BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Auckland Trotting Club was mentioned in items on TV One's Holmes programme

broadcast at 6.30pm on 11 and 19 June 1990. The item on 11 June was introduced

with references to drug abuse, race horses and people in high places. The item's

visuals included Alexandra Park which the reporter described as the home of the

Auckland Trotting Club. The item focussed primarily on Mr Terry Quinn, then

President of the Auckland Trotting Club, and no allegations were made about the Club

itself.

The item on 19 June, which referred back to the 11 June programme, included

interviews with some dissatisfied members of the Auckland Trotting Club who alleged

a number of wrongdoings in the Club's administration. One of the four members

interviewed was a member of the Club's Management Committee and the other three

were former Committee members.

The Auckland Trotting Club, through its solicitors, complained to Television New

Zealand Limited about both items. The complaint acknowledged that the 11 June item

made no allegations in regard to the Auckland Trotting Club. However, by virtue of the

item's introduction and references, the complainant asserted that viewers might have

been left with the impression that the Club was in some way associated with the

allegations about the misuse of drugs. Asserting that the item was unbalanced, the

complainant requested a public explanation distancing Mr Quinn from the Club, and an

apology to the Club.

The item of 19 June, it said, was poorly presented and had made a number of

allegations but had presented no evidence in support of them. The Club demanded an

urgent and extensive public apology. The Club also complained that it had not been

given an adequate time to respond to allegations.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint and the Club referred it to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint that the item broadcast on

19 June 1990 was unbalanced.

Decision

History of the Complaint

The present members of the Authority have viewed the two items complained about and

have read the extensive correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). The Authority

has dealt with the complaint on the basis that the earlier consideration given to this

complaint by a differently constituted Authority, is of no relevance to the current

findings. As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a

formal hearing.

The programmes complained about were items broadcast by TVNZ on the Holmes

programme on 11 and 19 June 1990 which was then screened between 6.30–7.00pm.

The solicitors for the Auckland Trotting Club complained formally to TVNZ about both

items in early July 1990. Both substantive and procedural matters were contentious at

the time and the Authority did not complete its information gathering process until late

in 1991.

The then President of the Auckland Trotting Club, Mr Terry Quinn, also complained

about both items. He later referred the complaints to the Authority as he was

dissatisfied with the responses he received from TVNZ. Before the Authority began its

review of those complaints however, Mr Quinn issued defamation proceedings against

TVNZ in respect of each broadcast.

In early November 1991, the Authority received the decision of the High Court in the

case Eveready v TV31.11 MB (CP No 527/91, Wellington HC) where McGechan J ruled, in

regard to that complaint, that the Authority's determination would be stayed until the

concurrent defamation proceedings were determined, settled or discontinued.

Taking the principles enunciated in the Eveready ruling into consideration, and after

consulting with the parties to the Auckland Trotting Club's complaint, in February 1992

the Authority advised the parties:

Because of the extensive overlap between the [Auckland Trotting] Club's

complaint and the issues raised by Mr Quinn in his defamation action, and in view

of the Eveready decision, the Authority decided that it must defer action on the

Club's complaint until the resolution of the defamation action or until it is

confirmed that the defamation action will proceed without a jury.

The solicitors for the Auckland Trotting Club, on behalf of their client, have expressed

an ongoing interest in the complaint and, late in 1996 in view of the recent media

reports that the amount of damages to be awarded to Mr Quinn had been finalised,

TVNZ's comments were sought on the state of the defamation proceedings. TVNZ

advised in January 1997 that the judgment of Anderson J in the Auckland High Court

on 29 November 1996 had completed Mr Quinn's defamation action, and it did not

object to the Authority proceeding to deal with the Auckland Trotting Club's complaint.

Because the tape of the items complained about had been retained, together with all the

correspondence received between July 1990 and February 1992, the Authority decided

it was able to determine the Club's complaint de novo. The Authority records that the

standards cited in the complaint have been renumbered since 1990. The standards are

recorded in the Appendix by the numbers cited at the time the correspondence was

received. The current numbering system is used however in this decision. In no case

has the substance of the standard cited been altered. The slight changes have taken

place to ensure comprehensibility.

Following the conclusion of his defamation case, Mr Quinn advised that he has

withdrawn his complaints to the Authority about the items.

