand Mr Rupa's intense interest in his local situation and

why he felt aggrieved that the outcome of the Council's decision was presented as

being predetermined. However, in the Authority's view, viewers outside of Auckland

did not have the interest, or the background understanding of the issues, to necessitate

a more thorough investigation of the local situation. The story was, it notes,

concerned with national issues of social policy and although its perspective embraced

some local concerns, it was beyond the scope of the programme to advance them

further. Accordingly it declines to uphold 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
3 October 1996

Appendix

Dilip Rupa's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 19 June 1996

Mr Rupa of Freemans Bay, Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that

its broadcast of an Assignment programme on 23 May 1996 at 7.30pm breached

broadcasting standards.

The programme, which investigated policy changes by government and the role of

local authorities in providing low income rental housing, included an examination of the

policy of the Auckland City Council which owns such property in the Freemans Bay

area.

Mr Rupa argued that in a programme which concerned controversial issues of public

importance, it was necessary to do an in-depth investigation based on fact. In his

view, the Assignment programme presented the opinion of the reporter and did not

report on the policies of the Council or provide the public with information so that

voters could make informed choices. In particular, he objected to the reporter's

statement, with reference to the sale of housing property in Auckland, that a decision

to sell had already been made by the Council and protest action was unlikely to affect

its decision. The report, he wrote:

i Failed to inform views of vital facts. After all, in Freemans Bay people

are not going to be homeless, but will have their home (flats or house)

property 'offered back' to them at a SLIGHT discount.

ii Was Unbalanced. Went into financial details of a long term tenant

being on the widow's pension and obtaining special allowances,

however did not question how Mr Mills was going to get a property

developer to hold rents down, or even if the flats were returning a

profit.

iii Lacked depth - the precise use for the $59 million, which is the precise

reason why 604 families' lives have to be disrupted, or maybe that is

not important, as the fact that council had a market rental policy and

was acting like 'market' landlords on acquired land.

iv Did not make any effort to look at the importance of valuation. After

all if the land was in Otara, would the council bother selling?

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 27 June 1996

TVNZ described the programme as one which looked at who was responsible in New

Zealand for ensuring that low-cost housing was available for the poor and the

disadvantaged and whether it was the role of central government or of local councils.

It noted that Mr Rupa's complaint was confined to the situation in Freemans Bay and

that he had complained that the report about the Auckland City Council's attitude to

the sale of its properties was inadequate and lacked depth.

TVNZ advised that it considered the programme in the context of s.4(1)(d) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. It wrote to Mr Rupa:

Upon reviewing the Assignment programme, TVNZ felt that perhaps you had

misunderstood its theme. This was not an examination of the Auckland City

Council's policy towards its low cost housing in Freemans Bay. The

investigation had a much wider prospect than that. Quite early in the

programme the reporter delivered two sentences which encapsulate what the

story was all about. He said:

There is a fundamental shift in our society where government is getting

out of social services and leaving local councils to fill the gap.

And:

If the government won't do it, if the councils can't, who is going to

house the homeless?

In TVNZ's view, the story looked at a national issue, whereas Mr Rupa's complaint

was confined to a local issue, which while it had a bearing in a general sense on the

Assignment story, contained detail which was outside the scope of the programme. It

noted that the situation in Freemans Bay was but one of the examples shown in the

programme.

Because the programme was handled as a national issue, TVNZ maintained that an

assessment of whether it was fair and balanced had to be judged in that context.

It pointed out that the approaches adopted by various Councils were referred to, and

tenants and local body and national politicians were interviewed. In the process of

achieving balance, TVNZ observed that a wide spectrum of views were heard. With

respect to the local issue it wrote:

In a story reflecting a national debate it was sufficient we believe to let viewers

know that in Auckland (it was made clear the programme was talking about

Auckland city) the Council was planning to sell flats which potentially could

deprive low income people of a chance of housing in the inner city.

Finally, TVNZ responded that the facts and figures produced by Mr Rupa were not

relevant to that examination.

Mr Rupa's Referral to the Authority - 25 July 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Rupa referred the complaint to the

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

Mr Rupa repeated that in his view the programme lacked balance, and maintained that

a comment was allowed to go unchallenged when TVNZ had information to the

contrary.

He also objected to the reporter stating that the Council would go ahead with its plans

before the matter had even been voted on and that it would ignore the protests.

He objected to TVNZ describing itself as being at the cutting edge of journalism,

arguing that that was false and misleading.

He enclosed a copy of a fax he had sent to TVNZ in which he sought answers to a

number of questions regarding the preparation of the programme. He believed an

inquiry should have been made into the mismanagement of Auckland City's assets

and, because the programme failed to do that it had misled viewers and disregarded the

truth.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 1 August 1996

TVNZ advised that it had nothing of substance to add to its earlier letter. It believed

that Mr Rupa's intense interest in a local issue in Freemans Bay prevented him from

recognising the national perspective advanced in the programme.

Mr Rupa's Final Comment - 14 August 1996

Mr Rupa explained that he had sent TVNZ a questionnaire in order to find out the

depth of the investigation of the Assignment team into the subject of housing, He

pointed out that the Freemans Bay houses were the only ones subject to public

protest and debate. He wrote:

If it was important enough to inform the public that Housing NZ and the

Auckland City Council were talking about the possible purchase then would

not TVNZ be duty bound to inform the Minister of Housing that Auckland

City had given a 47.5% discount on no core business meteres away from where

Housing NZ may purchase, and that if such a discount is demanded, it would

be $8 million more than the $20 million special dividend TVNZ gave the

government.

Mr Rupa noted that TVNZ had not responded to his point that the Mayor should

have been challenged when he said that owning housing property was not core

business, when the council is currently involved in a housing development in Symonds

Street. Nor did TVNZ respond to his point that the reporter had stated that the

protest would not have any effect on the Council's decision.

He suggested that the Authority use his questionnaire to TVNZ as a checklist to

answer the questions and state why it had not exposed corruption.

Mr Rupa repeated that his main concern was the poor standard of reporting and how

it affected public opinion. He was critical of TVNZ's lack of objectivity and

suggested that it prevented public accountability and did a disservice to whistle

blowers.