BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Waitangi Tribunal in 1992 recommended the return to Te Roroa claimants of

some land at Mangonui Bluff. A 60 Minutes item broadcast on Channel 2 on 25

September which updated the story stated that the owner, Alan Titford a farmer, had

turned down the government's latest offer of $3.25 million for the land. It reported

that Mr Titford now lived in Tasmania.

Mr Kirby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item

omitted the Maori perspective. As a result, it was inaccurate in parts, was

unbalanced, would cause alarm and would encourage discrimination against Maori. He

urged TVNZ to assess his complaint under moral standards in addition to the

regulatory requirements.

While sympathising with the frustration caused by the slow righting of past wrongs

done to Maori, TVNZ said the item reported recent developments and complied with

the standards. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's responses, Mr Kirby 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 declined 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

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

The continuing dispute over some land on the Mangonui Bluff was featured in an item

broadcast on 60 Minutes on 25 September. The item focussed on the owner, Alan

Titford, who had brought the land as a farm in 1987. Part of the land at the time had

been subject to a claim by Te Roroa and the item referred to some of the conflict

between them and Mr Titford which had involved damage to each other's property.

In 1992 the Waitangi Tribunal had recommended that the government acquire the

disputed land and return it to Te Roroa. The item interviewed Mr Titford at length in

Tasmania where he was farming and reported that, contrary to his family's advice, he

had recently rejected an offer of $3.25 million from the government for the land. The

offer would have left Mr Titford with $1 million after he had repaid the mortgages.

The Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations, Hon Doug Graham, was interviewed

and explained that the government believed the offer to be reasonable.

Mr Kirby complained to TVNZ that the item lacked balance, was misleading, incited

racial disharmony and was prejudiced against Maori. Mr Kirby explained that, as the

Waitangi Tribunal found, the Crown had not acquired title to the land legally in 1876

and that, therefore, it was not entitled to sell the property. The item was unbalanced

and prejudiced, Mr Kirby continued, as the Maori perspective to the dispute was not

given. Instead, they were shown as squatters on the land and the item had used

emotive language, eg "it is a modern land war", which was biased against Maori. He

expressed particular concern that the item had not explained that part of the land was

a burial ground to which access had been denied. Mr Kirby argued that TVNZ should

commission a documentary from a Maori producer to allow Maori to put their

perspectives of the history of the Titford land.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1, G6, G11(i) and G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

They 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.

G11 To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a

whole:

(i) Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm

viewers.

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.

TVNZ began:

At the outset, TVNZ's Complaints Committee recognised in your complaint the

genuine concern and frustration of many people (Maori and Pakeha) about the

slow pace of progress in righting the wrongs done to Maori through the

alienation of their land by the colonial power.

The Committee sympathises with that frustration.

However, TVNZ continued, the item complained about was not reviewing the history

of the dispute and it was accepted that the land in question, as the Waitangi Tribunal

had ruled, should be released to Te Roroa. Rather, TVNZ stated:

This item was in the nature of an update. Where was Mr Titford? What was

the government doing to acquire the land so that it could be returned to its

rightful owners?

It had been reported that Mr Titford who was living with his family in Tasmania had

rejected the government's latest offer and it was left to viewers to decide whether or

not Mr Titford's financial expectations were realistic.

Contrary to Mr Kirby's assertion, TVNZ stated that Mr Titford still had legal title to

the land, including the cemetery but that part was not being farmed. It commented:

Within the story a certain amount of background information had to be given.

The committee believed that this was done in a fair and balanced manner. Not

everything is known about the arson, the stock losses or the threats the Titfords

endured.

TVNZ also rejected Mr Kirby's claim that 60 Minutes was in "cahoots with

Federated Farmers". Dealing with each specific aspect of the complaint it reported:

There were aspects of the programme which the committee believed could have

been better handled. Some Maori pronunciation was at fault, and the word

"mistake" (in reference to the original confiscation of the land) could have been

substituted with a word like "injustice".

