BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The end to a six month freeze on state rental housing was the subject of an item on 3

Network News broadcast at 6.00pm on 30 June 1997. The item focussed on a protest

rally complaining about rent increases due to come into force the next day. In the

item, both the Minister of Housing, Hon. Murray McCully, and the leader of the

Opposition, Helen Clark MP, were given an opportunity to comment.

Mr McCully complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the item

failed to deal justly and fairly with him by not offering him an opportunity to balance

comments made on the item by a tenant named "Tina". Further he alleged that the

item was unbalanced in presenting only "Tina's" side.

TV3 considered that the item succeeded in providing a balanced story in the time

allotted to it. It did not believe that it was necessary to allow the Minister or any

other person the opportunity to provide a rebuttal on every detail of a story –

provided the overall story was balanced and fair. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, the Minister 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). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The removal of a six month rent freeze on state houses was the subject of an item on 3

National News. Footage of a protest was shown, and comments from the Minister,

the Leader of the Opposition, and Deputy Leader of the Alliance were broadcast. The

item concluded with comments from a state house tenant identified as "Tina" who

expressed her concern at the extra expense which would be involved for her.

The Minister complained that the item was unfair to him, was unbalanced, and failed

to present adequately the government's side of the case as to the removal of the rent

freeze. Specifically, he pointed out that he was not given the opportunity to respond

to "Tina". In addition, he said the "crucial defect" in the item was focussing on Tina's

affordability claims without dealing with the income support which she would have

been receiving. A reference to the accommodation supplement, he wrote, was

essential to achieve balance.

TV3 assessed the complaint under the standards nominated by the Minister. The first

two require broadcasters:

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.

The third one reads:

G20  No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present

all sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by judging

every case on its merits.

TV3 maintained that the item was balanced. The introduction had included the

following:

Opposition MPs claim increases (in state house rentals) will force some families

on to the streets. But an angry Housing Minister disagrees. Murray McCully

says the true picture is being distorted.

Later the reporter commented:

But the Housing Minister accuses political opponents of outrageous

misrepresentation. He says only 10,000 of the 280,000 New Zealanders getting

an accommodation supplement will be worse off.

These comments, TV3 maintained, effectively called into question the claims made by

the government's opponents. Moreover, the Minister's statement addressed housing

policy when he said:

I think it's unfortunate that some people need some help, they've actually been

treated as a political football, but what they really need is some help from the

Government.

TV3 said that most of the opponents spoke in general terms and none of the speakers'

comments, including those of the Minister or Ms Clark, were linked to "Tina's"

specific remarks.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, the Minister repeated his concerns

expressed earlier, and focussed on the aspect that "Tina" was not asked about the

accommodation supplement. Subsequent work by his staff suggested that her

entitlement could well have increased by at least $25 per week. Without a privacy

waiver, the Minister considered that he had been unable to deal with the issue in a

way which complied with the standards. Journalists were required to ensure that an

item was fair and balanced and thus, he argued, obtaining a Privacy Act waiver was

not unreasonable.

The Authority refers to a recent decision (No: 1997-125, 25 September 1997) where it

declined to uphold a complaint from the Minister of Housing about an item on One

Network News. He claimed that the item on that occasion did not treat him fairly and

was unbalanced as he had not been given the opportunity to comment on the specifics

of the case used in the item. The case had been used to illustrate problems faced by

one elderly couple who were concerned at the effects on them of the reintroduction by

Housing New Zealand of market rents.

That item included comment from the elderly couple, comment by the Labour Party

spokesperson on Housing, and comment from the Minister as the general issues. It

was accepted that the Minister did not address the concerns of the particular couple

who were at the centre of the item. The Authority wrote in its determination of that

complaint:

The Authority sees the essence of the complaint as being whether it was fair to

Mr McCully that he was not given an opportunity to confront the personal

testimony of the aggrieved Housing Corporation tenants. It deals first with the

complaint that standard G4, the standard relating to dealing fairly and justly

with a person, was breached. It concludes that notwithstanding his claimed

inability to comment specifically on the couple's situation, he was in a position

to make a general statement clarifying policy as it might impact on people in

such a position. He did not do so. Mr McCully also contends that he was not

told the couple would be included in the item. But even if the situation was as

Mr McCully claimed, the Authority would not be persuaded the standard had

been breached.

With respect to the complaints under G6 and G20, the standards relating to

balance, the Authority acknowledges that some effort was made to obtain

balancing comments from the Minister, despite an apparent misunderstanding in

the information conveyed to him. It observes also that the general information

at the end of the item, relating to increased funds for helping the needy, and for

accommodation supplements, addressed the need for balance in general terms,

albeit less specifically than would have been desirable. Accordingly, it does not

uphold those aspects of the complaint.

