BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

During a discussion about the fate of goats shot by the Department of Conservation, the

host on Radio Pacific's breakfast programme (John Banks) urged listeners to dump the

carcases at the Department's offices in Wanganui and at the home of the Conservator.

The broadcast was on 1 October 1997 between 7.00–7.30am.

The Conservator of the Department of Conservation's Wanganui Region (W F Carlin)

complained to Radio Pacific Ltd on his own behalf and on behalf of the Department that

the broadcast contained inaccuracies, lacked good taste, failed to deal with him fairly, did

not respect the principles of law, lacked balance and explained the technique of a crime

in a manner which invited imitation. He said he considered it inappropriate for the

station to encourage people to break the law.

Radio Pacific acknowledged that the host had taken a strong position on the issue but

did not consider that it had breached the Conservator's rights or any broadcasting

standards. It considered the stance taken both by the host and his guest fell within the

robust nature of talkback radio. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with

that decision, Mr Carlin referred the complaints on his own and the Department's behalf

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaints that standards R5 and

R9 were breached.

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). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

A guest opposed to the Department of Conservation's goat cull in the Wanganui area

discussed the issues with Radio Pacific's talkback host (John Banks MP) in a broadcast

on 1 October 1997 between 7.00–7.30am. The host suggested to his guest that he, and

others opposed to the goat cull, continue to dump goat carcases at the Department's

offices in Wanganui, and in addition he suggested they also dump them at the home of

the Conservator.

Mr Carlin, Conservator of the Wanganui Conservancy of the Department of

Conservation (DOC), complained on his own behalf and on behalf of the department

about the broadcast. He complained that it contained inaccuracies, did not comply with

the good taste standard, failed to deal with him fairly, lacked balance and did not respect

the principles of law. He observed that it was an offence under the Litter Act to deposit

litter in a public place or on private land without the consent of the occupier and that it

was also an offence to counsel a person to commit an offence. Mr Carlin argued that it

was clear that the host counselled his guest to commit an offence when he encouraged

him – and listeners – to dump goat carcases at the DOC office, and at Mr Carlin's home.

Mr Carlin complained that it was inaccurate and untruthful to state that goats had been

dumped on Maori land, pointing out that the goats were in fact shot on land

administered by DOC, and not Maori land. He objected to the item's failure to put the

goat carcase issue into a proper context, and argued that from that perspective, the item

lacked balance. He considered that the language used by the host clearly demonstrated

an absence of impartiality. Mr Carlin requested that the host be asked to apologise both

to him and to DOC and that a more balanced item be broadcast.

Radio Pacific acknowledged that the host had taken a strong position on the issue. In its

view, there was no infringement of broadcasting standards, since the stance taken both

by the host and his guest fell within the robust nature of talkback radio. It assessed the

complaint under the standards cited. They require broadcasters:

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

           programmes.

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.

R6  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

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.

The other standard reads:

R23  Care should be taken in broadcasting items which explain the technique of

crime in a manner which invites imitation.

Radio Pacific noted that the broadcast referred to the killing of goats by DOC, but

emphasised that it did not mention Mr Carlin personally or refer to his position as

Conservator.

Dealing first with the complaint about inaccuracies, Radio Pacific pointed out that the

references to Maori land were made by the guest, and relied upon by the host. It

suggested that the issue was not so much where the goats were shot, but the fact that

they were shot at all, and that their carcases had been floating in the river. It declined to

uphold the accuracy complaint.

With respect to standard R2, Radio Pacific countered that this was not an issue relating

to good taste and decency.

Turning to standard R5, Radio Pacific responded that the criticism was directed at the

policy of the department, and there was no reference to Mr Carlin by name. It

emphasised that it was his position, and the department's policy, which were at issue,

and maintained that the criticism fell within the realm of legitimate public comment. It

argued that DOC must expect there to be strong comments and criticisms when

controversial issues arose.

Radio Pacific considered that the stance adopted by the host and his guest was similar to

the Kaimanawa horses issue in that there was strong opposition to DOC's policy. It

did not consider standard R6 was breached.

Next, Radio Pacific dealt with standard R9, which requires broadcasters to present

balanced programmes. It argued that its hosts were encouraged to have strong opinions

on various subjects, and maintained that balance could be achieved either by other

interviews, by comment from callers, or by employing a range of hosts with a variety of

opinions.

Finally, it dealt with the complaint that listeners were encouraged to commit a crime. In

Radio Pacific's view, that standard did not apply. It argued that the standard was

written with particular criminal activities in mind, and not the type of issue being dealt

with in the item.

