BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Heartland: Wainuiomata – Over the Hill was broadcast by Television One at 8.35pm

on 2 August. The Heartland programmes are an entertainment series which focus on

individual characters in various locations.

Mr Trevor Mallard, MP for Pencarrow, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd

that the programme was unbalanced and one sequence was offensive. It was

unbalanced as it suggested the valley was run down, but ignored the wide range of

facilities available for residents and visitors. It focussed on rugby league, he noted, but

the positive aspects were blunted by an emphasis on drinking. The lingerie party

sequence was offensive.

Mrs Grehan expressed similar concerns in her complaint. The few positive comments

about Wainuiomata, she said, were outweighed by the negative remarks.

On behalf of the Wainuiomata Community Board, its Chair (Mr Moore) raised similar

complaints about the programme's offensiveness and lack of balance. In addition, he

alleged that it had been inaccurate to describe Wainuiomata as a high crime rate area.

Mr Keall described the programme as "grossly" unbalanced and alleged that it had

been prepared maliciously to denigrate Wainuiomata.

Pointing out that the programme was broadcast in "AO" time and preceded by a

warning, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint about the item's offensiveness.

Given that each of the programmes in the series was neither a serious documentary nor

a travelogue but an examination and celebration of a community's unique

characteristics, TVNZ did not uphold the complaint about balance. Strongly denying

any malice in the "authored" work, TVNZ did not accept that the comments about

Wainuiomata in the past were inaccurate.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response to their complaints each complainant 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 aspect of the complaint that the

broadcast of the lingerie sequence breached the standard requiring good taste and

decency in context. It declined to uphold any other aspect.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the

Authority has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programme

Wainuiomata was the subject of the Heartland programme broadcast by Television

One at 8.35pm on 2 August. In its response to the complaints dealt with in this

decision, TVNZ described the Heartland series in the following way:

It is not a series of travelogues, nor is it intended as a sequence of serious

documentaries on life in New Zealand. It is in fact an entertainment series which

places a good deal of emphasis on individual characters and personalities that are

uncovered in the various locations the team visits. The interaction between

these personalities and the programme's host is a key factor.

With regard to the programme Wainuiomata, TVNZ stated:

"Heartland – Wainuiomata" never pretended to be a searching examination of the

town and its people. Neither was it planned as a public relations exercise.

The "Heartland" team went "over the hill" to discover some of the unusual and

colourful personalities that can be found in suburban New Zealand.

TVNZ explained that the series was designed to explore, indeed "celebrate", the

unique aspects of the New Zealand culture in all its "diversity and complexity".

The Complaints

A common theme in the complaints was the programme was unbalanced. Moreover,

one complainant (the Wainuiomata Community Board) referred to a predetermined

bias and another (Mr Keall) alleged malicious intent on TVNZ's part. The broadcast

was unbalanced, the complainants wrote, in view of the negative attitude taken

towards Wainuiomata. Indeed, Mrs Grehan in her complaint said that the town had

been ridiculed and, in unison with the other complaints, she noted that there had been

no mention of the many positive features of Wainuiomata and its social and physical

environment. Instead, the complainants wrote, the residents, although acknowledged

to be accomplished rugby league players, were shown variously as eccentric, negative,

uncouth, unintelligent and heavy drinkers who were lacking in ambition.

The lingerie party sequence was a major concern to Mr Trevor Mallard MP as well as

being objected to by all the complainants. While some acknowledged that the

broadcast had been preceded with a warning, the complainants emphasised that prior

to the broadcast interest was high among the residents in Wainuiomata as to the

upcoming programme. That interest, it was noted, also extended to the younger age

groups as filming had taken place at Wainuiomata College and among some of the

younger sports people.

The lingerie party sequence, however, by showing a phallic shaped candle and a male

stripper and his interaction with some of the women present was offensive. The

Wainuiomata Community Board described the sequence as "gratuitous sensationalism"

which, while acceptable perhaps late in the evening, was unsuitable for family viewing

in a programme such as the Heartland series.

TVNZ declined to uphold any of the complaints and they were referred to the

Authority. Mr Mallard's referral was accompanied by a petition with over 2,300

signatures.

All the complainants were concerned about the above matters because, as Mrs Grehan

put it, Wainuiomata had been crudely and unfairly treated.

In addition, some of the complainants raised a number of specific matters such as the

Wainuiomata Community Board which maintained that the item was inaccurate in

describing the area as having a high crime rate. Some objection was raised in the

complaints to the emphasis given to Ms Chloe Reeves who, Mr Keall said, had been

portrayed, inaccurately, as a typical Wainuiomata resident and as "a pillar of society".

The Standards

The complaints were assessed by TVNZ against the following standards which in

some instances were nominated by the complainants and in others by TVNZ.

Section 4(1) of the Broadcasting Act requires broadcasters to maintain standards

consistent with:

(a) The observance of good taste and decency; and

(d) The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are

discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are

given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme

or in other programmes within the period of current interest;

The following nominated standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice

require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G2 To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste

in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any

language or behaviour occurs.

G3  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

G5 To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

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

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

G7   To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice which takes

advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

G8 To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as

outlined in the agreed criteria for programme classifications.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the

community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status,

sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief.

This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material

which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current

affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

The following standards were also raised and they read:

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event

or the overall views expressed.

G21 Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Because of the degree of overlap between the standards (eg the provisions in the Act

and standards G2 and G6 are similar) and the repetition of some of the concerns (such

as the reference to the classification codes in standard G8 and the normally accepted

viewing times for children in standard G12), the Authority has reduced the number of

standards under which it has assessed the complaint. In doing so, it distilled the

complainants' core concerns while, at the same time, it ensured that no aspect of the

complaints was left unexamined. Following this culling, the Authority assessed the

complaints under standards G1 (truth and accuracy), standard G2 (good taste and

decency in context), standard G6 (balance, impartiality and fairness when dealing with

controversial issues) and standard G19 (editing not to distort). The Authority's

response to the complaints under the other nominated standards is discussed in the

section titled "The Authority's findings – Standards" below.

