BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The laws relating to prostitution were examined on Assignment following the

conviction of a couple in Wellington on eight charges of brothel keeping. They were

involved in what the police described as a multi-million dollar business. The

programme was broadcast on TV One at 7.30pm on 25 July 1996.

Mr Hippolite complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

programme was biased and involved an attempt to engineer an environment which

would be conducive to the liberalisation of the laws.

Arguing that the programme explored the debate among politicians and police which

the case had evoked, TVNZ maintained that the programme was balanced in view of

the range of views presented.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Hippolite referred the 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.

Mr Hippolite complained to TVNZ about the Assignment programme broadcast on 25

July 1996 which examined the laws relating to prostitution. He argued that the

programme was biased and believed that commentator Annetta Moran had been given

a "lamentably short air space". He suggested that this occurred as she opposed the

attitude advanced in the programme which attempted to create an environment

conducive to the liberalisation of the prohibition laws.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

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

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

Recording that the question of law reform had arisen following the conviction of a

couple in Wellington for brothel-keeping in what the Police described as a multi-

million dollar business, TVNZ explained that prostitution itself was not illegal. It was

illegal to solicit for the purposes and live off the earnings of prostitution, TVNZ

added, and the case had raised the question of whether those laws were appropriate.

TVNZ pointed out that the debate was wide-ranging and the programme had recorded

a variety of views. It believed that Mr Hippolite was confusing the message with the

messenger.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Hippolite maintained that the

debate was one-sided as Ms Moran had been the sole voice opposing change. He

maintained that the programme put the case that the laws were out-dated and,

accordingly, argued that it was not a fair-minded analysis of the issues.

The Authority's first task is to decide what was the programme's theme. In its

opinion, the programme explored the adequacy of the laws which apply to

prostitution. It was not, the Authority notes, an examination of prostitution per se.

In the programme's examination of the legal issues, the Authority considers that an

appropriate range of views was advanced – from politicians, police officers, sex

workers and social commentators. It believes that the item, by presenting a range of

views on the legal and practical points involved in the application and enforcement of

the laws relating to prostitution, contained the balance necessary in such a descriptive

study of the issues explored. It was not an item of advocacy journalism.

The Authority accepts that should the programme have set out to study the moral

aspects of prostitution, it could well be criticised as unbalanced. However, as it

focussed on the laws relating to prostitution, and as it explored those laws

comprehensively, the Authority considers that the broadcast complied with the

requirements for balance in standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
24 October 1996

Appendix

Mr Hippolite's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 5 August 1996

James Hippolite of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

Assignment programme broadcast at 7.30pm on TV One on 25 July 1996.

The programme had examined the laws relating to prostitution and Mr Hippolite

referred to the "lamentably short air space" given to Annetta Moran. Arguing that her

stance was the opposite to that taken by the programme's producers, Mr Hippolite

considered that the biased programme was an attempt to engineer an environment

conducive to the liberalisation of the prostitution laws.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 August 1996

Reporting that the item had examined the legislation relating to prostitution and had

included interviews with politicians, police, sex workers and others, TVNZ said that it

had examined the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

TVNZ explained that, as the programme reported, prostitution was not illegal. It was

illegal to solicit or live off the earnings of prostitution. It concluded:

The programme was not an effort to sway public opinion on prostitution; that is

not the role of current affairs investigations. It was a legitimate examination of

the legal position following the recent, and highly publicised Glasgow and Truby

case in Wellington in which the couple faced eight charges of brothel keeping and

one of living off immoral earnings after their involvement was revealed in what

police describe as a multi-million dollar business. The case has had no obvious

affect on the prostitution business.

The case, TVNZ added, had raised the question as to whether it was now time for a

change of the law.

TVNZ maintained:

We feel that in this case you are confusing the message and the messenger. The

message is that discussion is going on at a high level concerning a review of the

prostitution laws. The messenger was TVNZ which reflected that debate with a

wide ranging inquiry into what was described as the "muddled laws" and the

"absurd charade" surrounding massage parlour/brothels. A wide variety of

views - including those of Annetta Moran - were canvassed in this country and

in Australia and this was not an occasion where there was a clear divide between

two opposing and entrenched positions. There were many shades of opinion.

Pointing out that the programme had considered the laws surrounding prostitution and

that a variety of views had been expressed on that matter, TVNZ stated that the

requirement in the standards for balance had been achieved.

Mr Hippolite's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 21 August

1996

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

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

Mr Hippolite began by responding to the following points in TVNZ's letter. First, he

was aware that the programme dealt with the law but maintained that the programme

had not presented the reason for it. Then he disputed TVNZ's comment that it had

not been attempting to sway public opinion, observing:

In their own documentary, they talk about how the case has got the entire

"industry" worried. Suddenly, the "industry" has woken up to the fact that

what they are doing is illegal and unwanted, and the media jumps on their side

and calls the laws "out-dated".

As the next point, he asked why were the politicians and police officers who opposed

a law change not interviewed. In response to the message/messenger point, Mr

Hippolite commented:

I did not hear one whole side of the debate from this programme. Annetta

Moran was the token view canvassed, but she neither represents politicians nor

police. It was a singularly one-sided debate, from the point-of-view of

somebody watching this programme alone.

In conclusion, Mr Hippolite described the programme as biased. There was a need, he

wrote, for "a more balanced, fair-minded analysis of the topic".

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 29 August 1996

TVNZ explained that it did not wish to comment further.