BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"Sisters", a booklet publicised by the YWCA, was discussed on 12 October 1995 in a

Morning Report item involving interviews with Margaret Austin MP and Bridget Inder

of the YWCA. Morning Report is broadcast by New Zealand Public Radio between

6.00–9.00am each weekday morning.

Canon Hadlow complained to New Zealand Public Radio Ltd that Mrs Austin was

treated with disdain and the reference in the interview to her as an "older woman" was

offensive and unfair.

In an informal response, NZPR declined to uphold the complaint as, it said, a legitimate

question had been asked courteously. It then failed to respond to Mr Hadlow's formal

complaint. Dissatisfied that NZPR had not responded to the formal complaint within 60

working days, Mr Hadlow referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Apologising for the oversight, NZPR again

declined to uphold the substance of the complaint for the same reason. Dissatisfied with

that response, Mr Hadlow then referred the complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a)

of the Act.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on Morning Report on 12 October dealt with the controversy surrounding the

publication by the YWCA of "Sisters" – a booklet designed to give advice to girls and

young women. Some of the criticism evoked by the publication was directed at the

booklet's handling of sexuality, and lesbianism in particular. That view was advanced

on the Morning Report item by Mrs Margaret Austin MP and the booklet was defended

by Ms Bridget Inder of the YWCA.

Rev Canon Hadlow complained to New Zealand Public Radio Ltd about the

interviewer's approach to Mrs Austin. Specifically, Mr Hadlow was concerned with

what he considered to be the suggestion that Mrs Austin's views lacked credibility on

account of her age. He described as hypocrisy the broadcaster's explanation that the

question which referred to Mrs Austin's age was introduced in the interview by the

broadcaster stating that he was not being disrespectful. Overall, Mr Hadlow felt that

Mrs Austin had been treated with disdain.

NZPR assessed the complaint under standard R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting

Practice which requires broadcasters:

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

programme

It argued that the question to Mrs Austin about the impact of her age on her reaction to

the booklet had been introduced courteously and that her uninterrupted reply had been

made without resentment.

The complaint was initially referred to the Authority by Mr Hadlow as NZPR, although

it replied informally to the complaint, did not respond formally within 60 working days.

NZPR later apologised profusely for that oversight. Although a formal reply had been

prepared, it said, because of an unexplained and inexcusable omission, it had not been

sent to Mr Hadlow. On receipt of that explanation, Mr Hadlow confined his referral to

the Authority to the substance of the complaint. Nevertheless, the Authority records its

dissatisfaction that NZPR failed to comply with its statutory responsibilities in regard to

complaints set out in the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In dealing with the substance of the complaint, the Authority is required to consider

whether the interviewer treated Mrs Austin fairly. It observes that younger women

were the target readers for the booklet and that the criticisms advanced by Mrs Austin

could be regarded as being made by an older woman and thus represented the older

generation. Therefore, it accepts that a question which covered this point was

appropriate. Having listened to the tape, the Authority reaches the conclusion that the

interviewer's approach was not offensive. Indeed, rather than treating Mrs Austin's

responses either specifically or generally with disdain, the Authority is of the view that

the interviewer's style was relatively innocuous.

The Authority concludes that the question about age specifically, and the other

questions, and the manner in which they were put, were fair in the circumstances.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
28 March 1996

Appendix

Rev Canon G J J A Hadlow's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 12

October 1995

Mr Hadlow complained formally to Radio New Zealand Ltd about an interview with

Mrs Margaret Austin MP on Morning Report that morning.

Mrs Austin, Mr Hadlow recalled, was being interviewed as to why she considered the

recently published booklet "Sisters" to be unsuitable for young women. While

acknowledging that it was not unusual for interviewers to adopt an aggressive

approach, Mr Hadlow said that Mrs Austin's views were treated with disdain. The

interviewer also suggested that her views lacked credibility on account of her age.

Mr Hadlow considered that Mrs Austin had been treated unfairly and was entitled to an

apology.

New Zealand Public Radio Ltd's Informal Response to the Complaint -

30 October 1995

Noting that the Government intended to sell RNZ's commercial business, New Zealand

Public Radio Ltd stated that it had replied to the complaint as it was assuming

responsibility for all the non-commercial public radio services.