TVNZ's Response to the Complaint

In its replies to the complainants, TVNZ emphasised the nature of the Heartland

series generally and the Wainuiomata programme specifically. It stressed that

Heartland is an entertainment series – not serious documentaries – which explored

New Zealand's culture in all its manifestations: "the glorious, the eccentric, the

ordinary and occasionally the unattractive".

TVNZ also stressed that the programme on Wainuiomata was an "authored" work in

which it had been appropriate for the "author" to refer to his previous impressions

and report on what he actually found. Mr McCormick's findings about Wainuiomata,

TVNZ added, were "thoroughly positive".

In support of its conclusion about the nature of the programme, TVNZ referred to

editorials in Wellington's "Evening Post" and Napier's "Daily Telegraph". The

former referred to the complaints the broadcast had evoked and observed:

What they overlook is that "Heartland" is not a bland public relations exercise

for the communities it portrays. It is an entertainment programme – and

entertain it did richly. In doing so, it planted Wainuiomata very firmly in the

national consciousness, and not at all in a negative way. No one outside the

valley will imagine for a moment that the engaging Chloe is representative of

Wainui womanhood, or that Wainui housewives any more than housewives

elsewhere, hunger for erotic stimulation with well muscled male strippers. If

anything, the women in the programme were splendid advertisements for the

community – exuberant, witty and giving every appearance of thoroughly

enjoying life.

TVNZ objected strenuously to the suggestion that the broadcast had set out

deliberately to evade its standards responsibilities. It wrote:

We genuinely do not believe that the programme was in breach of the standards

and aver that TVNZ has never deliberately breached the statutory standards. To

suggest otherwise, as the Community Board has done, is to cast an unjustified

slur on the integrity and professionalism of TVNZ and its staff.

In dealing with a number of specific aspects of the complaints, TVNZ said, in regard

to the complaint about the referral to the "high crime rate", that Mr McCormick – the

author – had presented what he thought he knew about the town and the people. In

that context, he had referred to Wainuiomata, in the past, as having been known as a

high crime rate area. Moreover, TVNZ added, the programme had reported that this

preconception had been disabused.

Ms Chloe Reeves had been presented as an individual – not as a typical resident – and

had since featured in the media in a number of ways. Moreover, TVNZ pointed out,

she had since been chosen by Tourism Wainuiomata as an ambassador for the town.

The programme had been reflecting reality, TVNZ argued, when it related rugby league

to drinking, noting:

The fact is that sport and drinking are inextricably bound together in

Wainuiomata, as they are in almost every part of New Zealand. There was a

good deal of hard drinking going on that night at the Wainuiomata Rugby League

Club. That is part of the culture of the club. "Heartland" did not over-

emphasise it. To give it any less emphasis would be to create a lie. Significantly

the president of the Wainuiomata Rugby League, Mr Alec Gage, has no

complaint with the portrayal of the club in the programme and has declared that

he enjoyed the programme as a whole.

TVNZ stated that the lingerie party sequence was shown as such functions have a

wide acceptance in suburban communities like Wainuiomata. Screening that aspect of

the item, TVNZ concluded, had not involved a breach of standard G2. The "light-

hearted" sequence which was "less than explicit", was preceded by a warning and did

not contain material unsuitable for "AO" time (after 8.30pm). TVNZ acknowledged

that the "AO" rating was not carried in magazines which listed the programme as the

appraisal had not been completed early enough but pointed out that the programme, in

addition to the warning, carried the "AO" symbol.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint about imbalance and unfairness made under

standard G6 on the basis:

The programme was not dealing with a political matter, a current affair or any

question of a controversial nature. The programme was a light-hearted look at

some of the aspects of life in a New Zealand town.

While apologising to the complainants who argued that the broadcast had breached the

standards, TVNZ said that the number of complainants did not determine whether or

not the standards had been breached and declined to uphold any aspects of the

complaints.

The Authority's Findings – Standards

The Authority records its agreement with TVNZ on one point and rejects the

complaints which alleged that TVNZ deliberately ignored the requirements in the

Broadcasting Act or the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It concludes that

there is no evidence to justify this allegation.

As recorded in the section on standards above, the Authority has decided to assess the

complaint under standards G1 (truth and accuracy), G2 (good taste and decency), G6

(balance fairness and impartiality) and standard G19 (editing not to distort) of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. In its view standard G2 incorporates the

complainants' concerns expressed under s.4(1)(a) of the Act and standards G8 and

G12 of the Code. Standard G1 incorporates the complaints under standard G21 and

standard G6 deals with those under s.4(1)(d) of the Act and standards G3, G5, and

G7.

Two of the standards raised in the complaints are not subsumed by the above

distillation process – G4 and G13. The Authority considered that they were

inapplicable. Standard G4 was raised by complainants who argued that Wainuiomata

had not been dealt with fairly. It does not apply to the broadcast complained about as

it refers to persons – not communities.

Standard G13 is also not applicable as although it refers to specified sections of the

community, none of those sections refers to residence in a particular place.

The Authority's Findings – Complaints

Standard G6 – Balance, Fairness and Impartiality

The first issue the Authority canvassed was the nature of the programme Heartland:

Wainuiomata - Over the Hill. Indeed, it thought a ruling on this was essential in

determining whether standard G6 was applicable. As will have been apparent, many

of the objections to the broadcast raised issues of balance and fairness. However, the

standard is only applicable when the broadcast is dealing with:

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

It was not immediately obvious to the Authority into which genre the Heartland

series fell. While not clearly within any of the categories noted in standard G6, it was

nevertheless broadcast in the weekly time slot set aside for "documentaries". As a

documentary – which can be defined as film providing a factual record or report – the

programme would probably be subject to standard G6. However, despite being a

factual depiction, the Authority was not convinced that it was the type of programme

to which standard G6 was designed to apply. It was not a report on a political or

controversial issue. Rather, the Authority decided, it was a programme which

incorporated elements of documentary style and entertainment values which were

brought together by the presenter's subjective and possibly quirky reflections and

which could best be described as a pastiche – a work put together from various

sources.

As TVNZ noted, the broadcast was quite clearly an "authored" work presenting one

person's view and the Authority considered that the requirements for balance,

impartiality and fairness in standard G6 did not apply. This ruling also dealt with the

matters raised by the complainants under s.4(1)(d) of the Act and standards G3, G5

and G7.

