BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

In an interview on 3 National News broadcast on 8 February 1996 between

6.00–7.00pm, the Prime Minister forecast a budget surplus of seven billion dollars.

Roger Helm complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

statement by the Prime Minister should have been challenged because it was an

expression of opinion and, because it was untrue, was a breach of broadcasting

standards.

TV3 responded that when the forecast budget surplus was added to tax cuts, the amount

was about seven billion dollars. It maintained that was a statement of fact and denied

that the interview was uncritical of the Prime Minister's statements, and declined to

uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Helm referred the complaint

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 complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed 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.

During the course of a discussion about tax cuts, broadcast by TV3 Network Services

Ltd on 3 National News on 8 February 1996, Mr Bolger stated that the government was

forecasting a surplus of seven billion dollars, and therefore there was no reason for it to

put up tax rates.

Mr Helm complained that the statement should have been challenged because it was

factually untrue to suggest that such a large surplus would be achieved. He considered

those who calculated the surplus – the politicians and "subservient public service

stooges" – were totally untrustworthy and that such statistics should not be accepted

without very detailed public scrutiny. Mr Helm expressed his misgivings about balance

being achieved by debate with opposition politicians on the subject of the budget

surplus, suggesting that they too had been misled as to the true state of public finances.

Furthermore, he had no faith that print journalists would challenge government

propaganda, and concluded that it was the role of television – charged under the

Broadcasting Act to provide balance on important issues – to scrutinise and challenge the

claims made.

In an informal response, TV3 explained to Mr Helm that the seven billion dollar figure

was arrived at by adding the current budget surplus to the tax cuts expected next year,

and that therefore the Prime Minister was correct in his statement. It accepted that it

could be questioned whether a tax cut constituted a surplus, but concluded that

nevertheless Mr Bolger made a statement of fact when he forecast a surplus of seven

billion dollars. TV3 denied that the interview was uncritical, noting that both Mr Bolger

and Ms Clark (the Leader of the Opposition) were questioned fairly by the interviewer.

Because TV3 made an informal response to the complaint, it did not advert to any

standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Authority examines the

complaint under standards G1 and G6, which require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

The Authority first turns to the accuracy of the seven billion dollar projected surplus,

and accepts that the figure was substantiated by one method of computation. It does not

believe that the interviewer was required to challenge the Prime Minister's information –

information derived from the financial advisors within the government – and notes, in

addition, that the figure was apparently not challenged by the Leader of the Opposition.

With respect to the requirement for balance, the Authority considers that the presence of

the Leader of the Opposition provided the necessary balance and notes that had the

projected surplus been totally inaccurate, Ms Clark herself would have disputed the

claim. It considers it more likely that she would have had access to reliable financial

information in the detail required to challenge the figure than would the interviewer. It

concludes that because the opportunity was given for the claim to be questioned by the

Leader of the Opposition, the item was balanced.

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

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
20 June 1996

Appendix

Roger Helm's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 9 February 1996

Mr Helm of Christchurch complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about an interview

with the Prime Minister (Mr Bolger) broadcast on 3 National News about 6.50pm on 8

February 1996.

Referring to Mr Bolger's remark that the country would have a surplus of 7 billion

dollars, Mr Helm asked whether he had heard that correctly. He wondered if Mr Bolger

meant 7 hundred million or point 7 billion. If he really did say 7 billion, Mr Helm

considered that the interviewer should have immediately challenged the numbers. He

wrote:

I hope TV3 accepts that it has an obligation not to disseminate political

mendacity, particularly considering that this item was presented as an

interview, not a speech.

The interview was preceded by Bolger disputing that he had been asked

to engage in a debate, rather than an interview.

Mr Helm asked for confirmation whether Mr Bolger said 7 billion or gave the correct

figure. He also asked for an explanation of the debate/interview question because that

may have accounted for the relatively uncritical acceptance of his claims.

TV3 Network Services Ltd's Response to the Complaint - 20 March

1996

After apologising for its late response to the complaint, TV3 turned to the specifics of

the inquiry.

