BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A report on the progress in dealing with social problems facing Maori was dealt with

during an interview on Morning Report between 7.00–9.00am on 28 July 1995.

Presenter Mike Hosking interviewed Dr Paparangi Reid of the Maori Health Research

Centre at the Wellington School of Medicine.

Mr McKenna complained to New Zealand Public Radio Ltd (formerly Radio New

Zealand Ltd) that the interviewer's aggressive approach breached the standards relating

to good taste and requiring respect for the principles of the partnership between Maori

and Pakeha. He said in addition that the interview encouraged discrimination against

Maori. Mr McKenna also complained first, about the invective used by the same

presenter on Morning Report when speaking to the Prime Minister earlier in July and,

secondly, the boorishness of his exchanges with the presenter of the "Maori Bulletin"

during Morning Report on some specified occasions in August 1995.

On the basis that Dr Reid had not been interrupted, hindered or treated rudely, NZPR

declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint. It was unable to locate the interview

with the Prime Minister referred to, and said the exchanges between the presenters of

Morning Report and the Maori Bulletin were not discourteous and did not incite racial

disharmony. Dissatisfied with NZPR's decisions, Mr McKenna referred the complaints

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 complaints referring to the

interview with Dr Reid on 28 July and to the exchanges with the presenter of the Maori

bulletin. It declines to determine the complaint relating to the interview with the Prime

Minister.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the items complained about – to the extent

that NZPR has been able to provide them – and have read the correspondence

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

complaints without a formal hearing.

A report about the pace of Maori development was discussed in an item on Morning

Report in which the presenter (Mike Hosking) interviewed the Acting Director of the

Maori Health Research Centre in Wellington (Dr Paparangi Reid). Mr McKenna

complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd (since renamed New Zealand Public Radio Ltd)

about the interview and alleged that Dr Reid had been harassed and interrupted in a

derogatory manner. Nevertheless, he added, she had exercised self-control and had

replied with dignity. NZPR considered the questions to Dr Reid to be "perfectly

legitimate", and that she had been the person responsible for the interruptions. It denied

that she had been treated unfairly or that the interview was in bad taste.

In the same letter, Mr McKenna referred to a recent interview by the same presenter

with the Prime Minister in which the presenter had been accused by the Prime Minister

of a lack of integrity. NZPR sought more details about the latter complaint from Mr

McKenna.

In his reply, Mr McKenna also complained about the exchanges at about 6.12am

between the same Morning Report presenter and the presenter of the Maori Bulletin on

specified occasions in August 1995. The comments from the Morning Report

presenter, Mr McKenna wrote, involved "bully boy" tactics which amounted to "Maori

bashing".

NZPR initially declined to deal with the complaint about the interchanges between the

presenters of Morning Report and the Maori bulletins on the basis that the complainant

seemed concerned with the style of the particular presenter rather than with the

broadcasts itself. However, it later advised the Authority that it rejected the allegations

that the exchanges contravened the standards relating to decency, fair dealing or the

partnership between Maori and Pakeha. It wrote:

      The Company has no hesitation in rejecting the allegations which are based on a

      completely unjustified assumption that ordinary, everyday continuity exchanges

      or minor production hitches indicate the furthering of an intention to convey if

      not incite racial disharmony.

In its examination of the complaint that Dr Reid was harassed and that the interview was

in bad taste and encouraged racial discrimination, the Authority is unable to agree with

these allegations. Having listened to the tape, it acknowledges that the presenter's style

was brisk but he allowed Dr Reid time to answer the questions posed. The line of

questioning adopted seemed perfectly normal given the matter under discussion. The

Authority is of the view that it is not offensive to require a person being interviewed to

justify the answers advanced. It is acceptable that the questions are put in a direct

manner which listeners will readily understand. Moreover, Dr Reid, the person being

interviewed, did not seem to find the questions unexpected. The Authority does not

accept that the interview broadcast on 28 July contravened any of the standards.

As for the complaint about the exchange between the presenter and the Prime Minister,

the Authority is handicapped by the absence of both specific details of the interaction

and a tape of the discussion. NZPR tried unsuccessfully to trace the interview through

its record system and Mr McKenna was unable to supply further details. Accordingly,

the Authority relies on its powers in s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act to decline in all the

circumstances to determine this complaint.

The exchanges between the same presenter of Morning Report and the presenter of the

Maori bulletin was the other matter raised by the complainant. NZPR supplied the

Authority with a tape which included the exchanges at about 6.12am on 14, 15, 16 and

17 August. The Authority was unable to detect the use of "bully boy" tactics by the

Morning Report presenter, as alleged by Mr McKenna, nor any comments which could

be regarded as stimulating racial discord. Accordingly, it declines to uphold that

complaint.

For the reasons above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints

about the broadcast of an interview on Morning Report on 28 July, and

the exchanges broadcast on Morning Report on 14, 15, 16 and 17

August 1995.

It declines to determine the complaint involving the interview with the

Prime Minister of Morning Report in July 1995.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
22 April 1996

Appendix

Len McKenna's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 7 August 1995

Mr McKenna of Kaitaia complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about two items

broadcast on Morning Report. The first one, on 28 July 1995, dealt with the problems

facing Maori and the second, broadcast a week or so earlier, involved an interview with

the Prime Minister. Mr McKenna stated that the broadcasts breached standards R2, R5,

R7 and R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Dealing first with the 28 July item, Mr McKenna said the interviewer accused the

interviewee in a derogatory style of not acknowledging the benefits received by Maori.