Standard G2 – Good Taste and Decency

The Authority then considered the complaints about the lingerie party sequence which

it had subsumed under standard G2. It acknowledged that the programme had been

classified as "AO", was broadcast in "AO" time and had been preceded by a warning.

The Adults Only – "AO" – classification applies to:

Programmes containing adult themes or those which, because of the way the

material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age.

The Authority accepted that the sequence did not contravene the standard as to what

is acceptable in an "AO" programme and, if there had been no further arguments, that

would have been the end of the matter. It would have ruled that standard G2 was not

transgressed.

However, the Authority accepted that a further contention, put most fervently in the

Community's Board's complaint, had to be given serious consideration. The Board

pointed out that groups of young people had been filmed during the preparation of the

programme and a segment showing young children playing sport and another of

secondary school pupils was included in the broadcast. That the likely audience for

the programme would undoubtedly include a significant number of those from younger

age groups was a matter which, the Authority decided, TVNZ should have taken into

account when it prepared the item for screening.

This decision confirms other Authority decisions in which the likely audience is a

matter the Authority takes into account when considering the applicability of the

context reference in standard G2. Usually, the Authority accepts that context means

that programmes specifically designed for an adult age group (eg Frontline and other

current affairs programmes), which may include material unsuitable for a younger

audience, may nevertheless be broadcast at a time when younger viewers could be

watching. On this occasion, and applying the same reasons in reverse, the Authority

has accepted that an "AO" classification in itself does not mean that the broadcaster

can ignore the likely audience.

The Authority wants to make it quite clear that its decision on this point is

exceptional. "AO" time begins at 8.30pm and from that hour it is essentially a

parent's (or other caregiver's) responsibility to supervise what young people watch.

That a programme involves children, or that it is regarded as family viewing, or that

some young people who have been filmed may be included in the programme, is each

not sufficient in itself to require the broadcaster to focus on the "in context"

requirement in standard G2. However, when these points coincide and any warning

broadcast is of such a general nature that viewers are not aware of the reasons that the

material to be screened might be offensive, the Authority accepts that, because of the

contextual aspect of standard G2, the "AO" classification does not allow the

broadcast, shortly after the 8.30pm watershed, of material which will be offensive to

younger viewers.

When examining the lingerie party sequence, the Authority decided that this segment

should, on good taste and decency grounds, preferably have been omitted but if

included it should have been discreet and omitted aspects or items such as the male

stripper and the phallic shaped candle. Taking the reference to context in standard G2

into account, the Authority decided that the lingerie party sequence as broadcast

breached standard G2 of the Television Code.

Standard G1 – Truth and Accuracy

When considering the complaint alleging the factual inaccuracy of the reference to

crime rates under standard G1, the Authority took into account its ruling that the

programme was one person's subjective interpretation of his recollections and his

current experiences. The presenter introduced the item with some less than

complimentary remarks about Wainuiomata's reputation in the past. He concluded

the programme with some very positive remarks about both the people and the

community. While the comment about the high crime-rate in the past might or might

not be accurate, the comment was included to record an impression and, as such, the

Authority accepted that it was an expression of opinion. There was no suggestion

that the current crime rate was high and, accordingly, standard G1 was considered to

be inapplicable.

With regard to possible concerns about crime in Wainuiomata, the Authority also

noted the very positive comments made to the presenter by the community constable

who said it was a good area with nice people, and a place which had grown up with a

good feeling and a sense of belonging - all one family. The Authority believed that

these remarks would have allayed any concerns which Mr McCormick's introductory

remarks might have raised.

Standard G19 – Editing Not to Distort

Standard G19 is designed to deal with a complaint which alleges that an item, through

editing, has distorted the views originally expressed. Mr Mallard raised the

possibility of such a breach in relation to the editing of the interviews with the

Wainuiomata College pupils when he referred his complaint to the Authority. As the

Authority's task is to review the broadcaster's decision on the original complaint, it

was unable to accept a referral which raised standards not previously put to the

broadcaster.

However, the possibility of distortion through editing was also suggested by Mr Keall

although TVNZ declined to deal with it as the formal complaint did not name a

specific example of distortion through editing. TVNZ's response was based on points

raised in Mr Keall's formal complaint but, in his first letter of complaint, he had raised

the possibility that one particular pupil had been quoted out of context as:

I understand that she is extremely upset with the way she has been portrayed as

a person with no ambition other than to be on the dole, when in fact she also said

she wished to join the armed forces.

Despite initially declining to deal with the issue, later, TVNZ objected strenuously to

the suggestion in the complaints that selective editing had occurred. In response to Mr

Mallard's final comment, it wrote:

Of course there is a selection process involved in editing any television

programme. In this case seventeen hours of tape had to be reduced to 46

minutes. However, during the process we fervently deny that anyone was

misrepresented, or that the documentary was deliberately edited to show

Wainuiomata in what Mr Mallard claims in a "negative" way.

While TVNZ holds the view that formal complaints must be judged against what

is broadcast, and so believes the complaint process should not extend to the

cutting room floor, we advise that if this issue becomes paramount in the

Authority's deliberations, the producers are prepared to show members all

seventeen hours of uncut tape so that they can judge for themselves the fairness

of the editing.

The Authority accepted that offer in respect to the field tape of the pupils at

Wainuiomata College at which one student was seen to state that being "on the dole"

was her ambition on leaving school.

TVNZ then refused to release the field tape, observing:

After some debate here, the decision has been made that TVNZ will hold to its

policy of not releasing raw programme material to anyone. We believe this is a

very important principle which is vital to the preservation of TVNZ's editorial

independence.

Nevertheless, TVNZ continued:

We are, however, anxious to cooperate with the Authority and what follows is

a transcript of the raw interview with the Wainuiomata girl who spoke of going

on the dole. The conversation with Gary McCormick came as he moved around

a group of Wainuiomata school children asking them questions about their town

and their aspirations.

TVNZ then supplied the transcript of the discussion with some pupils prior and

subsequent to – and including – the "on the dole" answer, some of which mentioned the

pupil's "groundings" and some of which was broadcast. TVNZ maintained that it was

apparent from the broadcast that the pupil's views were not taken out of context and

that the full transcript reinforced that point. The students' comments overall, TVNZ

noted:

... were fairly unenthusiastic, and at best equivocal, about Wainuiomata and

about their own futures in the suburb.

