BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The imminent coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act 1996 was considered

by a representative from each of the Law Society, Women's Refuge, and the

Department of Courts in a discussion broadcast during In Touch with New Zealand on

28 June 1996. It is the afternoon weekday programme on National Radio.

Mr Golden complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

discussion was unbalanced and denigrated men.


Maintaining the discussion focussed on the way the new legal procedures would

operate, and was not a discussion on the reasons for them, RNZ declined to uphold

the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Golden 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 listened to 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.

National Radio's weekday afternoon programme, In Touch with New Zealand, on

Friday 28 June 1996 included a discussion about the new domestic violence legislation

which was due to come into force on Monday 1 July. Presenter Wayne Mowat

interviewed Vivienne Ullrich and Mona Bradshaw in the studio and, by telephone,

Patricia McNeill. Ms Ullrich is a barrister and a member of the Law Society's family

law committee, Ms Bradshaw is a policy analyst with Women's Refuge and Ms

McNeill is the Courts Department's Operations Development Manager.

Mr Golden complained that the discussion was unbalanced. Maintaining that research

disclosed that at least half of the incidents of domestic violence were initiated by

women, Mr Golden said the discussion assumed that all the applicants seeking care

and support under the new legislation would be women, while all the respondents

would be men.

RNZ assessed the complaint under standards R4 and R14 of the Radio Codes of

Broadcasting Practice which require broadcasters:

R9  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

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

making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in

the same programme or in other programmes within the period of

current interest.

R14 To avoid portraying people in a manner that encourages denigration of

or discrimination against any section of the community on account of

gender, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or

as the consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or

political beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of serious opinion, or

iii) in the legitimate use of humour or satire

Explaining that In Touch with New Zealand was neither a news or current affairs

programme, RNZ said the discussion with people who held relevant offices in the

area, focussed on the content of the new legislation in a balanced way. It was not an

examination of domestic violence or the reasons for it, and did not deal with the issue

advanced by the complainant as to who initiated the behaviour. Further, no one group

was denigrated. Rather, the contributors explained the content and gave their opinion

as to the likely effect of the Act.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Golden expressed his

displeasure at the business of "relationship busting" which, he averred, was the

industry in which the contributors to the item were involved. He maintained that they

were allowed to express without challenge their gender biased views on the causes of

domestic violence. As an example he expressed particular concern at the way the

panellists started off by referring to "an offender" but then substituted "he" as if that

was correct. The broadcast, he concluded, denigrated men.

Having listened to the item complained about, the Authority accepts that it involved a

discussion of the contents of the impending legislation with three people who were

familiar with it. The Authority accepts that the item implied that women were

probably the main group who would make use of the powers in the Act, however, the

discussion did not involve a debate about domestic violence as such. The Authority

notes that it becomes tedious to use consistently "he or she", or a noun, in the context

of a discussion such as this.

The Authority observes that the discussion broadcast on In Touch with New Zealand

explained the scope of the new legislation, how it differed from the previous Act - eg

by allowing parents to apply for protection from violence inflicted by their children

and its probable effect. The Authority concludes that it was an information-giving

programme which contained its own balance in compliance with standard R9, and did

not denigrate any group to which standard R14 applies.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 October 1996

Appendix

Mr Golden's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 30 June 1996

Allan Golden of Porirua complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about an item dealing

with the new domestic violence legislation broadcast on the National Programme on

Friday afternoon 28 June 1996. Because of the manner in which the item dealt with

men, he alleged a breach of standards G6 and G13.

Maintaining that research showed that women initiated at least half of the incidents of

domestic violence, Mr Golden said that the three contributors to the item assumed

that all the applicants seeking care and support under the new legislation would be

women, while all the respondents would be men.

Arguing that the item should have been balanced, Mr Golden considered:

The attitude that it is men who are in the wrong in domestic disputes

discourages any attempt by them to resolve disputes in a rational manner,

lowers their self esteem, and generally contributes to a sick society.

Further Correspondence

In a letter to Mr Golden dated 11 July 1996, RNZ reported that it had decided that

the complaint referred to a Checkpoint item, broadcast on National Radio between

5.00 - 6.00pm on 28 June, and declined to uphold it.

Mr Golden responded in a letter dated 13 July. He explained that he had been on

holiday and thus had not advised RNZ earlier that his complaint referred to a

discussion before Checkpoint involving Vivienne Ullrich, a barrister, and a

representative from the Women's Refuge.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 16 August 1996

RNZ advised that the discussion broadcast on the afternoon of 25 June involved

presenter Wayne Mowat, barrister Vivienne Ullrich of the Law Society's family law

committee, and Maria Bradshaw, a Women's Refuge policy analyst. They were

joined on the telephone by Patricia McNeill, the Operations Development Manager

with the Department of Courts.

The discussion took place, RNZ continued, given the imminent coming into force of

the new domestic violence legislation and most of the questions seeking clarifications

and explanations were addressed to Ms Ullrich. The complaint was assessed under

standards R9 and R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which were the

equivalent standards to the ones in the Television Code cited by Mr Golden.

RNZ began by pointing out that it was appropriate to discuss major legal changes

shortly before they came into effect. It was not, as Mr Golden alleged, "topic

overkill".

