BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A report about the Ngai Tahu settlement with the Crown was the subject of Focus on

Politics broadcast on Radio New Zealand's National Radio on 24 August 1997.

Several people, representing different viewpoints, were interviewed on the

programme.

Mr Barr complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme

lacked balance, was not fair or accurate, and that it portrayed environmentalists as

inherently inferior and racist.

After attempts to resolve the matter informally, RNZ responded on a formal basis.

First, it upheld the complaint regarding a lack of balance in the discussion of the use of

conservation land under the Ngai Tahu settlement. However, it declined to uphold the

complaint that some statements were inaccurate, on the basis that they were the

genuine views of those spoken to on the programme. It argued that those inaccuracies

would have been dealt with had the programme contained a balance of views. Since it

had acknowledged that there was a lack of balance, it considered the matter had been

dealt with.

Dissatisfied with that response, Mr Barr referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

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

action taken was not sufficient.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about

and have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this

occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Chairperson declared a conflict of interest and declined to participate in the

deliberations.

Focus on Politics, which was broadcast on RNZ's National Programme on 24 August

1997, reported that concerns were felt by some conservationists about the Ngai Tahu

settlement with the Crown. Those interviewed included the Treaty Negotiations

Minister, Hon Doug Graham; the Chief Negotiator for Ngai Tahu, Sir Tipene

O'Regan; the Conservation Minister, Hon Nick Smith; Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta;

and the Chief Executive of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Chris Laidlaw.

Mr Barr complained that the programme lacked balance, was neither fair nor accurate,

and that it portrayed some environmentalists in a manner which made them appear

inherently inferior, and discriminated against them. He described the programme as

"an awful bit of pro Ngai Tahu and pro Govt propaganda."

RNZ acknowledged that by failing to represent the view of those opposed to the

inclusion of conservation land in the Ngai Tahu settlement, the item was unbalanced.

It therefore upheld that aspect of the complaint and advised that it had taken steps to

ensure the problem did not reoccur. RNZ noted that later items on the issue included

the point of view of conservationists.

With respect to the complaint that the item contained material which was inaccurate

and unfair, RNZ responded that had it been balanced by the inclusion of an

appropriate participant, there would have been no breach of those standards. It

emphasised that there was no inaccuracy or unfairness beyond that which was

inherent in a programme lacking balance. It accordingly declined to uphold these

aspects.

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

dissatisfaction with RNZ's response, and in particular to its failure to respond to his

complaint about the portrayal of environmentalists as inherently inferior.

Mr Barr contended that standards R1, R5, R7, R9, R12, R13, R14 and R21 in the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice were breached by the broadcast. Standards R1,

R5, R7, R9, R12, R13 and R14 require broadcasters:

R1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

programmes.

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

any programme.

R7  To respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha in

New Zealand society in actively seeking a balanced contribution and

views on matters relating to that partnership.

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.

R12 T o correct factual errors speedily and with similar prominence to the

offending broadcast or broadcasts.

R13  To act speedily and responsibly in the event of a complaint and when

an accusation of unfairness is found to be correct, to provide an

appropriate redress as early as possible after the original broadcast.

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.

The other standard reads:

R21  It shall be the responsibility of each station to be fair in the allocation

of time to interested parties in controversial public issues. In exercising

this responsibility a station will take into account the news value of the

viewpoints offered and previous allotment of air time.

Upon examination of the item – for which a transcript was provided – the Authority

notes that those who were invited to contribute represented the viewpoints of the

signatories to the agreement. They included the Ministers of Conservation and Treaty

Negotiations, as well as the Chief Negotiator for Ngai Tahu. Reference to a

comparable settlement reached with the Crown by Tainui elicited some comments

about the concept of co-management from a Labour MP who is the daughter of the

Chief Negotiator for Tainui.

According to Mr Barr, there were two controversial aspects. One was the

programme's failure to canvass the views of those opposed to the use of conservation

land in the settlement, and the second was the manner in which environmentalists

were portrayed. In particular, he objected to the suggestion, put by the Minister of

Conservation and echoed by the Chief Executive of the Worldwide Fund for Nature,

that those who were opposed to Ngai Tahu gaining special interests in the

conservation estate exhibited an "order of eco-racism" by assuming that only

government or environmental groups were capable of protecting that land.

As RNZ pointed out, the views expressed were clearly those of the speakers

themselves. However it did acknowledge that because there was no opportunity for

environmentalists to explain their reasons for being opposed to the terms of the

settlement, the programme lacked balance. Having upheld that aspect of the

complaint, RNZ subsumed the other matters, arguing that had the programme been

balanced, there would have been no other possible breaches of standards.

The Authority agrees with RNZ that had the programme been balanced, it would have

provided an opportunity for a representative of environmental groups to respond to

the Minister's comments and give their views on the stewardship of the conservation

estate. It notes that it was Mr Barr's specific concern that environmentalists were

unfairly treated. Their views should have been included and in addition, they should

have been given an opportunity to rebut the accusation made by the Minister of

Conservation that they exhibited an order of "eco-racism".

Overall, the Authority concludes that the action taken by RNZ in upholding the

balance aspect of the complaint was appropriate. RNZ acknowledged that the item

was deficient in not providing a voice to represent those who were opposed to the use

of conservation land in the Ngai Tahu settlement, and offered an assurance that it had

taken steps to ensure there was no repeat of the problem. The Authority accepts

RNZ's assurance that such action was taken. Accordingly it declines to uphold the

complaint.