In the Authority's experience, complaints which allege a breach of standard G19 – that

editing has distorted the views originally expressed – are difficult to determine. As the

broadcasters point out, it is rare for an interview to be broadcast in an unedited form.

Further, editing involves editorial judgment and a complaint under standard G19 can be

regarded as an attack on editorial independence.

On this occasion, the Authority noted TVNZ's remarks on the supply of field tapes

and editorial independence and decided after a careful perusal of the transcript of the

full discussion before and after the "on the dole" answer – and the absence of any

comment about the armed forces – that the editing had not involved distorting the

views originally expressed. Standard G19, it believed, had not been transgressed.

Other Matters

Another aspect of the complaint alleged that Ms Chloe Reeves was presented as the

typical Wainuiomata resident. This complaint referred to a number of the standards

but the Authority does not intend to appraise this matter against any particular

standard. Rather, it disagreed with the conclusion drawn by the complainants that she

was portrayed as a typical resident. Ms Reeves' recent arrival as a resident of

Wainuiomata was stated during the broadcast and she was presented thereafter as one

of the individuals ("glorious, eccentric, ordinary or unattractive") who TVNZ

explained were featured in the Heartland series.

As was clearly apparent from the complaints, many residents of Wainuiomata felt that

their community had been dealt with dishonestly by the Heartland broadcast. Some

have noted that the next programme in the series Heartland: Hokitika, did not paint

such a dismal picture but portrayed the community and specific individuals in a

positive way and actually showed activities which could all be found in Wainuiomata.

The Authority understands the complainants' disappointment that their expectations

for the portrayal of a healthy, robust and all-round community may not have

eventuated. However, the Authority considered that the opinion piece indicated that

Wainuiomata was a caring and proud community in which there was very strong

community feeling and believed that the overall message was a positive one. For

example, in his opening comments which referred to the old days, Mr McCormick said

that Wainuiomata was thought of as a poor area with a high crime rate, was referred to

as Nappy Valley and not the sort of place where you would take the family for a

picnic. He continued:

But that was then and now is now and tonight on Heartland we're going to

dispel an urban myth.

In his closing remarks he said that he had begun the programme by pointing out that

those who grew up in Wellington did so with a certain amount of disdain for those

who lived in Wainuiomata. He went on to say that they were a group of warm and

enormously friendly people who had built up a marvellous community – "We should

never underestimate Wainuiomata" he concluded.

For the reasons given above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast of the lingerie party sequence in Heartland: Wainuiomata – Over the

Hill by Television New Zealand Ltd at 8.35pm on 2 August 1994 breached

standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. Because it has only upheld one aspect of the complaint, and

has applied exceptional circumstances to that aspect, the Authority does not intend to

impose an order on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
12 December 1994

Appendix I

Mr Mallard MP's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 4 August

1994

Mr Trevor Mallard, MP for Pencarrow, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd

about the broadcast of Heartland - Wainuiomata: Over the Hill by Television One at

8.35pm on 2 August.

He alleged that the programme breached s.4(1)(a) and (d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989

which require that programmes maintain standards of good taste and decency, and be

balanced. The good taste requirement, he continued, had been contravened by the

"lingerie party" segment which involved the offensive use of a phallic shaped candle, a

male stripper and crotchless knickers.

By way of introduction to his complaint about the item's lack of balance, he began:

The prejudice underlying the whole programme was shown in the introductory

comments when the presenter offered a clearly biased opinion as to

Wainuiomata's history.

The item, he added, followed a similar negative line and omitted the vast majority of

positive comments which could be made about the environment and the numerous

social, service, cultural and sporting organisations. Arguing that TVNZ should

produce a second programme to balance the one which had been broadcast, he

concluded:

The programme has however left an overall impression of people who live in

Wainuiomata as being eccentric, negative and lacking in intelligence. The valley

as a whole is displayed as rundown and poverty stricken.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 10 August 1994

When TVNZ advised Mr Mallard of his Complaints Committee's decision, it reported

that the broadcast had been assessed as requested under s.4(1)(a) and (d) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

TVNZ suggested that Mr Mallard did not fully appreciate what the Heartland series

was about, explaining:

It is not a series of travelogues, nor is it intended as a sequence of serious

documentaries on life in New Zealand. It is in fact an entertainment series

which places a good deal of emphasis on individual characters and personalities

that are uncovered in the various locations the team visits. The interaction

between these personalities and the programme's host is a key factor.

"Heartland - Wainuiomata" never pretended to be a searching examination of

the town and its people. Neither was it planned as a public relations exercise.

The "Heartland" team went "over the hill" to discover some of the unusual and

colourful personalities that can be found in suburban New Zealand.

With regard to the lingerie party sequence, TVNZ said the material was presented in a

light-hearted manner in "AO" time and that it had been preceded by a warning.

Maintaining that it showed an unusual and intriguing aspect of suburban New Zealand,

TVNZ expressed the opinion that it did not breach the good taste standard.

Dealing with the balance aspect of the complaint, TVNZ insisted that Gary

McCormick's "light-hearted romp" around various locations did not require the

inclusion of tourist or business material as it was neither a serious documentary nor a

travelogue. In support of its approach, TVNZ quoted two editorials in which the

entertainment aspect of the programme was stressed and, in declining to uphold the

complaint, commented:

We would also note that a spin-off from this programme has been a great deal

of publicity for Wainuiomata - including a piece on "Holmes" in which a local

schoolgirl took a camera round the sights she thought New Zealanders ought to

know about.

Mr Mallard's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 2

September 1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Mallard referred his complaint to the

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

enclosed a petition with over 2300 signatures, which had been collected from adults

over a few days in the Wainuiomata Mall and which represented about 20% of all

adults in the community.

He persisted in his complaint that the programme lacked balance and that one

sequence lacked taste. He argued, because of the lack of an alternative remedy for a

community which was maligned, that the Authority had a particularly important

responsibility in determining the complaint.

He raised three points:

1) Had the editing of the sequences of Wainuiomata College contain a fair

reflection of what had been said to Mr McCormick?

2) Had the Wainuiomata programme followed the direction of previous Heartland

programmes?