The Items

The item broadcast on Holmes on 11 June 1990 focussed on Mr Terry Quinn, and it

was reported in passing that he was then the President of the Auckland Trotting Club.

The item also included pictures of some racing at the Club. The 19 June broadcast was

divided into an investigation of some of the Club's actions and a further account of

some of Mr Quinn's activities.

The Club's major concern was directed at the item broadcast on Holmes on 19 June

1990, part of which involved interviews with some dissatisfied club members and

former office holders. The complainant said the format involved the reporter reporting

an allegation and then interviewing one of the members "and that person presumably

was to support" the reporter's statement. The complainant noted seven specific

allegations by the reporter which, it complained, were not supported by the comments

made by the members. In addition, the Club complained that it was given insufficient

opportunity to respond to the claims. The items on 11 and 19 June, the Club added,

breached standards G1, G4, G6, G7, G11(i), G14 and G19.

The Standards

Standards G1, G4, G6 and G11(i) require broadcasters:

G1   To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G4   To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

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

current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

G11  To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as

a whole:

(i) simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm

viewers.

Standards G14 and G19 provide:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or

the overall views expressed.

Misleading viewers – standard G11(i)

TVNZ denied that either item breached any of the standards listed by the complainant.

In regard to the 11 June item, it believed that it was valid to establish the link between

Mr Quinn, the proprietor of Vetmed Laboratories Ltd on which the item focussed, and

his then position as President of the Auckland Trotting Club. Once that had been

established, it continued, there had been no further reference to the Club. In TVNZ's

opinion that did not constitute a breach of standard G11(i) which prohibits a broadcast

which may mislead viewers.

The Authority agrees with both the complainant and TVNZ that it was valid to draw a

link between Mr Quinn's business and his position in the Club. Further, it agrees with

TVNZ, but not with the complainant, that the item did not place an unnecessary

emphasis on the link in such a way as to mislead viewers. Accordingly, the Authority

concludes that the broadcast of the Holmes item on 11 June did not breach standard

G11(i).

Deceptive practices and editing which distorts – standards G7 and G19

In regard to the 19 June item, the Auckland Trotting Club detailed seven points where,

it complained, the reporter's summary was not substantiated by the interviews. In

response, TVNZ said that the complainant had displayed a misunderstanding of basic

journalistic practice. It advised the Authority:

The recognised procedure, (which is international), is for a reporter to paraphrase

the general thrust of what the interview subject may have to say, and then take an

interview segment in which the subject is seen to enlarge or pertinently comment

on that position. In fact, it would be regarded as poor television practice were a

reporter's summation of a situation to be followed by an interview in which the

information was tediously repeated. Viewers would be fully justified in

questioning the professional competence of the company if it did.

It continued:

In the case of the broadcast in question the statements made by the reporter were

accurate summations of what the four disaffected members had to say. They

were not the views of the reporter and they were not in any way distortions of

what he had been told by the four men concerned.

The complainant did not contest, correctly in the Authority's opinion, the validity of that

journalistic practice but considered it would be "improper" if the reporter's broadcast

allegations were not supported by the interviewees. While the Authority does not agree

with that comment – as it does not show a complete understanding of the role of a

journalist – it accepts that the reporter's broadcast statements must be an accurate and

balanced summary of the information gathered.

Therefore, on the issue of the use of a reporter's summation of an interview, the

Authority accepts TVNZ's argument that the practice is professional journalism.

Accordingly, the Authority concludes that the item did not use a deceptive practice in

contravention of standard G7, or involve editing which distorted in transgression of

standard G19.

Requirement for accuracy – standard G1

The Club complained that the item was inaccurate on seven matters when the club

members interviewed raised a number of concerns. In summary these matters were

the alleged wrongdoings in the Club; that some members sought an inquiry into the

Club's administration; that some members had reservations about the Club's

administration; that some members believed that they had not been sufficiently

informed about the costs of the new grandstand; that questions were being raised

about the disposal of some carpet and appliances; that some committee members were

deposed in a "controversial" ballot; and that McKendrick's Paddock was sold without

the knowledge or approval of the committee members being interviewed. On this

final point, one of the interviewees described the sale as a "fait accompli".

Given, first, the length of time since the item was broadcast, and secondly, that these

matters have been canvassed in the defamation proceedings brought by Mr Quinn, the

Authority declines to determine the aspect of the complaint which alleged factual

inaccuracies.