However the committee did not believe that these points were of sufficient

moment to be judged as breaches of the Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Mr Kirby analysed TVNZ's response paragraph by paragraph when he referred his

complaint to the Authority. He maintained that in a current affairs item, a reporter

had to air the entire issue and full information was of particular importance when

dealing with a sensitive race relations issue. He wrote:

My complaint has had the intention of offering the media the chance to put a

stop to the cycle, for TVNZ to make a moral stand and offer an admission of

fault, to offer an apology, to offer a chance to a Maori Producer from outside

TVNZ the opportunity of making a programme about the land at Mangonui

Bluff from a Maori perspective, about the conflict from their perception.

For TVNZ not to accept that proposal as they have now done, seems to say

that TVNZ lacks principle and that perhaps ratings and money preclude

Maoris.

Having commented on the specific points in TVNZ's letter, he said that his concerns

were fully explained in his original complaint to TVNZ and, he concluded:

We can never hope to live in harmony while this type of communication is

allowed to continue unabated. It is to me a very negative result when ratings

drive the programme makers to the point of risking further racial tension and

lack of tolerance, as a means of drawing majority acceptance. I might also say

Democracy does not work for a minority without tolerance and balance for the

minority.

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ was of the strong view that Mr Kirby had

misunderstood the nature of the item complained about. It wrote:

It was not, and was never intended to be, a review of the history of events at

Mangonui Bluff. That sad chronicle has been fully reported in the past, and the

programme started by accepting that the Waitangi Tribunal had found for the Te

Roroa people in their dispute over ownership of the land. It was accepted that

they had been wronged by having the land taken from them and subsequently

ending up in private hands.

As the dispute involved land under private ownership, TVNZ said the item focussed

on the attempts made by the government to purchase Mr Titford's land. It reported

the amount of the offer and Mr Titford's response. Some references to the history of

the dispute were necessary, TVNZ added, and the script and images were designed to

trigger the viewers' recall of the issue.

TVNZ then dealt with the specific points raised by Mr Kirby and, while

acknowledging the validity of his opinions, maintained that they were not relevant to

the item which was broadcast. TVNZ stated that it believed that the item was a

truthful and accurate description of the present state of negotiations and that it did not

encourage discrimination against Maori.

In his final comment, Mr Kirby repeated his proposal that TVNZ commission an in-

depth view of the history of Te Roroa people and Mangonui Bluff from an

independent Maori producer. Such a programme was necessary, he said, to ensure

equal standing for Maori as guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi. The broadcast

complained about, he added, reflected the influence of powerful organisations on the

media and he asked whether the media was being manipulated by vested interests

which resulted in programmes lacking balance.

In dealing with the arguments advanced by TVNZ and the complainant, the Authority

examined the programme which had been broadcast. Having done so, it was firmly of

the opinion that the item was an update as TVNZ had argued. The Authority

accepted TVNZ's explanation that the item focussed on Mr Titford, his activities

since the Tribunal's decision and his response to the latest offer from the government.

In addition, the item had dealt with Mr Titford in a way which had allowed viewers to

reach their own conclusions as to the reasonableness of his attitude.

Inevitably the programme had to refer to the dispute - which involved considerable

property damage – and, in the Authority's opinion, TVNZ had done so in a way

which explained the controversy but had not attributed blame. Rather, it had referred

to the events in sufficient detail to allow viewers to recall the dispute.

The Authority concluded that the item had dealt with the on-going issues in a balanced

way and that TVNZ had been correct in declining to uphold the complaint as it was

based on a misunderstanding of the item's focus.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
9 March 1995

Appendix

Mr Kirby's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 12 October 1994

Mr Brian Kirby of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an

item broadcast on Channel Two's 60 Minutes between 7.30 - 8.30pm on Sunday 25

September.

The item dealt with the continuing dispute over some farm land at Mangonui Bluff

owned by Mr Alan Titford. Mr Kirby complained that the item was unbalanced and

misleading, that it was prejudiced against Maori and incited racial disharmony.

As background information, Mr Kirby reported that the Waitangi Tribunal had found

that the initial sale by the government of the land was illegal. He continued:

It is then only legally and morally right that the Crown should put its mistakes

right.

The Waitangi Tribunal also recommended that the disputed land should be

returned to the Te Roroa people by the Crown.

