BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The conduct of councillors and observers at Porirua City Council meetings was the

subject of a talkback programme broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 12 September 1996

about 10.00am.

The Reverend Don Borrie, one of the City Councillors accused of turning the Council

meetings into a "circus", complained to The Radio Network of New Zealand Ltd (The

Radio Network) that the programme portrayed him unjustly and unfairly, and gave

him no opportunity to defend himself. He objected to personal comments made about

him, and suggestions that he was responsible for disrupting Council meetings.

As The Radio Network did not respond within the statutory time period, Mr Borrie

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

In its report to the Authority, The Radio Network declined to uphold the complaint

that the broadcast as a whole breached the good taste standard or was unfair to Mr

Borrie. It upheld the aspect of the complaint that the naming of the two councillors

was unfair as they were not given an opportunity to respond.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the

action taken was insufficient.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of 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.

A talkback programme broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 12 September about 10.00am

focused on the conduct of councillors and observers at Porirua City Council meetings.

The host suggested, and callers agreed, that the conduct of some participants was

childish and designed to disrupt the proceedings. Two councillors, including Mr

Borrie, were described by callers and the host as the Council clowns who had turned

the Council into a circus.

Mr Borrie complained to The Radio Network that the programme portrayed him

unjustly and unfairly as a disruptive troublemaker, and gave him no opportunity to

defend himself. He particularly objected to the content of the programme between

10.00am and 11.00am, which began with the host asking whether there had ever been a

civilised public meeting in Porirua, and suggesting that some councillors had turned

Council meetings into a circus. Callers responded by recalling incidents where

meetings had been disrupted by the unruly behaviour of councillors and their

supporters. Acknowledging that there was a need for effective opposition to

proposals put up by the Mayor, the host then named the two councillors (including

Mr Borrie) who, he said, from time to time turned the whole meeting into a circus.

Callers then identified the two as being part of a "lunatic fringe", and suggested they

did not read their agenda papers carefully. The host concluded that the two were a

couple of clowns who seemed to be "hellbent on disrupting the proceedings".

Mr Borrie complained first to the station and then to the Complaints Coordinator of

The Radio Network. When he received no response in the 20 working day statutory

time period, he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Authority notes with concern that this is not the first occasion on which The

Radio Network has failed to respond to a complaint in the statutory time period. The

requirement of broadcasters to respond to complaints within 20 working days is only

waived if the broadcaster advises the complainant in writing that it is unable to

respond in the time period and gives its reasons for seeking an extension of time. The

Authority advises that it is monitoring the situation and should it recur, it may give

consideration to exercising its recently granted powers to impose a monetary penalty

on the broadcaster.

When the Authority sought a response from The Radio Network as to why it had not

dealt with the complaint, it was provided with a response to the complaint which, for

reasons not explained, was not sent to the complainant within the statutory time

period.

The Radio Network considered the complaint under standards R2 and R5 of the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

good taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in

which any language or behaviour occurs.

R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

The Radio Network first considered the introductory remarks made by the host,

which set the scene for the discussion which followed. In The Radio Network's view,

comments made by him were clearly within the limits of legitimate expression of

opinion and, furthermore, appeared to be generally confirmed by the Mayor when he

was interviewed during the discussion. The reference to Mr Borrie, it continued, arose

in the wider context of the conduct of Council meetings generally. In the robust

format of talkback, The Radio Network did not consider that any standards were

breached.

Recognising that it was the host's role to provoke contributions from the public and

recognising also that talkback was a forum which provided opportunities for the

expression of opinions, The Radio Network maintained that the general discussion

concerning conduct at Council meetings did not breach the standards.

It then examined the aspect of the discussion which focused on the named councillors,

concluding that the naming of the two by the host, apparently based on hearsay and

not supported by personal observation, was unfair to the complainant. The Radio

Network believed that there was insufficient evidence in the broadcast to justify the

naming and decided that it was unnecessary and outside the talkback host's brief to do

so, especially as no arrangement had been made to give the person an opportunity for

response.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Borrie focused on The Radio

Network's decision to uphold an aspect of the complaint. He provided the text for a

statement which he proposed should be read in acknowledgement of the breach.

The Authority concurs with The Radio Network's decision to uphold the complaint

that naming the councillors was unfair to them, although it recognises that the

discussion dealt with matters which were publicly accessible and which had been

covered thoroughly in local newspapers. Nevertheless, when no opportunity is given

for the named person to respond, the Authority considers the issue of fairness is

relevant. It considers that the action taken by The Radio Network to uphold the

complaint was sufficient.

Nevertheless because the absence of an opportunity to respond amounted to

unfairness, The Radio Network might consider that it is appropriate now to invite Mr

Borrie to be interviewed.

With respect to the other matters in the broadcast which the complainant argued

breached standards R2 and R5, the Authority considers that although the remarks

about the conduct of the meetings were provocative, the comments concerned the

actions of public figures at publicly attended meetings. The opinions of the host, and

of callers to the programme, were clearly identified as such, and therefore did not

constitute a breach.

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

that the action taken by The Radio Network of New Zealand Ltd, having upheld

an aspect of the complaint, was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 December 1996

Appendix

Rev Don Borrie's Complaint to The Radio Network of New Zealand Ltd -

24 September 1996

Following a letter dated 18 September addressed to the host of the talkback

programme on Newstalk ZB, Mr Borrie of Titahi Bay addressed a formal complaint to

the Complaints Coordinator of The Radio Network Ltd about the content of a

talkback programme broadcast on 12 September 1996 about 10.00am. The subject of

the morning was the operations of the Porirua City Council and the conduct of some

people at the Council meetings. During the session, the host suggested and callers

confirmed that two councillors were attempting to turn the Council meetings into a

circus. Mr Borrie was identified as one of those councillors.