Requirement for fairness and balance – standards G4 and G6

Having viewed the programmes and read the correspondence, the Authority is of the

view that the standard G6 requirement for balance is the issue which should be

considered further. The complainant also referred to standard G4 which requires that

people referred to be dealt with fairly. As standard G6 also refers to "impartiality and

fairness", the Authority has on this occasion subsumed the standard G4 aspect under

standard G6.

In its complaint about not having an adequate opportunity to respond to TVNZ's

request for information before the item's broadcast on 19 June, the Club said that it did

not receive notice of the impending broadcast of the allegations on the Holmes

programme planned for 6.30pm on 19 June until approximately 3.30pm that day. That,

it wrote, was a totally inadequate time frame in which to respond.

TVNZ responded that its staff had spent a considerable part of that day trying to contact

Mr Quinn. Mr Quinn was then President of the Club and the item, as well as containing

the allegations about the Club's administration, dealt with some of Mr Quinn's other

activities. TVNZ continued:

Mr Quinn was eventually contacted in mid-afternoon and a list of questions was

faxed to him, together with a request that he, or an appointed spokesperson for

the Club, appear in an on camera interview as part of the programme.

TVNZ said that Mr Quinn faxed a reply requesting more time and another message was

received from the Club's solicitors. The contents of both messages were included in a

statement read by the presenter at the conclusion of the item on 19 June.

In view of the earlier item on Mr Quinn's professional activities, the Authority can

understand why the Holmes programme sought Mr Quinn's response personally. The

Authority can also understand why the Club felt that the programme was being unfair to

it. The Club has full-time staff who could have been contacted directly and asked to

supply a spokesperson. That spokesperson could have responded to the allegations

made by the members interviewed and would have been able to describe the processes

involved in the club's administration and, specifically, the procedures involved in the

sale of McKendrick's Paddock. The spokesperson would have had an opportunity thus

to provide a detailed balancing account to the "fait accompli" allegation.

In its determination of the Club's complaint, the Authority considers that the issue for

resolution is whether, given the range of allegations of wrongdoings, the Club was

given a sufficient opportunity to respond to comply with the requirements of standard

G6.

The Authority acknowledges that the item concluded with the presenter reading a letter

from the club's solicitors which said that the matters had been considered and resolved

at the club's annual meeting. This point has been taken into account in reaching the

following decision.

However, the Authority does not consider that the presenter's reading of the Club's

letter was sufficient. The items on 11 and 19 June raised serious matters about Mr

Quinn. In the Authority's opinion, the allegations about the Club's administration were

raised by TVNZ during the second item in order to expand on the matters to which Mr

Quinn would be required, and expected, to respond. In other words, the interviews

with the dissatisfied Club members and their views on the Club's administration were

somewhat peripheral to the principal focus of the item. In the Authority's opinion, the

interviews with the members were mainly directed to question further Mr Quinn's

veracity and competence, both specifically as a supplier of veterinary products, and

generally as a person whose interests included the position as President of the Auckland

Trotting Club.

This focus gave rise to proceedings which have been dealt with elsewhere. Because the

allegations about the Club, in addition to raising questions about Mr Quinn, brought the

Club's administration into serious question, the Authority considers that the broadcaster

had an obligation to obtain, in addition to Mr Quinn's response, a reply from the Club's

administration. Because of TVNZ's persistent focus on Mr Quinn, the Authority is of

the view that the Club was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the claimed

wrongdoings. As a consequence, the Authority concludes that the broadcast of an item

on 19 June resulted in an item which was both unbalanced and unfair to the Club.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited of an item on Holmes on

19 June 1990 breached standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

As noted above, the Authority declines to determine the complaints

which allege a breach of standards G1 and G14 and it subsumes the

complaint under G4 into standard G6. It declines to uphold the alleged

breach of standards G7, G11(i) and G19.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority is somewhat critical of the apparently cavalier

approach taken by TVNZ in its efforts to comply with the requirements in the standards

for balance and fairness in respect of the alleged wrongdoings at the Auckland Trotting

Club. However, it stops short of imposing an order in all the circumstances.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
27 February 1997

Appendix

Auckland Trotting Club's Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand

Limited – 3 July 1990

The solicitors for the Auckland Trotting Club made a formal complaint to Television

New Zealand Ltd about items on TV One's Holmes programme broadcast at 6.30pm on

11 and 19 June 1990.