It noted that the Prime Minister stated, in the course of the interview:

Why in goodness name, when we're forecasting surpluses of seven billion

dollars, would we put up tax rates?

TV3 noted that the current budget surplus for 1995/96 was $2.791 billion. Next year,

when tax cuts of $3 billion come in, the government would still run a forecasted surplus

of $3.32 billion. Therefore, TV3 asserted, Mr Bolger was correct in stating that a

surplus of $7 billion was forecasted.

TV3 acknowledged that the figure could be challenged - ie does a tax cut constitute a

surplus - but it maintained that the Prime Minister made a statement of fact that there

were forecasts of a surplus of $7 billion.

TV3 asserted it would never knowingly be party to the dissemination of political

mendacity. It also denied that the item was relatively uncritical, pointing out that the

interviewer maintained a fair and questioning attitude to both Mr Bolger and the Leader

of the Opposition (Ms Clark).

Referring to the question of whether he was participating in a debate or an interview,

TV3 suggested that the Prime Minister's advisors appeared to be saying one thing to

him and another to TV3.

Mr Helm's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 31 March

1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Helm referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

In his referral, Mr Helm challenged TV3's argument that the remarks about the 7 billion

dollar forecast were a statement of fact. He suggested that was sophistry and argued

that the salient issue was the truth or otherwise of the 7 billion claim itself and not the

question of whether Mr Bolger accurately reported the claim.

According to Mr Helm, an assertion of fact did not need to be true. He suggested that

the interviewer should have requested proof of the assertion or at least demanded to

know its source. He wrote:

Lack of such a challenge here leaves the impression that the "surpluses of 7

billion" claim is as true as "the Earth is round".

Noting that the figures suggested by TV3 added up to 6.32 billion and not 7 billion, Mr

Helm pointed out that no account was taken of tax revenue from increased private

spending resulting from tax cuts. He argued that taking that revenue into account, it

implied a projection of around 5 billion without the cuts and that it was an absurdly

large figure.

Referring to the 1995/96 projected surplus of 2.971 billion dollars, Mr Helm asked why

should it be believed when such figures involved all sorts of suspect manipulation.

Mr Helm considered politicians and public servants to be totally untrustworthy and did

not believe that party propaganda could be received without detailed public scrutiny.

He expressed surprise that opposition politicians did not question the validity of the

surplus figures. He suggested that if the National Party were to survive the election, the

inevitable post tax-cut deficits would be used to justify asset sales, increased

government charges and diminished services.

Mr Helm pointed to the role of television to provide balance on important issues. He

asked:

Does TV3 intend to accept without question, without any expression of

scepticism, without any investigation, without any expression of alternative

viewpoints, government (whether public service or National Party)

pronouncements on public revenue surpluses?

If not, what will it do to present a balanced viewpoint, and when?

TV3's Response to the Authority - 22 April 1996

In its brief response, TV3 pointed out that Mr Helm's original complaint was not formal

and was therefore responded to informally by TV3. It added that his second letter dated

31 March, in which he referred to a formal complaint, was outside the prescribed time

limits for lodging a formal complaint.

Mr Helm's Final Comment - 3 May 1996

Describing TV3's response as childishly weaselling, Mr Helm maintained that his first

letter was a "formal" complaint covered by the Broadcasting Act. He argued that his

letter to TV3 made that clear when he stated:

...it (TV3) has an obligation not to disseminate political mendacity...

Next, he pointed out that his letter of 31 March expanded on the first letter explaining

why the surplus question was an issue of public importance. He stressed that there was

no balance in the item, in spite of TV3's suggestion that the interviewer questioned both

Mr Bolger and Ms Clark. He noted that Ms Clark was not asked to respond to the 7

billion figure.

In response to TV3's statement that it had no further comments to add "at this time", Mr

Helm asked whether that meant they could bring in extra material without his

knowledge.

Finally Mr Helm asked questions about the Authority's decisions in the past year, its

membership and why he was permitted to make only a brief final comment.