Explaining that he had a transcript of the programme, Mr Borrie quoted extracts to

which he objected. First, he noted that the host described the Porirua City Council as

a joke, and suggested that some exhibitionists turned the Council into a circus. The

host added that he was tired of the childish stunts plaguing the Council and that he had

"had a gutsful" hearing about the nonsense some councillors got up to around the

Council table. Next, the host expressed his frustration with what he described as

"silly childish antics", adding that he had heard some shocking stories about the antics

of some of the Councillors.

Mr Borrie noted that a caller was permitted to express concern over two councillors,

accusing at least one of them of dishonesty. In response to that caller, the host

identified Mr Borrie and another councillor as the two who were responsible for

turning the meeting into a circus. Other callers contributed comments about the two

councillors, who were described as the lunatic fringe and the Council clowns. The host

concluded that there were a couple of clowns on the Council who were hell-bent on

disrupting the proceedings.

Mr Borrie asked that his complaints be upheld and appropriate action be taken.

Mr Borrie's Referral to the Authority - 1 November 1996

As he had not received a response from Radio Network within 20 working days, Mr

Borrie referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b)

of the Act.

The Radio Network's Response to the Authority - 11 November 1996

Apologising for the delay in advising Mr Borrie of its decision, the Radio Network

forwarded to the Authority its response to Mr Borrie on the complaint.

Summarising the host's opening remarks, The Radio Network noted that the host

expressed concern about the conduct of those who attended Porirua City Council

meetings, suggesting that there were exhibitionists both from the Council and the

public who were turning the meetings into a circus. He also identified major issues

which were before the Council and invited listeners to call in.

The Radio Network considered that the comments made in the host's introduction

were within the limit of the legitimate expression of opinion.

Next, the Mayor of Porirua was introduced and invited to comment on the loan and

works issues, and the high rates levied. The Mayor referred to a group which he

believed was campaigning to subvert the democratic process by a campaign of civil

disobedience. When asked by the host if he was concerned at the perception of

Porirua and the Council's reputation, the Mayor replied that he was concerned, but

suggested that the meetings were not too different from those in other Council

chambers. Referring to the attempt to stage a sit-in at the Council meeting, the host

described the plan as silly and childish and typical of the kind of stunt that had

plagued the Council for so long. Callers were then invited to call in to comment on

issues raised.

With respect to the complaint that Mr Borrie's name was linked with a meeting of the

Resource Committee, The Radio Network noted that while that committee's meeting

was a significant factor in the discussion, the discussion was not confined to events at

that meeting, and did not associate Mr Borrie's name with that meeting. It wrote:

In the Complaint Committee's view, recognising that a talk-back programme is

not a structured, formal news and current affairs broadcast, and is accepted as

being altogether a more robust format, the limits within which a talk-back host

must operate were not exceeded, opinion was clearly identified as such, and

events on which the host commented were clearly stated, and in general

confirmed by the Mayor.

The Radio Network then turned to comments made by callers. It noted that one caller,

who had been present at two Council meetings, suggested that two councillors sought

to disrupt the meetings with points of order and objections to almost every single

matter. The host then identified the two by name, suggesting that at times they turned

the whole meeting into a circus. The next caller described the two councillors as the

"lunatic fringe".

In its consideration of the complaint, The Radio Network pointed out that a talkback

programme could not be seen in the same light as a current affairs piece. Further, it

argued, the role of the host was to provoke public thought and call-in participation on

a particular matter, and inevitably would offer opinions that were provocative. Noting

that the "open line" nature of talkback met the requirement for providing

opportunities for the expression of opinions, The Radio Network acknowledged that

other applicable standards had to be observed.

The Radio Network noted that a number of callers expressed concern about the

conduct of Council meetings and that there was some support for the host's

proposition. While there was no opportunity for the complainant to call in (because

he was out of town), there was an opportunity for other listeners to express their

views. In relation to the discussion about the Council meetings, it decided that there

was no breach of either standards R2 or R5, taking into account the talkback context

when it examined standard R2.

The Radio Network did however express concern that the two councillors were named

by the talkback host. It concluded that this exceeded the wide latitude granted a

talkback host, and that it appeared to have been based on hearsay and not supported

by personal observation. In the broadcaster's view, there was insufficient evidence to

name the councillors and it was unfair to do so.

The Radio Network upheld this aspect of the complaint under standard R5, advising

that it was unnecessary and outside the talkback host's brief to name the complainant

in the absence of arranging an opportunity for him to respond.

Mr Borrie's Final Comment - 20 November 1996

Mr Borrie asked the Authority to include the following statement in any order it may

be considering under s.13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Newstalk ZB acknowledges that Mike Yardley, in his talkback show on 12

September 1996, failed to deal justly and fairly when referring to the Rev Don

Borrie's role and conduct as a Porirua City Councillor. Derogatory statements

made by Mr Yardley about the Rev Borrie were not based on facts known to

Mr Yardley. At no time did Newstalk ZB offer the Rev Borrie an opportunity

to respond on air to these statements. Newstalk ZB apologises unreservedly

for this breach of radio broadcasting standards and regrets any negative effect

this may have had on Councillor Borrie's reputation.

He also asked that the Authority recommend to the broadcaster that an opportunity

be given to respond to the statements made about him. If this was agreed to, he would

remove the phrase in his proposed statement above about not being given an

opportunity to respond.