3) As primary school children had been asked by teachers to watch the programme,

was the "AO" rating sufficient?

He concluded by asking the Authority to order TVNZ to screen a programme which

redressed the balance.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 16 September 1994

In its report to the Authority on the referral, TVNZ advised that it intended to

comment about the series as a whole to show where the Wainuiomata programme

fitted into the wider picture. It began:

"Heartland" has set itself the task of bringing to the New Zealand television

audience a reflection of our own culture, in all its diversity and complexity.

It then listed a number of the type of people and communities featured - which

included freezing workers in Te Kuiti and debutantes in Fendalton - explaining that the

series celebrated the diversity of the uniquely New Zealand society.

The Wainuiomata programme included a range of people and, TVNZ argued:

To assert that this programme was negative in tone (Mr Mallard's original letter

of complaint) is simply not true. The judgement of the overwhelming majority

of people who appeared in the programme, even those having a hard time of it,

was that Wainuiomata is a great place to live and they would not want to live

anywhere else.

TVNZ noted that Ms Chloe Reeves (described by Mr Mallard elsewhere as a

"bimbo") had become an overnight celebrity and among her many activities, "Tourism

Wainuiomata has adopted Chloe as an ambassador for the town". Her individuality,

TVNZ added, was widely appreciated.

Recalling that Mr Mallard had expressed concern about the lack of balance in the way

the programme had dealt with the Wainuiomata Rugby League Club, TVNZ

maintained that sport and drinking were "inextricably bound together in Wainuiomata,

as they are in almost every part of New Zealand". However, drinking at the club had

not been overemphasised and, TVNZ, pointed out:

Significantly the president of the Wainuiomata Rugby League, Mr Alex Gage,

has no complaint with the portrayal of the club in the programme and has

declared that he enjoyed the programme as a whole.

In addition, TVNZ noted that Heartland was "quite obviously" an "authored" work.

TVNZ added that the introduction involved Mr McCormick's impressions. They

were not statements of fact but an accurate summary of what he thought he knew

about Wainuiomata.

TVNZ acknowledged that it would be difficult to reach agreement on just who should

or should not be included but that had not been an issue as the programme complained

about was Gary McCormick's view of the community in question. His previously-

held conceptions were included and in his closing remarks he presented a "thoroughly

positive" conclusion. TVNZ summarised:

"Heartland" takes care not to denigrate the communities it visits, but it is not a

travelogue series, and the producers are not in the employ of local or national

tourist promoters. It is the concern of "Heartland" to explore New Zealand's

culture in all its manifestations - the glorious, the eccentric, the ordinary, and

occasionally the unattractive.

Turning to Mr Mallard's complaint about the taste of the lingerie party sequence,

TVNZ repeated that the item was broadcast after 8.30pm and had been preceded with

a warning. Lingerie parties, it continued, had a wide acceptance in New Zealand and

"like it or not", because they were a form of entertainment:

... that has caught hold in New Zealand it was worthy of inclusion in the

programme.

It denied that people outside of Wainuiomata had gained a negative view of the town

from the programme. Rather:

We believe the vast majority of viewers came away with a positive view of

Wainuiomata as a proud and self sufficient community which includes

community-minded people, some real characters, and plenty of good, ordinary

honest folk who enjoy life and love their town.

In conclusion, it noted, since its earlier letter, that it had received a number of

complaints from Mr Mallard's constituents but believed that their concerns, like Mr

Mallard's, were misplaced.

Mr Mallard's Final Comment - 3 October 1994

When asked for a brief, final comment Mr Mallard said that whereas one expected a

robust defence from TVNZ, the arrogance in its letter was "regrettable".

He then argued that as Heartland was advertised as a documentary and was not a game

show or a comedy, that point which should be taken into account by the Authority.

He wrote:

Heartland has indeed brought to the attention of the New Zealand plenty of

colourful characters. But in none of the series that I viewed before the

Wainuiomata programme were viewers left with the impression that these

colourful characters were typical of the community in which they resided.

The programme about Wainuiomata, he continued, focussed on the unusual, lacked

balance and left a negative impression overall.

Denying that he had described Ms Chloe Reeves as a "bimbo" but, as one who was

inexperienced with the media and an "intriguing character", Mr Mallard referred to the

focus on alcohol use at the League club. He had discussed the programme with Mr

Gage of the club and both agreed that it could have been significantly improved if it

had been edited positively rather than negatively. A similar comment could be applied

to the extract from Wainuiomata College.

He maintained his opinion that the lingerie sequence was offensive and concluded:

I wish to emphasise that the Authority is Wainuiomata's last hope of balancing

what 99% of residents regard as a defaming of our community.

Further Correspondence

Acknowledging that it was unusual to respond to a complainant's final comment, in a

letter dated 10 October TVNZ stated that it wanted to refute specifically Mr

Mallard's assertion that the programme makers had been involved in "selective

editing". Referring to the accusation as a "serious and quite unwarranted attack",

TVNZ acknowledged that considerable editing had occurred to reduce, in this case, 17

hours of tape down to a 46 minute programme. TVNZ fervently "denied that anyone

had been misrepresented through editing and added:

While TVNZ holds to the view that formal complaints must be judged against

what is broadcast, and so believes the complaints process should not extend to

the cutting room floor, we advise that it this issue becomes paramount in the

Authority's deliberations, the producers are prepared to show members all

seventeen hours of uncut tape so that they can judge for themselves the fairness

of the editing.

As we have said before no one who actually appeared on the programme has

made any complaint to us either about the way they were portrayed, or about

the portrayal of Wainuiomata.

As it decided that TVNZ had not addressed the aspect of the complaint which referred

to the alleged editing of the interview with the pupil at Wainuiomata College, on 4

November 1994 the Authority asked TVNZ to forward the field tape of the full

exchange which it had offered to the Authority.

In its reply dated 11 November, TVNZ withdrew the offer and reported that a

decision had been made not to release raw material to anyone to ensure the

preservation of editorial independence.

Nevertheless, it supplied a transcript of the full exchange between the pupil and Mr

McCormick which lead to the answer when she described her ambition as being to go

"on the dole". Emphasising that the Authority's task was to assess complaints about

the material which was broadcast, TVNZ said that the transcript affirmed what was

apparent from the broadcast, that editing which distorted had not occurred.