There is a problem with the Crown, who like so many of the community would

like to put a statute of limitations on injustices against Maori people. (With

TVNZ could that be institutionalised racism?)

The item, he complained, while showing Maori living on the land, did not give them

the chance of putting their side of the dispute.

Mr Kirby then dealt with some specific statements made during the item which were

critical of Maori, some of which were included in the item's introduction. He asked:

How do TVNZ think, the Maori people feel!!! They were duped out of the

Mangonui land. And if the programme makers had been concerned enough to

ask, I am sure Maori would have said they were cheated, yes the Tribunal did

acknowledge that.

He also questioned the superficial way the item had dealt with the issue of the blocked

road across the land. Pointing out that part of the farm in dispute was a Maori

cemetery, he drew an analogy between a farmer's claim on this land and Auckland's

Waikumete Cemetery. He explained that the first mistake was made in 1876 and that

this was the mistake should have been featured in the broadcast.

Suggesting that the item was a media beat up promoted by the five nearby affected

farmers in conjunction with Federated Farmers, Mr Kirby maintained that the item

was unbalanced. He concluded:

I would like to suggest, that in the future Maori people are ensured of the right

to self proclamation of their point of view. That you will ensure, Maori have a

right to be fully consulted as to the content and context of any programme that

moreover may be detrimental to Maori acceptance within the community?

And could TVNZ urgently commission a documentary by Maori that allows

Maori the opportunity of putting their point-of-view, hence give Maori people

a chance to re-balance the impression given by the programme in question, give

an opportunity to place the history of the Titford land as seen by Maori.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 24 November 1994

After an exchange of correspondence with Mr Kirby, TVNZ assessed the complaint -

that the item gave insufficient weight to the Maori perspective and was unhelpful in

fostering biculturalism - under standards G1, G6, G11(i) and G13 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ began:

At the outset, TVNZ's Complaints Committee recognised in your complaint the

genuine concern and frustration of many people (Maori and Pakeha) about the

slow pace of progress in righting the wrongs done to Maori through the

alienation of their land by the colonial power.

The committee sympathises with that frustration.

However, TVNZ continued, the item complained about was not a review of the

history of Mangonui Bluff and the Waitangi Tribunal decision. That had been dealt

with in the past. Rather, it wrote:

This item was in the nature of an update. Where was Mr Titford? What was

the government doing to acquire the land so that it could be returned to its

rightful owners?

The item had made it clear that the Tribunal had recommended the return of the land

to the Maori and viewers were told that Mr Titford was now living in Tasmania and

had rejected the government's offer for the land as insufficient. It added:

Viewers were left to make up their own minds about whether or not Mr

Titford's financial expectations were realistic.

TVNZ maintained that Mr Titford, contrary to the assertion in the complaint,

maintained some rights to the land as the registered title holder. Nevertheless:

... incidentally it is the observation of the "60 Minutes" reporter that the

cemetery land is not being farmed. Mr Titford has said that when he learned

that the land was a cemetery he had attempted to fence it off so that stock

would stay off it.

TVNZ also stated that the story gave a certain amount of background information and

had included some comments from Mr Titford. These comments, in TVNZ's

opinion, were not anti-Maori but reflected his frustration with the government.

Rejecting the complainant's allegation that the programme had been made "in cahoots

with Federated Farmers", TVNZ repeated:

The intention, quite simply, was to advise viewers of the present state of

negotiations in the government's efforts to acquire the Mangonui Bluff land.

Although reference was made to historical context, it was not an occasion for a

full repeat of the whole issue. Indeed to have done so would have detracted

from the focus of the item.

However, TVNZ observed:

There were aspects of the programme which the committee believed could have

been better handled. Some Maori pronunciation was at fault, and the word

"mistake" (in reference to the original confiscation of the land) could have been

substituted with a word like "injustice".

However the committee did not believe that these points were of sufficient

moment to be judged as breaches of the Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ argued that the

programme was not inaccurate, was fair and balanced, did not cause alarm and that Te

Roroa people specifically and Maori generally were not portrayed as being inherently

inferior. Expressing regret that Mr Kirby found fault with the item, TVNZ expressed

the belief that the standards had not been breached.

