BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Upon upholding a complaint that an item on the Child Support Act broadcast on 20/20

was unbalanced, the Broadcasting Standards Authority required TV3 to prepare and

broadcast a statement summarising the decision. That statement, approved by the

Authority was broadcast on 14 March 1994. One sentence read:

We want to emphasise that there is a wide range of views on the issue apart from

those of FARE or Families Apart Require Equality, a group representing liable

parents.

On the basis that its membership included custodial as well as liable parents, FARE

complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the item was inaccurate.

Noting that the statement had been approved by the Authority, TV3 declined to determine

the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's action, FARE 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 upheld 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 has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

A statement, approved by the Authority, was broadcast by TV3 after the Authority upheld

a complaint about a 20/20 programme broadcast by it. That statement was broadcast on

14 March 1994 and read in part:

We want to emphasise that there is a wide range of views on the issue apart from

those of FARE or Families Apart Require Equality, a group representing liable

parents.

FARE complained that the statement was inaccurate since it described the group as

representing liable parents and stated that the views of other groups, such as those

representing custodial parents, were not presented. It maintained that it had been grossly

damaged by the statement.

TV3 declined to determine the complaint as the statement had been approved by the

Authority.

The Authority accepted TV3's position, recognising that the statement had been given the

Authority's approval. Before it could assess the complaint, the Authority considered that it

required some information about FARE and sought (and received) a statement outlining

FARE's principles. It learned that FARE was an organisation comprising volunteers which

was committed to providing help and support to all people affected by broken marriages

and relationships. It also learned that FARE represented the rights of all parties affected by

broken marriages, especially children, but including custodial, liable parents and others.

At this point, the Authority records that it will not review Decision No: 3/94 since it was

decided on the facts provided by the parties and on the content of the programme

broadcast. Its investigation on this complaint is confined to the statement broadcast on 14

March 1994. In light of the additional information it has received about FARE and its

principles, the Authority acknowledges that it erred in approving a statement describing

FARE as a group representing liable parents and accordingly upholds the complaint that

the statement as broadcast was inaccurate.

By way of explanation about the origin of the error, the Authority records that the

broadcast complained about showed FARE members, who were seen to be liable parents,

complaining about the levels of support which, it was alleged, sometimes amounted to

subsidisation of the custodial parent's lifestyle. Indeed, a segment of the item showing a

meeting of liable parents expressing angry comments about the Child Support Act was

introduced with the comment:

Groups like FARE claim to represent thousands of liable parents hurting under the

system.

A FARE spokesperson was interviewed for the programme and expressed the opinion that

liable parents were "being driven under". He complained that some liable parents were

paying:

... two or three times the amount they know is going to be spent on the child.

In view of these comments, the Authority found it understandable why the comment

broadcast on 14 March referred to FARE as a group representing liable parents.

Moreover, as the group maintained that it was "grossly damaged" by that remark, the

Authority was surprised that it had not complained about any inaccuracy in the original

broadcast.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that

the broadcast of a statement on TV3 on 14 March 1994 was inaccurate to

the extent that FARE represents custodial parents as well as liable parents.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so on this occasion as the statement

broadcast correctly represented FARE as described in the original broadcast.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
18 August 1994

Appendix

FARE's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 24 March 1994, the spokesperson for Families Apart Require Equality Inc.

(FARE), Mr Bruce Tichbon, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about a statement

read on 20/20 on 14 March.

The statement, FARE recalled, said that FARE "represented liable parents" and stated that

the views of other groups, for example, custodial parents, had not been represented on the

programme referred to. Pointing out that the membership of FARE included custodial as

well as non custodial (or liable) parents, FARE maintained that the statement was

inaccurate. The misrepresentation, it continued, had grossly damaged the group.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 advised FARE of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter 12 May 1994.

Explaining that the statement in question had been broadcast as a result of an order from

the Broadcasting Standards Authority and that its contents had been approved by the

Authority, TV3 considered it inappropriate to determine the complaint.

FARE's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's determination, in a letter dated 7 June 1994 on FARE's behalf Mr

Tichbon referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Tichbon expressed his disagreement with aspects of the decision in which the Authority

ordered the statement. He wrote:

In three places the Decision states that the allegation was made that liable parents

were supporting or subsidising the respective custodial parent and that alternative

views were required. In the context of the Statement these views should come from

custodial parents. However, the so called allegation is a statement of fact,

supported in law by Section 4(j) of the Child Support Act 1991. It is insupportable

to demand alternative views from the general community on such a truism.

FARE, he continued, was grossly misrepresented by the statement which the Authority

ordered at the conclusion of an "unbalanced, superficial and inaccurate" decision.

The letter demanded the following immediate outcome:

FARE demands that the Authority make a public statement that it acknowledges

there were errors in its Decision and the Statement, that it regrets its

misrepresentation of FARE, and also briefly explains what are FARE's true objectives

and representations. FARE expects to be allowed to approve the statement before it

is released.

TV3's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral. Its letter

is dated 8 June 1994 and TV3, in its response dated 10 June, declined to comment further.

FARE's Final Comment to the Authority

When asked to provide a brief final comment to the Authority, in a letter dated 16 July

1994, FARE repeated its arguments.

It complained that the Authority, through Decision No:3/94 and the subsequent order,

had imposed a view that the issue of child support had parents representing two opposing

sides. On the contrary, FARE reported, through its work it had discovered that separated

parents could generally work together in the best interests of all the parties. It accused the

Authority of damaging the social framework of society and grossly exceeding its authority

because it had imposed a view that parents opposed each other.

FARE supported the view put in the original 20/20 programme and maintained that TV3's

attempt to approach the Minister of Revenue for comment was a sufficient effort to

comply with the balance requirement in the Broadcasting Act 1989.

FARE demanded that the Authority explain its finding that the approach to the Minister of

Revenue was insufficient to comply with standards and requested an immediate response

from the Authority so that its ability to seek further remedies was not compromised.

Further Correspondence

In response to a request from the Authority, in a fax dated 26 July, some background

information on its organisation's principles was supplied.