On this occasion, the Minister again was unable to comment specifically on "Tina's"

situation, but he did make a general statement about the widespread use of the

accommodation supplement. In the Authority's opinion, and in contrast to the earlier

decision, the statement was made in reasonably specific terms in that it referred, as did

"Tina", to the reintroduction of market rentals.

Indeed, the Authority notes, the reintroduction of market rentals was the issue

addressed in the item. There were comments both in support and in opposition to the

policy from a range of speakers. Some of the concerns felt by a specific tenant,

"Tina", were used to illustrate the broad issues. As the item dealt with the broad

issue in a general way, the Authority does not accept that standards G6 and G20 were

breached. Moreover, the Authority does not consider that the fairness standard, in

the circumstances of this case, required that the Minister be given an opportunity to

reply specifically to the tenant. Her case was advanced as an example of the concern

felt by some tenants, not as a central point in the debate, it concludes. Accordingly,

the Authority decides that the fairness requirement in standard G4 was not

contravened.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27 November 1997

Appendix

The Minister of Housing's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 24 July 1997

Hon Murray McCully, Minister of Housing, complained to TV3 Network Services

Ltd about an item on 3 National News broadcast on 30 June 1997 at 6.00pm.

The Minister believed that TV3 had breached standards G4, G6, and G20 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. His complaint was based on the following:

_ As a person representing one of the sides in the news item, he was not given an

opportunity to provide balancing comment on the financial circumstances of

"Tina", a state house tenant interviewed, and therefore TV3 failed to deal justly

and fairly with him.

_ Standards of balance, fairness and impartiality were breached by TV3 allowing only

one side of the story on "Tina", in not allowing him to comment on "Tina", and in

broadcasting comments by Hon Helen Clark MP about "Tina" without any

opportunity for him to respond.

_ All significant sides in the story were not presented, as "Tina's" case was used to

convey the impression of hardship caused by Housing New Zealand rent reviews,

without a balancing examination of how the tenants' income support entitlements

might alter the picture.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 7 August 1997

TV3 considered the complaint under the standards nominated by the Minister. It

advised:

... the item succeeded in providing a balanced story in the limited time allotted

to it. In the introduction by the studio presenter it contained the words "...

opposition MP's claim increases (in state rentals) will force some families on

to the streets. But an angry Housing Minister disagrees. Murray McCully

says the true picture is being distorted."

Later in the item the reporter stated, "But the Housing Minister accuses

political opponents of outrageous misrepresentation. He says only 10,000 of

the 280,000 New Zealanders getting an accommodation supplement will be

worse off".

TV3 considered that these remarks in the item called into question the claims made by

political opponents of the Government about the tough conditions faced by some

state house tenants. TV3 also referred to the Minister's comment on the programme

which it considered presented the Government as caring and taking its responsibilities

seriously.

In TV3's view, it was unnecessary for the Minister or anyone else to provide rebuttal

on every detail of a story - provided the overall story was balanced and fair. It did not

consider that detailed response by the Minister to "Tina's" case was practical given

time constraints on the programme. Further, TV3 did not accept that critical

comments made by Helen Clark were specifically related to "Tina".

It declined to uphold the complaint.

The Minister's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 3

September 1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, the Minister referred his complaint to the

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

The Minister reiterated the points he had made to TV3, and explored in some depth

the reasons why he considered it was necessary in every case, when a person who

was interviewed disclosed some personal financial information, for TV3 to obtain a

waiver of privacy in respect of other financial information. The points related to his

inability to obtain or make known information without a person's consent. He stated:

It is the task of journalists to ensure a story is fair and balanced, so they must

be prepared to do what is necessary to obtain all and not just some of the

necessary facts. In my view, having a person sign a Privacy waiver is not an

unreasonable step.

The Minister also stated that while he had considered that the item may have had

adequate balance prior to the introduction of "Tina", if TV3 considered Helen Clark's

comment as separate from the "Tina" argument then he considered the whole item to

be unbalanced.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 18 September 1997

TV3 advised that it had nothing further to add, except in relation to Mr McCully's

assertion that he was not asked for his comments on "Tina", when it wrote:

The Minister's remark suggests that TV3 had an ulterior motive for the way in

which the interview with him was conducted. The TV3 Standards Committee

is confident that was not the case. At worst there was a lack of

communication between the two reporters working on the story - one in

Auckland interviewing Tina, another in Wellington speaking to the Minister.

The Minister's Final Comment to The Authority - 25 September 1997

The Minister asked the Authority to note the following points:

_ By deciding to include "Tina" in the news item, TV3 immediately incurred an

obligation to balance her affordability concerns with details of the Government

income support assistance available to her.

_ He considered that there were cases where further research was needed by

reporters before an item could be aired, to meet the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice standards of fairness and balance.

_ TV3's refusal to provide an analysis of "Tina's" true financial situation meant that

the details about her were inaccurate, being based on income support models.

_ TV3 deliberately chose to make assertions about "Tina" entitlements, which

required balancing comment. An opportunity to provide that comment was denied

to him.