NZPR advised Mr Hadlow that the complaint had been considered under standards R2

and R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. It also pointed out that its reply

was an informal one in the first instance but that did not affect his rights to continue

with his formal complaint should he wish to do so. With reference to the interview

complained about, NZPR said that the interview, in view of the public comment which

the booklet had evoked, was designed to provide the protagonists an opportunity to

present their opinions in some detail. It observed:

The duty of an interviewer in such a piece is not only to set the scene, but to ask

questions on behalf of the listener to elucidate main points and also to clarify

answers and new aspects as they arise.

NZPR denied that Mrs Austin's views were treated with disdain. She was asked

courteously whether, as an older woman, she was out-of-touch with young women and

Mrs Austin had answered fully without interruption.

In view of the manner of the interview, NZPR declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Hadlow's Formal Complaint to RNZ - 1 November 1995

Having read in NZPR's informal response the transcript of the interviewer's question

which referred to Mrs Austin's age, Mr Hadlow wrote:

If anything the transcript makes the matter worse than I had at first thought. ... It

is an hypocrisy to make a pre-qualification of not being disrespectful and then to

make statements which are.

He asked, in a further letter dated 6 November 1995, that both his earlier letters be taken

into account when the complaint was considered formally.

Mr Hadlow's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 31

January 1996

Dissatisfied that had had not received a reply to his formal complaint within the

legislative time limits, Mr Hadlow referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

NZPR's Response to the Authority - 5 February 1996

NZPR acknowledged that Mr Hadlow's formal complaint - along with two others about

the same item - had been considered but, inexplicably, the reply to Mr Hadlow had not

been mailed. While that could have resulted from the split of RNZ, it did not excuse the

lapse for which NZPR apologised.

NZPR enclosed a copy of the decision on the formal complaints sent to the other two

complainants and concluded:

I would again request that you convey the Company's apologies for the lapse,

however it might have occurred, to Canon Hadlow, and that the Authority will

recognise that the Company had no intention that it be put to this extra trouble.

The report on the substance of the complaint acknowledged that two issues had been

raised - the treatment of the interviewees and the propriety of the references to sexual

matters. It reported that the booklet released by the YWCA entitled "Sisters" had

attracted comment including criticism from Margaret Austin MP. The discussion on

Morning Report had involved Mrs Austin and Bridget Inder of the YWCA during

which, it was said, the interviewer had not expressed his views.

It maintained that the question of Mrs Austin's age had been introduced courteously and

that her uninterrupted reply was delivered without resentment. The reply then dealt with

the references to sexual matters about which Mr Hadlow had not complained.

NZPR wrote:

The [Complaints] Committee could find no support for a view that Mrs Austin

was treated unfairly. With regard to the "out-of-date" reference, the Committee

considered the question to be entirely legitimate in view of the public comments

reported at the time, and did not consider that the manner of its asking was

impolite or implied that the interviewer considered that the interviewee was, in

fact, too old to be relevant. Furthermore, the Committee noted that Mrs Austin

was given full and uninterrupted opportunity to answer the question and

summarise her extensive interest and experience in the general subject.

The Committee considered that the three-way interview was handled responsibly

and professionally, and cannot accept that either Bridget Inder or Mrs Austin

(who received slightly greater time to put her views) was treated unfairly, bullied

or put at a disadvantage.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Hadlow's Final Comment - 12 February 1996

Noting that the apology made to the Authority seemed unnecessarily effusive, Mr

Hadlow expressed the opinion that lumping the complaints together had the effect of

diluting the individual submissions.

As for NZPR's comment that Mrs Austin replied "uninterrupted and without

resentment", Mr Hadlow reported that he had been advised by Mrs Austin that

politicians do not react to slurs to avoid being disadvantaged in an interview. He

continued:

I am surprised that the report should use this ploy. It is not Mrs Austin's reaction

which is under question, but those of listeners. To make a tacit implication that

because Mrs Austin did not evince any reaction during the interview is to suggest

that listeners have no ground for complaint. I cannot accept this premise, subtle

though [NZPR's] Mr Hereford may believe it to be.

He repeated that references to Mrs Austin's age were insulting and the introduction "I

am not being disrespectful for one moment" made the comment hypocritical as well. He

regarded NZPR's use of the term "mature" woman in its report to the Authority, rather

than "an older woman", as a transparent attempt at damage control.

In addition, although his complaint referred to a specific incident, he expressed his

growing concern at what he described as "the increasingly aggressive tone" of the

interviewer's (Mr Hosking) approach.

He asked the Authority to review NZPR's decision on his complaint. A further

complaint about NZPR's failure to comply with the legislation guidelines, he wrote,

would only complicate the issue.