TVNZ explained that almost all broadcasts involve editing and that what was excluded

was a matter of editorial prerogative. With regard to the present programme, it added

that most of the pupils interviewed had been unenthusiastic about Wainuiomata and

their futures in the suburb. It concluded by maintaining that the broadcast had

included the range of views expressed by the pupils.

Appendix II

Mrs V L J Grehan's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 3 August

1994

Following correspondence with a number of staff at Television New Zealand Ltd, and

with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, TVNZ accepted that Mrs Valerie

Grehan's letter to the producer of Heartland as a formal complaint about the

broadcast of Heartland: Wainuiomata at 8.35pm on 2 August.

Writing as a Wainuiomata resident of over 40 years, Mrs Grehan complained about the

programme for three reasons.

First, noting the warning that the broadcast contained material some viewers might

find offensive, Mrs Grehan objected to the broadcast of any offensive material during

family viewing time.

Secondly, the programme was unbalanced by referring to rugby league - and the

accompanying crates of beer - while ignoring other sports, the youth groups and

various service groups. "All we got", she wrote, "was tupperware and lingerie, Rugby

League and beer".

Thirdly, she said that the item ridiculed Wainuiomata and had undone the years of

work by the residents and their elected representatives. She asked:

Who would now want to come and live in Wainuiomata after seeing your

programme? Would you?

Is this what you intended, to show your power to be able to so downgrade a

place that no one will want to own to living there?

While acknowledging that the programme had included some positive comments, she

said that Wainuiomata had been crudely and unfairly treated.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 7 September 1994

TVNZ advised Mrs Grehan that her complaint had been assessed by its Complaints

Committee under standards G1, G2 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

Mrs Grehan had earlier written to Mr McCormick expressing her concern that

Wainuiomata had among other things been portrayed as "a run-down State Housing

area" while omitting the many positive aspects of the community.

In his discourteous reply to her, dated 28 August 1994, Mr McCormick expressed his

disappointment that Mrs Grehan had responded in the way she had.

In its response to Mrs Grehan's complaint, TVNZ covered much the same material

dealt with in its reply to Mr Trevor Mallard MP (see Appendix I).

In addition and dealing specifically with Mrs Grehan's inaccuracy complaint, TVNZ

denied that Wainuiomata had been described as a "rough area" but, "in the old days"'

it had not been a place for a family picnic. Now, the programme said, things had

changed.

TVNZ then canvassed the standard G2 and G6 aspects of the complaint in the same

way as it dealt with those matters in its reply to Mr Mallard under s.4(1)(a) or (d).

Mrs Grehan's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20

September 1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Mrs Grehan referred her complaint to the

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

What she objected to, she explained, was not the unusual and colourful personalities,

but:

... the way Wainuiomata was presented to the viewing public as a rundown,

dirty, poor housing area. TVNZ will say that Mr McCormick did not use those

words, but that is the image that was presented to New Zealand.

Dealing with the inaccuracy aspect of her complaint, she admitted that the word

"rough area" might not have been used but that was the implication. Wainuiomata, she

averred, had never been thought of as a "poor area", had never had a high crime rate

and had always been a place for family picnics.

With regard to the requirement for good taste and decency, she said that the lingerie

party sequence was unsuitable for children and, despite the warning, was

inappropriate in a programme "usually thought of as family entertainment".

Moreover, she remarked, school children had been asked by their parents to watch the

programme.

In response to TVNZ's comment that lingerie parties were an intriguing aspect of

suburban New Zealand, she asked:

Why pick on Wainuiomata for this particular piece of sleaze?

Showing two guard dogs at the beginning of the programme, she added, was a

deceptive programme practice contrary to standard G7 as guard dogs implied a rough

area.

Calling TVNZ's use of the term "documentary" to describe the programme a "big

mistake", she noted that their concerns were shared by many others and she

concluded:

I have referred in my various letters to TVNZ to the power of television -

unfortunately what is shown on TV is accepted as truth and the people of

Wainuiomata have been offended and concerned at the portrayal of their town

which bears little relevance to fact (G1 and G7). The TV audience see

Wainuiomata now as a run down, rough, dirty, poor housing area, albeit with a

strong interest in Rugby League and beer. That is not Wainuiomata and we

object strongly to that portrayal.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 27 September 1994

In its response to the Authority on Mrs Grehan's complaint, TVNZ said it had

addressed the issues raised in its reply concerning Mr Mallard's complaint. TVNZ

commented:

We find it more difficult by the day to believe that "Heartland" has destroyed

the reputation of Wainuiomata as Mrs Grehan's letter seems to imply. No

community in New Zealand seems to be getting more attention, thanks to

"Heartland" - and the rising fortunes of "Chloe" have become a national

phenomenon.

...

We do not believe that the reputation of Wainuiomata has been sullied by

"Heartland" and re-emphasise once again that "Heartland's" mission is to reflect

New Zealand's culture, in all its diversity and complexity.

Mrs Grehan's Final Comment - 4 October 1994

Maintaining that she was far from satisfied with TVNZ's response, Mrs Grehan

continued to complain that the Heartland programme had denigrated Wainuiomata. Its

self-proclaimed role, she added, was to celebrate diversity but there was no celebration

in Wainuiomata.

She then referred to the more recent Heartland programme on Hokitika which, in its

search for the eccentric and unusual, showed a choral group, an "oldies" marching

team, entertainers and live theatre. These were also activities which occurred in

Wainuiomata, which had been filmed but which had not been broadcast. She wrote:

I note that there was no need in the Hokitika episode for a Ôviewers may find

some scenes offensive' notice. This time around viewers got what they

expected, and what we all thought ÔHeartland' was about, a light-hearted romp

around various NZ locations (except Wainuiomata).

Pointing to the numerous complaints generated by the programme, she asked how

could TVNZ maintain that the broadcast had not harmed the community.

Further Correspondence

Acknowledging that it was unusual to respond to the complainant's final comment, in

a letter dated 12 October 1994 TVNZ emphasised that at the beginning of the

programme, Mr McCormick recalled, through the use of the pronouns "I" and "We",

his own impressions of Wainuiomata.