She replied, nevertheless, with calmness and dignity.

Turning to the interview of the Prime Minister, Mr McKenna said that it had been

necessary for the Prime Minister to accuse the interviewer of a lack of integrity by

violating the agreed frame of reference for the interview.

Elaborating on the standards allegedly breached, Mr McKenna said the 28 July

interview violated good taste, given its approach to the sensitive issue of race relations;

that the interviewee had not been dealt with fairly; that it failed to show respect for the

partnership principles between Maori and Pakeha; and that it encouraged the denigration

of Maori. He wrote:

The 28th July programme was a calculated direct racist attack on Maori people

during a serious discussion of Maori social problems in New Zealand today.

Maintaining that the Prime Minister put his finger on the problem when he accused the

interviewer (Mike Hosking) of lacking integrity, Mr McKenna argued that the

interviewer should be suspended to ensure that Morning Report regained public trust

and respect.

RNZ's Response to the Complaint - 10 August 1995

Explaining the requirements to be fulfilled in order for a complaint to be treated as a

formal one, asked Mr McKenna for some specific details in order to act on his

concerns.

Mr McKenna's Further Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 23 August

1995

In reply to NZPR's letter, Mr McKenna acknowledged that he had spoken to staff at

RNZ about the complaint and explained the process he had followed in order to

ascertain the date of the interview with the Prime Minister to which he referred.

In addition, Mr McKenna now complained about the interaction between one of the

interviewers on Morning Report and the reader of the Maori bulletins. He claimed that

the exchanges involved boorish "Bully Boy" tactics on the interviewer's behalf.

New Zealand Public Radio Ltd's Response to the Formal Complaint - 4

November 1996

New Zealand Public Radio Ltd advised Mr McKenna that in view of the limited

information he had supplied, it was able to deal only with the complaint about the item

involving an interview with Dr Paparangi Reid, Acting Director of the Maori Health

Research Centre at the Wellington School of Medicine. It provided part of the

following transcript (beginning with the interviewer's question):

... But why would a young Maori kid not feel able to make a contribution? Their

access to education is there, they can go to university if they want to, they can get

the job of their choice if they really want to, they can do anything they want, can't

they?

[Paparangi Reid interrupts interviewer]

Aw, come on! Come on, be real!! The odds are stacked against them.

How so?

Um .. Well, the statistics show they are less likely to get them despite the desire;

they're less likely to get the job of their choice.

Do we know why, though, specifically?

Oh, there's ... [hesitates]

There's nothing preventing them from going to school or going to university or

getting the job. What is it?

The issue, if it were simple, would have been simply solved. We believe the

issue is complex, it relates to a number of things such as the experience of one's

parents and therefore the parental support to help you achieve your goals; the

experience that you personally have with institutions; perhaps institution reflection

of you, role models you might have in the community; various degrees of

institutional racism. They're all of the cards that get thrown at you in life come

up, stack up differently for young Maori than they do for other New Zealanders.

[interview terminates with brief speculation on what next ten years will bring].

NZPR described the questions as "perfectly legitimate" and denied that Dr Reid had

been interrupted, hindered or treated rudely. It declined to uphold the aspect of the

complaint which focused on the interview.

As it had insufficient information about the interview with the Prime Minister, NZPR

declined to deal with that aspect of the complaint.

Mr McKenna's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 29

November 1995

Dissatisfied with NZPR's decision, Mr McKenna referred the matter to the

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

NZPR's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6 March

1996

Following a reminder, NZPR advised that it did not wish to add anything to its

comments about the interview with Dr Reid.

As for the complaint about the interview with the Prime Minister, NZPR explained the

search undertaken in an effort to ascertain the specific broadcast. It was unsuccessful

and, accordingly, it was unable to respond to that aspect of the complaint.

Turning to the allegation about the "Bully Boy" tactics used by one presenter, NZPR

said that as the complaint focused on the presenter rather than the broadcast, it had not

been treated as a formal complaint. However, if the Authority considered that the

complaint should be treated as a formal one, NZPR asked the Authority to pass on an

apology to Mr McKenna. On the basis that the matter might be treated as a formal

complaint that alleged a breach of standards R2, R5 and R7, NZPR wrote:

The Company has no hesitation in rejecting the allegations, which are based on a

completely unjustified assumption that ordinary, everyday continuity exchanges

or minor production hitches indicate the furthering of an intention to convey if not

incite racial disharmony.

NZPR enclosed a cassette of the exchange between the presenters of the Maori Bulletin

and Morning Report on 14, 15, 16 and 17 August and stated:

The Company regrets that it must firmly reject the allegation of deliberate racial

discourtesy and incitement to racial disharmony which forms a common thread

running through all Mr McKenna's complaints, and it also queries the validity in a

formal complaints context of the complaints' focus on the one presenter and

allegations against him, rather than what it believes is intended to be the thrust of

the Act, viz., the examination and assessment of programmes against formal

programme standards.

Mr McKenna's Final Comment - 14 March 1996

Describing NZPR's actions as perfidious, Mr McKenna said in his final comment he

did not wish to add to his complaint.