The item on 11 June was introduced with references to drug abuse, race horses and

people in high places. The item's visuals included Alexandra Park which the reporter

described as the home of the Auckland Trotting Club. The item focussed primarily on

Mr Terry Quinn, then President of the Auckland Trotting Club, and no allegations were

made about the Club itself.

The item on 19 June, which referred back to the 11 June programme, included

interviews with some dissatisfied members of the Auckland Trotting Club who alleged

a number of wrongdoings in the Club's administration. One of the four members

interviewed was a member of the Club's Management Committee and the other three

were former committee members.

The complainant acknowledged that the 11 June item made no allegations in regard to

the Auckland Trotting Club. However, by virtue of the item's introduction and

references, the complainant asserted that viewers may have been left with the mistaken

impression that the Club was in some way associated with the allegations about the

misuse of drugs. Asserting that the item was unbalanced, a public explanation

distinguishing Mr Quinn from the club and an apology to the Club was requested.

The item of 19 June, the complainant continued, was poorly presented and had made

the following allegations:

1)  of wrongdoings in the Club;

2)  of deposal of members in a controversial ballot;

3)  of members seeking an enquiry into the Club's administration;

4)  of reservations among some members about the Club's administration;

5)  of members being kept in the dark about the costs of the new grandstand;

6)  that carpet and appliances may have been stolen; and

7)  that the sale of McKendrick's Paddock occurred without the prior

knowledge and approval of the then Committee members.

The Club asserted that the item had presented no evidence in support of these

allegations and, if there was no basis for them, it demanded an urgent and extensive

public apology.

In a letter dated 10 July, the Club's solicitors complained that the programme by

requesting a response at 3.30pm on 19 June, had not given the Club an adequate

opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The Club was advised in a letter from TVNZ dated 31 July that the complaint did not

indicate any broadcasting standards which had been breached. In a letter in response

dated 7 August 1990, the Club's solicitors associated its complaint with the following

standards:

1)  The inadequate time in which the Club was asked to respond breached

standard 4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

2)  The item on 11 June breached standard 11(i) which prohibits the broadcast

of a programme which may mislead viewers.

3)  The broadcast of the 19 June programme which gave rise to the complaints

listed 1–7 above breached standards 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15. The letter

repeated the point made in the 3 July letter of formal complaint that the

allegations broadcast on the 19 June item were not supported with evidence.

The letter continued:

(c)  In so doing, the programme has failed to deal truthfully with the

facts and has been inaccurate. Since those allegations related to

our client, the programme failed to deal justly and fairly with

our client. There was an absence of balance, impartiality and

fairness;

(d)  To state a fact which, upon close analysis of the supporting

material is not then substantiated, is a deceptive programme

practice taking advantage of the confidence viewers have in the

integrity of broadcasting. It further, when considered as a

whole, simulated news or events in such a way as to mislead

viewers;

(e)  It was not presented accurately, objectively or impartially.

Further Correspondence

The complainant, by letter dated 28 September 1990, referred the complaint to the

Authority under s.8(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 as TVNZ had not responded

within the statutory time limit of 60 working days. Following correspondence between

the Authority, the complainant and TVNZ, TVNZ's Complaints Committee dealt with

the complaint on 17 October 1990.

In a letter to the Authority dated 26 October 1990, TVNZ explained that there were a

number of unsatisfactory aspects of the complaint - including the wording of the

relevant legislation. Further, not until the complainant's letter of 26 July was there any

reference to the legislation and only in its letter of 7 August was the complainant explicit

about the alleged breaches of the standards.

In these circumstances, TVNZ argued, the statutory time limit of 60 working days

should have begun on 7 August and its response was within this limit.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 17 October 1990

TVNZ began by explaining that the first item, on 11 June, focussed on the operation of

the firm Vetmed Laboratories Ltd and the company's governing director, Mr Terry

Quinn, who at the time was President of the Auckland Trotting Club. The 19 June

item, TVNZ continued, was divided into two parts. The first segment featured four

dissatisfied members of the Auckland Trotting Club who made the allegations noted and

the second segment dealt with the activities of the Club president, Mr Quinn.

