BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Kim Hill, as spokesperson for Radio New Zealand staff, was interviewed on the Tonight programme on TV One on 16 June 1999 at 10.10pm. The discussion focused on a paper prepared by a member of the RNZ Board which proposed that its News and Current Affairs services could be contracted out.

Mr Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast both of the item, and the trailers which promoted it, breached broadcasting standards. In particular, he objected to Ms Hill, as a public sector employee, questioning the appointment of the Board member who had made the proposal. Mr Boyce also expressed concern that she had been interviewed at her home when the matters she was discussing were related to her work.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it was satisfied that Ms Hill’s comments were appropriately balanced by responses from the Board’s Chairman. It maintained that as spokesperson for an employee group she was perfectly entitled to speak on behalf of RNZ staff. In its view, the staff had a right to declare publicly their view that the Board was treating them with contempt. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Boyce 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 determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

A news item on Tonight, broadcast on TV One on 16 June 1999 beginning at 10.10pm, dealt with concerns expressed by RNZ staff about a Board member’s proposal to contract out news and current affairs services. Spokesperson for RNZ staff, Kim Hill, was critical of the Board member’s action, and questioned why he had been appointed to the Board.

Mr Boyce complained to TVNZ that he had concerns about the issues of impartiality and integrity of the item, particularly in relation to the footage of Ms Hill and her criticism of the Board member. In his view, her comments were inappropriate, given that she was an employee in the public sector. He also argued that it was clearly inappropriate for a staff member to question a Board appointment, and noted that there were appropriate channels for this type of question to be dealt with.

Further, Mr Boyce contended that it was unusual that the filming had been done at her private residence, particularly as she had been discussing work-related matters. As a final point he noted that Ms Hill’s own radio programme was not affected by the proposals, and suggested that she was clearly using her celebrity status to affect public opinion.

TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards G6 and G15 which were nominated by the complainant. Standard G6 requires broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

The other standard reads:

G15  The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be kept under constant review.

TVNZ began by expressing some mystification as to the nature of the complaint, suggesting that some of Mr Boyce’s comments concerned matters between RNZ and its employees rather than having a direct bearing on the television story.

In considering standard G15, it stated that it was unsure which source of information for the story was being challenged on its integrity. It said that it was satisfied that Ms Hill was speaking in her capacity as an elected staff representative, that Mr Isles was speaking as the Chair of the Board, and that Labour leader Helen Clark was properly recognised as the source of the discussion paper which prompted criticism by RNZ staff. It contended that the reliability and integrity of these information sources were not, in its view, placed at risk.

As for the complaint that it was unusual for the interview to have been conducted in a private residence, TVNZ disagreed. It said interviews were conducted wherever the interviewee might be.

Similarly, it continued, it did not understand why Mr Boyce asserted that it was inappropriate for a staff member to question a Board appointment. It said it saw no reason why Ms Hill, elected by her staff colleagues, should not be allowed to voice concerns and criticisms on behalf of RNZ employees. In TVNZ’s view, the staff of RNZ had every right to voice concerns about a discussion paper relating to its news and current affairs services, and to express their view that the Board was treating staff members with contempt.

To the suggestion that Ms Hill was exploiting her celebrity status to affect public opinion, TVNZ repeated the point that Ms Hill was the elected representative of the staff and as such was speaking on their behalf. It declined to uphold the complaint.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Boyce argued that it was already public knowledge that RNZ staff had made Ms Hill their spokesperson because her employment contract, unlike the general staff contracts, did not preclude her from making public comment. He suggested that standard G15 could be invoked on the basis that TVNZ had been prepared to permit Ms Hill to comment from the perspective of all RNZ staff, even though their collective employment contracts precluded it. In his view, Ms Hill’s separate contract only gave her the capacity to comment as an individual.

Mr Boyce contended that TVNZ was required, under standard G6, to make it clear that Ms Hill’s individual contract permitted her to criticise the RNZ Board, and noted that other media had made that clear.

In its brief response, TVNZ said that it considered the complaint had more to do with Ms Hill’s relationship with her employer than with the item broadcast. The fact remained, it continued, that she spoke to Tonight as the nominated spokesperson for RNZ.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority does not consider that this complaint raises a matter of broadcasting standards. The issue of Ms Hill’s contract and its content is entirely a matter between her and her employer. It therefore declines to determine the complaints.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to determine the complaints under s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
16 September 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered when the Authority determined this complaint:

1.    Simon Boyce’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 18 June 1999

2.    TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 13 July 1999

3.    Mr Boyce’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 28 July 1999

4.    TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 11 August 1999