TVNZ said that it found the claims that the programme presented a negative image of

Wainuiomata to be "incredible". The people who appeared were positive, caring and

actively involved in the community. TVNZ also maintained that the letter Mrs

Grehan received from Mr McCormick was not part of the official complaint or the

broadcaster's response.

By telephone on 17 October, Mrs Grehan maintained her displeasure at the reply she

had received from Mr McCormick but did not wish to prolong the interchange by

commenting further.

Appendix III

Wainuiomata Community Board's Complaint to Television New Zealand

Limited - 15 August 1994

The Chair of the Wainuiomata Community Board, Mr R C Moore, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast by Television One of Heartland -

Wainuiomata: Over the Hill at 8.35pm on 2 August. He alleged that the programme

breached standards G1, G2, G6, G8 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

Mr Moore described the programme as a significant departure from others in the series

and, as the evidence of its being devoid of balance, he argued that the facts were

presented to fit in with a pre-determined bias.

Referring to the policing arrangements over the years, he said it was completely

incorrect to refer to Wainuiomata as a "high crime rate area". Wainuiomata had had,

and continued to have, a very low crime rate.

He said that the lingerie sequence was objectionable and to suggest that it was a unique

activity in Wainuiomata was "gratuitous sensationalism". Pointing to the high

proportion of children in Wainuiomata and the large number who would have watched

the programme, he described the brief warning at the beginning of the programme as a

device used to circumvent the standards. Noting that the listing in "The Listener" did

not include any rating, he wrote:

To the best of our knowledge, this is the only occasion where such a message

has been given in respect of any of the earlier Heartland programmes, nor for

that matter would it have been necessary to even consider the need for a warning

of that nature.

Mr Moore concluded his complaint to TVNZ:

You will be aware of the unprecedented level of concern over the quality and

content of that programme by residents of Wainuiomata. We would add that

there has also been concern expressed to members of the Board and other

residents by people who do not live in Wainuiomata. Amongst those were some

who, although they have not visited Wainuiomata, could readily recognise the

lack of balance in the presentation.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 7 September 1994

TVNZ advised Mr Moore that its Complaints Committee had assessed the complaint

under the nominated standards.

After referring to the intention of the Heartland series (covered in Appendix I), TVNZ

addressed the alleged inaccurate description of Wainuiomata as being "a high crime-rate

area". As the reference was clearly to the "old-days" - not to the present time -

TVNZ maintained that the accuracy standard had not been breached.

Its comments about the alleged offensiveness of the lingerie party repeated the points

made in Appendix I and that aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The balance aspect of the complaint was treated in a similar fashion.

TVNZ also declined to uphold the complaints under standards G8 or G12, arguing

that the matters had been addressed under the good taste requirement. It concluded:

Accordingly, while TVNZ is sorry on this occasion you found "Heartland" to be

"a significant departure from other programmes in that series" it does not believe

that the broadcast was in breach of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

Wainuiomata Community Board's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - 25 September 1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Moore on behalf of the Wainuiomata

Community Board referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

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

Referring to the numerous visitors to the facilities around Wainuiomata since at least

1970, together with the fact that the programme's presenter had worked as a Youth

Worker in Wainuiomata during part of the 1970s, Mr Moore maintained that the

programme had breached the accuracy requirement in describing the Wainuiomata as a

high crime rate area at any time.

In addition, Mr Moore argued that the lingerie sequence was probably not acceptable

in any "AO" programme and maintained that it had definitely breached the standard

requiring good taste broadcast in a programme which was of interest to many young

people and broadcast at a time when many would have been watching. The warning

was of little use as:

We must emphasise that when a programme is made about a particular town,

especially when it received considerable publicity within that town, it would be

one that would be of interest to a large proportion of the school children in that

town. The producers of the programme would be very aware that a high

proportion of children would be watching the show, especially as they had

filmed parts of the programme at one of the colleges in Wainuiomata.

Mr Moore maintained that the balance standard had not been complied with - given

the response which the broadcast had evoked - and considered inadequate TVNZ's

response to the standards G8 and G12 complaints.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 30 September 1994

In its response to the Authority on the Community Board's complaint, TVNZ said it

had addressed a number of the issues in its reply dealing with Mr Mallard's complaint

(see Appendix 1) and then commented on some matters specifically raised by the

Community Board.

First, it objected to the accusation that the standards had been deliberately breached:

We genuinely do not believe that the programme was in breach of the standards

and aver that TVNZ has never deliberately breached the statutory standards. To

suggest otherwise, as the Community Board has done, is to cast an unjustified

slur on the integrity and professionalism of TVNZ and its staff.

Whatever way the Authority rules on this complaint, it is our hope that it will

see fit to specifically rebut the suggestion that TVNZ sets out to deliberately

evade its responsibilities in the standards area.

Repeating and emphasising the point made to Mr Mallard that the programme was an

"authored" work, TVNZ said it was appropriate for an "author" to refer to his

previous impressions when reporting on what was actually found.

TVNZ also maintained that the material was suitable for an "AO" programme which

carried a warning. It acknowledged that the "AO" rating was not listed in the

newspaper - as the appraisal was not completed early enough - but emphasised that

the symbol was carried on the programme.

It also repeated that the Heartland series had:

... the task of bringing to the New Zealand television audience a reflection of our

own culture in all its diversity and complexity.

It continued:

In such context individual characters become important. "Heartland" takes the

view that diversity has to be celebrated and that it is the combination of

individual characteristics among New Zealanders that together make our society

uniquely New Zealand.

TVNZ concluded by arguing that the number of complainants should not be the guide

used by the Authority in determining the issues.

Wainuiomata Community Board's Final Comment to the Authority - 10

October 1994

On the Board's behalf, Mr Moore argued that although a programme was an authored

work, that did not exempt it from complying with the requirement to be truthful and

accurate on points of fact. He repeated that Wainuiomata had never had a high crime

rate as the presenter - a former youth worker in Wainuiomata - would have been

aware.