In relation to the complaint that the 11 June item associated Vetmed's activities with

those of the Club, the introduction of the script was quoted in full. The letter explained:

The Complaints Committee was of the view that from a journalistic point of view

it was both legitimate and necessary to establish Mr Quinn's links with one of the

country's leading trotting clubs in order to properly place the story in context.

Further, it was recorded, allegations about the improper use of animal medicines

directed at Mr Quinn increased in importance when the person involved was a trotting

club president. The Committee believed a viewer would distinguish between the Club

and Mr Quinn's company and, as the complainant noted, no allegations were made in

respect of the Club. Consequently, although the Club's image risked being tarnished

by its President's activities, as the programme did not mislead, it did not breach

standard 11(i).

With regard to the 19 June item, by way of introduction TVNZ said that the suggestion

that all was not well with one of the country's biggest racing clubs was a valid topic for

investigation. It then dealt with points 1–7 raised by the complainant.

1)  The item did not allege wrongdoings – it reported the concerns of four

club members.

2)  The club members raised the point that the ballot was controversial. As the

four were the first members not to be re-elected in 100 years, that would

suggest an unusual situation.

3)  The members who appeared on the item were seeking an urgent inquiry into

the club's administration.

4)  As the item noted, lack of accountability by the club's administration was

one of the issues about which the members interviewed were concerned.

5)  The four members were adamant that they had not been kept informed about

some matters such as the grandstand's cost and, further, believed that

information had been deliberately withheld from them.

6)  The reporter had investigated thoroughly the disappearance of the carpet and

the electrical appliances and felt justified in asking whether they were stolen.

7)  The members interviewed insisted that they had not been kept informed

about, nor had they approved of, the sale of McKendrick's Paddock.

Regarding the complaint that the Club had an inadequate opportunity to respond, the

Committee noted that extensive efforts had been made on the day to locate Mr Quinn.

When contacted he had been faxed a list of questions for both himself personally and as

Club spokesperson. A summary of the replies in response from Mr Quinn and the

complainant's solicitors was read by Mr Holmes at the conclusion of the item.

Accordingly, the TVNZ concluded, the programme had acted properly.

The Complaints Committee then dealt with the alleged breaches of the standards. No

evidence was found to justify a breach of standard 1 which requires factual truth and

accuracy. The item, it was added, was the messenger for some members' concerns.

The item had dealt justly and fairly with people referred to (standard 4) as both the

President and the Club were given a fair opportunity to respond.

Further, the Committee did not find any breaches of standards 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15.

Auckland Trotting Club's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority – 24 October 1990

As the Club was dissatisfied with the decision of TVNZ's Complaints Committee, it

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. Following correspondence in which the parties agreed to

accept that TVNZ's response was within the statutory time limit, in a letter dated 25

January 1991 the Club's solicitors explained the reasons for the Club's dissatisfaction

with TVNZ's decision.

In regard to the 11 June item the complainant accepted that the reference to Mr Quinn's

position as Club President was appropriate. However, the Club maintained that the

item's unnecessary emphasis on the connection between Mr Quinn and the Club may

have well misled a viewer into believing that the Club was significantly involved in the

allegations made against Mr Quinn.

Regarding the 19 June item, the club repeated its complaint that the interviewees did not

support the reporter's statements made on the item and it expanded a little on the seven

points made in its letter of complaint.

It concluded on this point:

There is accordingly a trend within the programme whereby statements and

allegations are made by the reporter or presenter which statements and allegations

are unsupported by the persons interviewed.

The letter repeated the complaint that the items breached standards 1, 4, 6, 11, 12 and

15 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. In dealing with the point

concerning inadequate time to respond, the Club noted that it was not concerned with

Mr Quinn. It queried at what time the decision had been made to broadcast the show on

19 June in view of the fact that it appeared that TVNZ had been investigating the story

for some days.

The complainant finished by responding to each of TVNZ's findings about the

standards which were allegedly breached by the broadcast.

Regarding factual truth and accuracy, the complainant stated that the:

... complaint remains that statements were made by the Show which were

stronger and different to the content of the interviews with the persons concerned

which interviews presumably were intended to support the statements that have

been made by the programme;

It continued by stating that the Club was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond;

that the Complaints Committee did not respond properly to the complaint about balance,

impartiality and fairness; that the item was deceptive when the reporter extended the

interviewees' remarks; that the entire item was simulation of news or events which

misled viewers; that the news was not presented accurately, objectively and impartially

and, with regard to the item's editing, the complainant asked:

If those extracts were truly a true reflection of the views of the persons

interviewed then why is it that they did not support the statements made by the

presenter and the reporter?