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

that the action taken was not sufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
26 February 1998

Appendix

Hugh Barr's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 19 September 1997

Mr Barr of Wellington complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the programme

Focus on Politics broadcast on 24 August 1997 at 9.45am. He considered, he said,

that the programme lacked balance, that it was neither fair nor accurate, and that it

portrayed some environmentalists in a manner which made them appear inherently

inferior and discriminated against them.

He cited some specific examples of standards breaches. First he alleged that none of

the people involved in the programme represented the views of those opposed to the

use of conservation land in the Ngai Tahu settlement. He considered the Minister's

claim that some lands were improperly or illegally taken was neither fair nor accurate

and that by his statement he distorted the facts to justify his government's decisions.

Mr Barr complained that the presenter was incorrect in stating that "the only

conservation land going to Ngai Tahu is 680 hectares." This was not what the

government had said, he argued. He listed several other public conservation lands

which the government was giving Ngai Tahu rights over.

Mr Barr considered that the position of the Green lobbies had been misrepresented,

and argued that both Ngai Tahu and the government had an interest in misrepresenting

the position for their own gain. He argued that all Maori had privileged rights of

consultation under the Resource Management Act, and objected to Mr O'Regan's

contrary claim that they were excluded from various RMA processes. Referrring to

the comment by the presenter that Tainui got one seat on the Waikato conservation

board for not claiming conservation land, Mr Barr noted that Ngai Tahu got two seats

on five of the seven conservation boards in the South Island and one seat on the other

two. He added:

The $170 million cap on the settlement doesn't include the conservation

concessions that Ngai Tahu get. The conservation estate is a cheap way for

Govt to top up the Ngai Tahu claim without costing it financial assets. But

these commercial rights are at the expense of other New Zealanders. Its

privatisation of those rights to Ngai Tahu. This side of the issue should have

been canvassed as should co-management and Topuni.

Finally, Mr Barr complained about comments criticising environmentalists. He

claimed that two government ministers had misrepresented opponents of Maori

privatisation as racist. He pointed out that the Green lobbies' views would have been

the same no matter who the government was negotiating with. He concluded by

describing the programme as "an awful bit of pro Ngai Tahu and pro Govt

propaganda".

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 October 1997

RNZ noted first its appreciation to Mr Barr for trying to resolve the complaint in an

informal way. It observed that he had now requested it be dealt with on a formal

basis. Its response dealt first with the matter of balance. RNZ acknowledged that a

voice representing the point of view of those opposed to the use of conservation land

in the Ngai Tahu settlement should have been included in the programme. It therefore

upheld this aspect of the complaint. It advised that it had already taken action on this

matter, counselling staff involved and attempting to ensure that there was no repeat of

the problem.

With respect to the complaint that the programme was not fair and accurate, RNZ

responded that the alleged inaccuracies were sourced to newsmakers rather than being

statements made by RNZ. It wrote:

These points illustrate the reason why we have upheld the complaint about

lack of balance, but are not themselves evidence of inaccuracy or unfairness

beyond the unfairness inherent in a programme lacking balance. On these

points then, in the formal sense, the complaints are recommended to be NOT

UPHELD.

Mr Barr's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 October 1997

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

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

He argued that RNZ did not seek a balanced contribution and views on the Maori-

pakeha partnership from environmentalists, did not correct errors speedily, did not act

responsibly when it found the complaint was justified, and portrayed some

environmentalists as eco-racists. He was dissatisfied that these matters were not dealt

with in RNZ's response.

Mr Barr noted that he had had informal discussions with senior staff at RNZ, who

had acknowledged that the programme lacked balance. However, he complained, the

written response to his formal complaint did not uphold the fairness and accuracy

aspects, nor did it address the complaint that environmentalists were portrayed as

inherently inferior and racist. In Mr Barr's view, RNZ's response was inadequate.

He concluded by stating that although RNZ upheld the complaint that the programme

lacked balance, it did not take adequate action. He repeated his complaint that the

programme was not truthful and accurate, that it did not deal fairly with some

environmentalists and that it did not seek a balanced contribution on the views of the

Maori-pakeha partnership from environmentalists. Finally, he contended, the

programme did not allocate any time to the other side of the issue.

Mr Barr enclosed a transcript of the programme.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 5 December 1997

First, RNZ summarised the background to the resolution of the complaint, noting that

informal discussions had been held with Mr Barr. It noted that the complaint about

lack of balance was upheld. Turning to the complaint about lack of accuracy, RNZ

emphasised that the points made were clearly attributed to their sources, and

considered that there was no inaccuracy on the part of RNZ.

RNZ pointed out that it had continued to provide coverage of the points of view to

which Mr Barr directed his attention. As an example, it provided the transcript of the

item when the Ngai Tahu settlement was announced. RNZ concluded:

The Company has little more it would wish to add to its initial response to Mr

Barr, with whom, as noted, quite extensive discussions took place. However,

it does consider that the "facts" alluded to in the complaint could be more

accurately described as points of interpretation, criticism and argument; and

therefore better dealt with under the general balance provisions, as the

Company has done.

Mr Barr's Final Comment – 19 December 1997

Mr Barr repeated that his concerns with the programme were that a one-sided

programme was broadcast, in which racially based smears were made, and the other

side of the argument was not put.

According to Mr Barr, an interview recorded later when the Ngai Tahu settlement was

announced, and which was cited by RNZ as an ongoing step to balance, did not

restore balance to the original item. He expressed his concern that the programme

was:

. . . an uncritical serving up of Government and Ngai Tahu propaganda, some of

it factually inaccurate, and with abuse of those who did not agree and were not

on the programme, but no right of reply.

In Mr Barr's view, the state broadcaster should be held accountable to higher

standards and should not just be part of the Government's propaganda machine.