The Authority turns first to the allegation that the interchange contained inaccuracies.

Specifically, Mr Carlin argued that it was inaccurate for the host to say that the goats

were dumped on Maori land. Turning to the transcript, the Authority notes that the

host apparently relied on information given by his guest, which implied that the goats

had been shot on Maori land and left dumped there. The Authority acknowledges that,

strictly speaking, this was not an accurate account of what occurred. The guest later

clarified the matter by stating that the carcases were dumped on Maori land as well as

on some beaches, having been washed down rivers. He emphasised that the carcases

were found on Maori land, even if the goats had been shot elsewhere. Although the

Authority does not uphold this aspect of the complaint, it takes it into account when it

assesses the complaint that the comments were unfair to Mr Carlin and to the

department.

Next, the Authority deals with the complaint that the host encouraged people to

continue dumping goat carcases at DOC's offices, and suggested that they also dump

them at the home of the person in charge of DOC in the area (Mr Carlin). In the

Authority's view, it was unfair for the host to encourage people to target Mr Carlin in

his personal capacity, at home, when the goat cull was an activity carried out in

accordance with the objectives of the department. Radio Pacific pointed out that Mr

Carlin was not named. However, there was a reference to "the goat that runs the

Department of Conservation in Wanganui". The Authority accepts that Mr Carlin's

identity as Conservator would have been known to a large number of people in

Wanganui and it would be straightforward to obtain his address from the telephone

directory. It therefore upholds the complaint that standard R5 was breached.

It then deals with the complaint that the item encouraged people to break the law,

thereby attracting the provisions of standard R6. The Authority notes that dumping

litter is an offence and, taken literally, the comments on the programme could be

interpreted as encouraging people to engage in illegal activities. However, the Authority

considers there was an element of hyperbole here and that the average listener would not

have taken the remarks seriously. It is not prepared to uphold a breach of standard R6.

The Authority then turns to the complaint that the item lacked balance by not eliciting

DOC's perspective on the goat cull. In his complaint, Mr Carlin maintained that the

language used by the host clearly demonstrated partiality in the way he described the

department, its employees and the hunting methods used. In his view, some

inaccuracies also contributed to the negative message conveyed.

First, the Authority finds that the issue was a controversial one falling with the ambit of

standard R9.

Next, it notes that the host had strong views about the goat cull, which were aligned

with those of his guest. It is also aware that the host's animal welfare stance is familiar

to his audience, as is his debating style. However it considers that when both the guest

and the host take a particular view on questions of a controversial nature, then, in the

interests of fairness, there may be an obligation to seek participation from those holding

another view. It notes that Radio Pacific claimed that balance would have been achieved

in other broadcasts, or by the contribution of listeners calling in. However, when asked

for details, it was unable to provide any evidence to show that this occurred. Radio

Pacific's counsel complained that there was a problem because the request for

information required recollection of events occurring more than five months ago on a

topic which was not a major event. This response rather overlooks the fact that it was

Radio Pacific which sought to rely on this possibility as providing balance. Where a

broadcaster does so, the Authority will expect it to be able to provide details.

The Authority further observes that this was not a case where the availability of open

lines would have provided a sufficient answer, and that more was required to meet the

standard. It considers that that DOC should have been given the opportunity to explain

the reasons for the goat cull and the manner in which it was being carried out, and to

respond to the criticism that rotting carcases were being left on Maori land and were

floating down the rivers to the beaches. The Authority concludes that the item was

unfair and lacked balance and objectivity because it presented only one viewpoint. It

upholds the complaint that standard R9 was breached.

Finally, the Authority deals with the complaint that standard R23 was breached because

the item explained the technique of crime in a manner which invites imitation. The

Authority concludes that the standard is not relevant to the facts, and observes that it

was intended to apply to situations where serious criminal acts are dealt with.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaints that an

item broadcast on Radio Pacific Ltd on 1 October 1997 about 7.15am breached

standards R5 and R9 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. It decides on this occasion that no order is required.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling

Chairperson

23 April 1998

Appendix

Department of Conservation (Wanganui Conservancy)'s Complaint to Radio

Pacific Ltd – 3 October 1997

The Conservator of the Wanganui Conservancy of the Department of Conservation (W

F Carlin) complained to Radio Pacific Ltd about a broadcast on 1 October 1997 between

7.00-7.30am. The host (John Banks MP) and his invited guest (Ken Mair) discussed

the Department's recent goat cull in the Wanganui area. Applauding protest action by

Mr Mair, the host suggested to his guest that he should pick up the rotting carcases and

deliver them to the Department's office in Wanganui. He also suggested that some of

the carcases should be deposited at the home of the local Conservator.