The complainant's solicitors, upon completing the Authority's Complaint Referral

Form, requested that they present their complaint orally because this was the best way

to consider a complicated and important issue.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 9 May 1991

TVNZ was invited by the Authority on 29 January 1991 to respond to this referral. It

did so in a letter dated 9 May 1991.

It began by commenting that the complaint covered two distinct items on the Holmes

programme broadcast eight days apart. The first programme focussed on a veterinary

supply company called Vetmed Laboratories Ltd of which Mr Terry Quinn, the then

President of the Auckland Trotting Club, was the managing director, and the second

dealt with the allegations by four dissatisfied members about the administration of the

Auckland Trotting Club. Although the two separate complaints had been "rolled into

one" by the complainant's solicitors, the only common links were the horse racing

industry and Mr Terry Quinn.

The introduction to the 11 June item, TVNZ wrote, explained clearly the item's focus.

With regard to the reference to the Auckland Trotting Club, TVNZ recorded:

It is submitted that it was desirable and legitimate to identify Mr Quinn's position

in the trotting industry. The information that was to be conveyed was clearly

much more newsworthy because it involved – not an anonymous veterinary

warehouse proprietor – but the top office holder in the country's largest trotting

club.

The link with the Auckland Trotting Club needed to be made to give the item

relevance, and once that link was established there was no further reference to the

Club.

TVNZ recalled that the Club originally complained specifically that the reference to the

Club breached standard 11(i) which prohibits the simulation of views which might

mislead or alarm. TVNZ argued that in view of the item's contents and script it was

difficult to accept that the public would have been either misled or alarmed.

In regard to the complaint about the item broadcast on the 19 June, TVNZ explained the

journalistic process involved and maintained that the reporter's statements were accurate

summaries of the comments from the dissatisfied Club members.

TVNZ then dealt with the seven specific points first raised in the Club's letter of

complaint dated 3 July 1990:

1)  Regarding the allegation about wrongdoings, TVNZ emphasised that the

allegations were stated to be in the Club, not by the Club, and they were of

concern to the four members interviewed.

2)  The members' defeat in a controversial ballot, TVNZ stated, was an

indisputable fact – not an allegation. It added that they were apparently the

first members in the Club's 100 year history not to be re-elected to the

management committee.

3)  The reporter had referred to the members' desire for an inquiry as this point

was established as a fact. This point had been confirmed by the members'

solicitor.

4)  It was also stated as a fact that these members had reservations about the

Club's administration as the reporter was told of this by them.

5)  The reporter had also said that the members had been deliberately kept in the

dark as this summarised what he had been told by the men and their

solicitor.

6)  The reporter's comment about the possibly stolen carpet and appliances

paraphrased the comment from the members and their solicitor.

7)  The comments about the sale of McKendrick's Paddock was also a

summary of the members' comments to the reporter.

In summary, TVNZ wrote:

In essence none of the material constituted the opinion of the reporter. All of it

was an accurate summation of the views held by the four men involved. The

interview extracts were, without exception, designed to enlarge on the position

the four men were seen to be taking.

In regard to the complaint about the absence of a reasonable opportunity to respond,

TVNZ stated that Mr Quinn was, at the time, the Club President and the obvious

spokesperson. Further TVNZ wondered why the club now took the attitude of being

unconcerned about Mr Quinn.

TVNZ submitted that as Mr Quinn had issued defamation proceedings about the two

items on Holmes and that as the proceedings traversed similar matters, the Authority

should either defer the determination of the concerns until the conclusion of those

proceedings or decline to determine the complaint.

Auckland Trotting Club's Final Comments to the Authority – 12 July

1991

Observing that the item involved a journalist reporting an allegation followed by

comment from a Club member in support, the Club noted:

On numerous occasions the content of the interview did not support the extent

or more serious nature of the allegation raised by the reporter/presenter.

In the Club's opinion, that was improper.