Dealing first with the complaint under standard R9 alleging a lack of balance, RNZ

pointed out that the programme during which the item was broadcast, In Touch with

New Zealand, was neither a news nor a current affairs programme. It continued:

The aim of the programme in question was to focus attention on the new

Domestic Violence Act and its provisions which were about to come into force.

The questions asked of the three persons by Wayne Mowat were not intended

to open up areas of controversy, but to elicit the responses from persons with

some experience in one aspect or another of the law changed by the new Act.

For this reason, the question line closely followed the new Act itself.

RNZ emphasised that the item was not an examination of domestic violence or the

reasons for it. It was an explanation of the new legislation, its means of

implementation, and the effect on those working in the area, and those matters, it said

were presented in a balanced way.

Turning to standard R14, RNZ reported:

... that the broadcast did not portray any group, that it contained no element of

encouragement, and that no group was severely blackened. The [Complaints

Committee] noted, on the other hand, references within the item which, although

they might well have included men as initiators of domestic violence, equally

clearly applied to either sex, and also to problem children, also to non-gender-

specific homosexual couples.

It also contained statements of serious opinion. However, RNZ added, the views of

the sociologist cited by Mr Golden as to the initiators of domestic violence were not

appropriate as the item did not deal with his area of expertise.

RNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Mr Golden's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 4 September

1996

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Golden referred his complaint to the

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

As he was away when RNZ advised him that intended to deal with the complaint as

one which referred to Checkpoint, Mr Golden did not consider that he was responsible

for RNZ's mistake. Nevertheless, he considered that it was appropriate for him to

refer to that decision to highlight RNZ's unfair practices.

He continued:

I would like also to inform you of my opinion of the three women panel

members in the programme about which I have complained. These women are

involved in one of the most successful and lucrative industries of the late 20th

century - that of marriage or formal intimate relationship busting. Success being

here measured in terms of volume of business as is normal for an industry.

As also is normal for any industry these women take steps to foster the growth

of or increase in the yield of the industry and I believe that their presence on this

radio programme was a planned and successful operation in achieving precisely

that.

The programme was in the latter half of the afternoon which would maximise an

audience of domestically vocated women bearing the tedium of the end of

another working day. In its indirect message the programme offered women the

opportunity to be the undisputed top dog in their future dealings with their

partner, focusing on the latest happenings which seem to make this even more

so.

Expressing his concern about the difficulties some fathers had in obtaining access to

their children and the consequences of this for the father-child relationship, Mr Golden

maintained that the item advanced the thesis that men were naturally responsible for

any problems in a relationship.

Moreover, he said, the broadcast would suggest to women that they were in danger of

violence whereas he considered that the current legal controls on this issue were

adequate.

Mr Golden considered that RNZ's insincerity in defending itself was apparent from

its responses to the complaint. First, when assuming that he had complained about

the Checkpoint item, RNZ had stressed that the item did not refer to men. However,

that part was omitted in its response to the complaint about the In Touch with New

Zealand discussion when there were frequent references to the male offender and to

the female victim.

Secondly, he contended that the discussion was about "getting one up on the other

party", and he commented:

There was never any plea for people in troubled relationships to see the wider

picture, seek early professional help in a way that does not threaten or put

pressure on the relationship, or apply simple actions which will enhance the

relationship. Again this appeared not to be in the character of the panel

members. Their sole solution to domestic violence is to show who is boss by

practical demonstration.

Mr Golden wondered why RNZ had misinterpreted his complaint. Perhaps, he

wrote, it was a deliberate mistake in the hope that his anger would subside.

Turning to the complaint about lack of balance under standard R9, Mr Golden said

that he did not object to the programme's intention. He complained about what it

actually contained because:

It allowed three females to air their strong views and gender bias on domestic

violence and its causes without challenge.

Referring to the parts of the broadcast which he considered lacked balance, Mr Golden

wrote:

Radio New Zealand is particularly well equipped to provide balance in current

affairs programmes with probing presenters apparently hungry for work either

doing the questioning themselves or refereeing between differing viewpoints.

This programme is one that has been deliberately allowed to get in through the

back door.

He expressed particular concern at the way the panellists started off by referring to

"an offender" but then substituted "he" as if this was correct.

Mr Golden argued that the broadcast breached R14 in that encouraged the denigration

of men and, he concluded:

I reject utterly the suggestion that my complaint should not be upheld because

there was ruled to be no detectable imbalance or denigration in the title of the

programme or its summarised content. The most hurtful and destructive slurs

on sections of society are briefly inserted into the body of a programme that has

hitherto got the listener's attention as being serious, fair and just.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 23 September 1996

Expressing regret at the misunderstandings which had occurred with this complaint,

RNZ said it wanted to comment only:

In one sentence, however, it would offer its opinion that the complaint

arises largely from a three-part misunderstanding: a wrong perception of

the item's purpose; of the context in which the item was undertaken

(imminent coming-into-force of the new Act); and of the fact that the three

contributors were speaking as office-holders in the community, not as

members of either sex.

Mr Golden's Final Comment - 3 October 1996

Arguing that the purpose of the programme was irrelevant and it was a matter of

examining the content, Mr Golden maintained his view that the programme was

unbalanced. Although he had not complained about gender imbalance, he was

surprised that RNZ had not appreciated that the selection of these participants would

result in a programme which lacked balance.