Mr Carlin complained that the broadcast breached several broadcasting standards. He

considered that the item was not truthful or accurate because it stated that goats had

been dumped on Maori land. In fact, he reported, the goats were shot on land

administered by the Department, not Maori land. Mr Carlin argued that the host had

clearly counselled his guest to commit an offence by depositing the carcases. He

pointed out that it was an offence to deposit litter in a public place under the Litter Act

and that it was an offence under the Crimes Act to incite or counsel a person to commit

an offence. He further argued that by encouraging people to dump the carcases on his

doorstep, the host had infringed his rights and those of his family, and had caused them

great distress.

In Mr Carlin's view, no attempt had been made to put the issue in proper context and

therefore the item had lacked balance. He considered, he said, that the language used by

the host clearly demonstrated a lack of impartiality. In addition, he noted, the

Department was not the only land manager in the catchment which shot large numbers

of goats. Further, some of the carcases noted in the river recently had been sheep and

cattle.

Mr Carlin said he considered it inappropriate for the station to broadcast an item which

encouraged people to break the law. He requested that the host be required to retract his

comments, to apologise to the Department and to him for the distress caused, and that a

more balanced item be broadcast.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 November 1997

Radio Pacific noted that the broadcast referred to the killing of goats by the Department

and that there was no mention of Mr Carlin personally, or of his position as

Conservator. It observed that the references to Maori land were raised by Ken Mair and

also referred to the areas where the carcases were floating.

Radio Pacific acknowledged that its host had taken a strong position on the issue. In its

opinion, it wrote, there was no infringement of Mr Carlin's rights, and it maintained that

the item and the stance taken by the host and his guest fell within the robust nature of

talkback radio.

Responding to the particular points raised, Radio Pacific commented:

1. The reference to Maori land was raised by the guest, and relied upon by the

host. The issue of the item was not so much the land where the goats were shot

but the fact that they were shot at all and their carcases left to float in the river.

2. This was not an issue of good taste and decency.

3. The focus of the discussion was the policy of the Department and was not

personal. Therefore, standard R5 did not apply.

4. There was no breach of standard R6. The stance adopted by Ken Mair and the

host was similar to that with the Kaimanawa horses, as there was strong

opposition to the Department's policy.

5. The issue of balance, fairness and impartiality did not relate to one host. Hosts

were encouraged to have strong opinions on various subjects and balance on

talkback radio could be achieved by having other interviews, comments from

callers, and employing a range of hosts with different opinions.

6. Standard R23 did not apply. It was developed with particular criminal activities

in mind, not the type of issues being dealt with here.

Radio Pacific advised that the complaint was not upheld.

Department of Conservation's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

– 17 November 1997

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's response, the Department referred its complaint to the

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

It repeated that the broadcast failed to maintain programme standards.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Authority – 16 December 1997

Radio Pacific advised that its response was set out in its earlier letter. It added that in

its view the issue being discussed was a matter of public interest. The official concerned

was not named, but he did hold a public position. In Radio Pacific's view, the issue fell

within the realm of legitimate public comment. It considered the Department of

Conservation must expect there to be strong comments and opinions when controversial

issues arose. It pointed out that Mr Carlin was not targeted personally, but in his role

as a manager within the Department.

Department of Conservation's Final Comment – 13 January 1998

The Department repeated its contention that the broadcast breached the Codes of

Practice. In particular, it objected to the host advising his guest to continue his illegal

activity, which was a crime under the Litter Act, and to extend the protest action to Mr

Carlin's private home.

It did not consider, it wrote, that legitimate disagreement with government policy could

include inciting people to break the law. The suggestion to leave carcases at Mr Carlin's

home was made by the host, and caused his family considerable fear and anxiety. Mr

Carlin said that he strongly disagreed with Radio Pacific that he was not targeted

personally. He noted that he was well known in Wanganui as the Manager of the

Department of Conservation, and expressed concern that the broadcast set a bad

precedent for extortion and threats against other public officials.

Further Correspondence

In response to a request from the Authority regarding Radio Pacific's claim that balance

would have been achieved by other callers at the time, the station responded, in a letter

dated 16 March that it had made inquiries of producers and talk hosts concerning other

interviews or callers who may have expressed an opinion on this topic. It advised that

some had a recollection of the issue being discussed, but that it was difficult to recollect

when the topic was raised some five months ago, and was not a major event.