The sale of McKendrick's paddock was used as a specific example. Where the

reporter's summary said that the land had been sold without the committee members'

knowledge and approval, the interviews referred to the approval of the sale at a

committee meeting. There the members approved the sale, although they felt that the

sale was a fait accompli. The Club recorded:

The public perception of the land having been sold without their knowledge or

approval as against their having had knowledge of the sale and having approved

the sale, but in circumstances where they felt they had no other option are quite

different.

Further Correspondence

The Authority requested further information from the complainant about the Club's

processes leading to the sale of McKendrick's Paddock. In a letter dated 27 August,

1991, the Authority was sent a copy of the minutes of the Club's Committee Meeting

for 2 June 1989.

The minutes record that a subcommittee had earlier been established to finalise the sale

of the paddock for a sum not less than $3.8 million. The subcommittee's report was

considered "in committee" at the meeting on 2 June and it was resolved to sell the

paddock for not less than $3.75 million and another subcommittee was given the

authority to negotiate the sale.

The complainant stated in the accompanying letter:

Accordingly, in response to the TVNZ contention (that the sale was not approved

at the meeting but the decision had already been taken), clearly this is quite

inaccurate. The meeting was called to approve the sale and authorise a

subcommittee to negotiate the same.

When asked to comment on the Club's letter in a reply dated 6 September 1991, TVNZ

began:

[T]here is clearly a conflict of facts and a serious question as to the veracity of the

racing club's minutes.

First, two of the dissatisfied club members who appeared on the Holmes

programme said that the meeting on 2 June had been held at extremely short

notice and without the seven days notice required by the Club rules.

Secondly, the dissatisfied members stated that the proposal to sell the land had

failed to obtain the best price, that they regarded their role as merely being to

rubber stamp the proposal, and that their opposition to the sale was not recorded

in the minutes. The letter added that the Club minutes at the time were frequently

inaccurate.

In view of these allegations, the Authority requested the Club to confirm, preferably by

affidavit, that the minutes of the 2 June 1989 meeting were a true and correct record.

The Club, in a letter dated 7 October 1991, provided affidavits from seven of the eleven

members present at the meeting. The other four were the dissatisfied members

interviewed by TVNZ. Each affidavit attested to the veracity of the affidavit provided

by the Club's Chief Executive who had also attended the meeting. In addition, the Club

provided a separate record of the "in committee" discussion at the meeting and recorded:

It is evident that there was open debate on whether the sale should be approved or

not. In the end the majority approved the sale and that became the decision of the

committee.

As an exhibit to the affidavit, the Chief Executive also provided minutes of the

Committee meeting held on 20 June 1989 at which the 2 June minutes were confirmed.

In addition, an extract of the Club rules were attached which disclosed that there was no

time requirement in the calling of Committee meetings.

The Club provided the following summary of events:

7.  You will appreciate from the contents of the various affidavits that

those persons present have absolutely no doubt about the manner in which the

sale of McKendrick's Paddock was advanced. The position quite simply is that

the Club had been considering selling McKendrick's paddock. Various

subcommittees of the committee had been assigned the responsibility of

advancing the sale in a preliminary way. Just prior to the meeting of 2 June it

was the finance subcommittee of which Mr McLean was a member which had

then been responsible for reporting back to the committee with recommendations.

That subcommittee had discussions with the One Tree Hill Borough Council and

had received an indication from the Council that it would pay a certain figure for

the land provided any agreement for such purchase was entered into as a matter of

urgency.

8.  The finance subcommittee resolved to put a recommendation to the

committee that it sell to the Council and it was primarily for the purpose of

considering this recommendation that the meeting of 2 June was called.

9.  At the meeting there was a full debate as to whether a sale to the Council

should be entered into. It is abundantly clear at that time that there were no

obligations arising in respect of the parties and further, the entire issue as to

whether to sell the paddock or not was debated at the meeting. If the committee

had decided not to proceed then that would have been an end to the matter. The

record reflects and it is the case that the majority approved the sale and this

became the resolution of the committee.

10. There can be absolutely no justification for the assertion that the land

was sold without the knowledge or approval of those committee members who

spoke against the resolution.

While waiting for the Club's response to its request for confirmation that the minutes

were accurate, the Authority received a letter from TVNZ dated 8 October 1991 in

which it advised that the dissatisfied members interviewed on the Holmes programme

reiterated their point that no minutes had been taken at the 2 June meeting and that the

minutes presented to the Authority were not a true representation of the meeting's

events.