It was accepted that the small "AO" symbol was shown - for a brief period - and a

warning was broadcast. However, as the filming for the programme had included

schools and youth sports, it was reasonable to expect that it would be watched by a

large number of the younger age groups in Wainuiomata. Mr Moore maintained the

Board's argument that the lingerie party sequence was unacceptable for family viewing

in a programme of the nature of the Heartland series

Reiterating that the level of complaints confirmed the Board's view that the standards

had been transgressed, Mr Moore concluded:

While we consider that the programme failed to give anything like a fair

indication of the nature of this community, this is not the substance of our

complaint. The reference by TVNZ to Ôcharacters', or to complaints from other

sources, are therefore irrelevant to this complaint. Our concerns in this

complaint relate solely to what we believe are breaches of the General

Programme Standards by that Heartland programme.

Appendix IV

Mr Keall's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 4 and 11 August

1994

On 4 August 1994 Mr Dennis J Keall of Wainuiomata complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, that the Heartland:

Wainuiomata programme broadcast on Television One at 8.35pm on 2 August, despite

the positive feedback to the community during the time of filming, "had a deliberate

bias against Wainuiomata to give the worst possible picture". Questioning the

integrity of the presenter, Mr Keall said that the item was "grossly unbalanced" and

that Wainuiomata was shown to be:

... underdeveloped, dirty and disorganised with a very large proportion of

basically uneducated and/or uncouth people.

In view of the degree of imbalance, Mr Keall expressed his belief that the programme

was maliciously prepared and presented. He believed that a full apology was

necessary together with a follow-up programme displaying the true Wainuiomata. He

wrote:

I found Gary McCormick's stereotyping of Wainuiomata to be grossly insulting

and very far removed from the truth. I believe he and Television NZ have done

irreparable damage to Wainuiomata to the extent that some comments in the

papers following the programme referring to Wainuiomata's land values losing

value as a result of the programme, are probably not far from the truth. If that is

so, then Television New Zealand and Gary McCormick owe Wainuiomata a

great debt.

In contrast to the views contained in the programme, he referred to his own experience

in a community with a "special community feeling and cohesiveness".

As evidence of the malice in the preparation of the programme, he said that the

reported comments of a Wainuiomata pupil were taken out of context to portray her

as a person without ambition.

Mr Keall also objected to the focus given to one "shallow individual" who admitted to

being a short term resident who, as an "eccentric, bedraggled character", was not the

norm in Wainuiomata.

In conclusion, he maintained that the broadcast was unbalanced and said "drastic

apologies and corrections" were required from both TVNZ and the presenter.

In his second letter of complaint to TVNZ (dated 11 August), Mr Keall alleged that

the programme breached the following standards: G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G12,

G13, G19 and G21. He expressed annoyance that Ms Chloe Reeves had been held up

as a pillar of society and a representative of Wainuiomata when, in fact, she had been

in the area for only three months and was a "Social Welfare cheat".

He also expressed annoyance that Mr McCormick had not taken a more conciliatory

attitude to the criticism that the programme had evoked.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 1 September 1994

When TVNZ advised Mr Keall of its decision, it reported that the broadcast had been

assessed under the standards nominated - G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G12, G13,

G19 and G21.

It began by explaining, in similar terms to its responses to the other complainants, the

nature of the Heartland series and then dealt with each specific standard. It declined

to uphold the standard G1 complaint as no particular fact was advanced by Mr Keall

as untrue. It also declined to uphold the G2 complaint as the lingerie sequence was

broadcast in "AO" time and had been preceded with a warning. Declining to uphold

the complaints under standards G3, G4 and G5, TVNZ said that Chloe Reeves was

not promoted "as a typical Wainuiomata resident of good standing", but as " a bit of a

character".

Standard G6 was inapplicable given the nature of the programme and TVNZ's

responded to the standard G7 complaint was to quote two newspaper editorials to the

effect that Heartland: Wainuiomata was an entertainment programme which displayed

an exuberant and witty community.

The lingerie sequence was presented in a light-hearted manner in "AO" time and, in

addition, had been preceded with a warning. TVNZ added:

The lingerie party was included in the programme because, like some of the

characters represented in "Heartland" it was an unusual and intriguing aspect of

life in suburban New Zealand - especially when the viewer learnt that such

"entertainment" occurred in Wainuiomata (and by implication elsewhere too)

"about once a month".

As the programme did not encourage discrimination against the people of

Wainuiomata, standard G13 had not been contravened and, without specific examples,

it was not possible to rule on the alleged breach of standard G19. Moreover, there

were no significant errors of fact which, under standard G21, had to be corrected at the

earliest opportunity.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Keall's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 28 September

1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Mr Keall referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Arguing that TVNZ had taken a very narrow view of the complaint, Mr Keall said

that no weight had been given to the "public or community" view of those most

affected.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 10 October 1994

Noting that it had little to add in response to Mr Keall's referral, TVNZ said it had

addressed the issues in its correspondence with Mr Mallard. In relation to Mr Keall's

specific claim that he represented a public or community view, TVNZ said that it had

received no complaints from anyone who appeared in the programme nor had heard

any claims that they felt that they had been misrepresented.

Mr Keall's Final Comment - 19 October 1994

Mr Keall began by acknowledging that TVNZ's replies sounded reasonable but

explained that they did so because they missed the point of his complaint.

His point, as covered in his letters, was that TVNZ had set out to show Wainuiomata

in a bad light and had selected information for the broadcast to do so. In addition,

although the presenter's words were reasonable, the tone of delivery had involved a

"snide dig" at Wainuiomata. He wrote:

From my knowledge of Wainuiomata and its various strengths and weaknesses, I

believe that TVNZ had to go to some extreme lengths to find the high degree of

negative footage that they did find and use. My argument is that this was way

of proportion with the other information they accumulated during their research

and filming. The use of the footage they did use was, I believe, totally unfair to

the Wainuiomata community, and that the presentation of TVNZ was malicious.

Mr Keall then dealt with a number of the matters covered in the programme where the

negative had been emphasised. Referring to his two children who were pupils at

Wainuiomata College, he stressed that the programme was untrue to suggest that the

pupils there were dispirited.

In contrast to TVNZ's comments, while those who knew Wainuiomata rejected the

programme, those who were unfamiliar with the place accepted the programme as an

accurate description of the place.

Concluding by describing the programme as a "hatchet job" on Wainuiomata, he said

he now hoped for natural justice from the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Further Correspondence

see Appendix 1