Mr Kirby's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 15 December

1994

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

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

Mr Kirby noted that he had sought an assurance from TVNZ that it would not

confine its discussion of his complaint to regulatory issues. He argued that the item

involved moral responsibilities in addition to the regulatory ones, pointing out that the

broadcast of material involving discrimination should not be declared to be in breach

solely on the grounds that it was a genuinely-held opinion.

Noting that the broadcast was a current affairs item, not a news programme, Mr Kirby

stated that balanced information was necessary to bridge the racial divide. He wrote:

My complaint has had the intention of offering the media the chance to put a

stop to the cycle, for TVNZ to make a moral stand and offer an admittance of

fault, to offer an apology, to offer a chance to a Maori Producer from outside

TVNZ the opportunity of making a programme about the land at Mangonui

Bluff from a Maori Perspective, about the conflict from their perception.

For TVNZ not to accept that proposal as they have now done, seems to say

that TVNZ lacks principle, and that perhaps ratings and money preclude

Morals.

Mr Kirby proceeded to assess TVNZ's response paragraph by paragraph. In

response to the reasons given by TVNZ for the item, he recorded:

In the case of Mangonui Bluff, you could never hope to balance any programme,

or avoid putting a racist connotation on the commentary if you don't relate to

Maori and the past disputes, the very absence of that history put into dispute a

Maori perspective. To the best of my memory the item never made any point

of the return of the land to its Maori owners, how could they then say the item

it made was an update on the issue.

Describing Mr Titford's actions as "flagrant profiteering", he argued that the Waitangi

Tribunal's findings were legally binding unless overturned by a higher court. He

accepted the point that the cemetery had been fenced off but pointed out that Maori

did not have free and unrestricted access to it. He expressed the opinion that

Federated Farmers had been influential in the past in reporting the news about the

local farms and remained concerned that it was still involved.

As for TVNZ's concessions, he wrote:

It is not the minor transgressions of pronunciation or words that I have seen as a

problem at all. The "moment" that was important was the direction of the

programme and what it was seen to say, that in my opinion was in breach of the

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

He repeated his belief that TVNZ was "sheltering" behind the exception in standard

G13. That standard had been used, he insisted:

.. to cancel out the moral responsibility of being fair or balanced, if they are

allowed to move forward in that direction, there will soon no longer be a need for

any code of practise at all, completely, and then we can expect Media anarchy

to be the future.

Mr Kirby concluded:

We can never hope to live in harmony while this type of communication is

allowed to continue unabated, it is to me a very negative result when ratings

drive the program makers, to the point of risking further racial tension and the

lack of tolerance, as a means of drawing majority acceptance. I might also say

Democracy does not work for a minority without tolerance and balance for the

minority.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 18 January 1995

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ began:

With respect to Mr Kirby and after reading his referral, TVNZ is ever more sure

that he has misunderstood the nature of the current affairs piece to which his

complaint refers.

The item complained about, TVNZ continued:

...

it was not, and was never intended to be, a review of the history of events at

Mangonui Bluff. That sad chronicle has been fully reported in the past, and the

programme started by accepting that the Waitangi Tribunal had found for the Te

Roroa people in their dispute over ownership of the land. It was accepted that

they had been wronged by having the land taken from them and subsequently

ending up in private hands.

The dispute remained of continuing interest as it involved land in private ownership

and, TVNZ added:

The programme focussed on a new offer by the New Zealand Government to

purchase land belonging to Mr Alan Titford for $3.35 million - an offer he

turned down. The item also recorded Mr Titford's present whereabouts

(Tasmania) and indicated the considerable bitterness he carries over the whole

issue - bitterness directed primarily at the New Zealand Government.

Inevitably the item had included some references to the history of the dispute and in

dealing with the specific aspects raised by Mr Kirby, TVNZ repeated its belief that

they were not relevant to the particular matters dealt with in the broadcast.

TVNZ then addressed the specific points raised by Mr Kirby and in doing so, rejected

"firmly" that the item was hostile to Maori. Rather, it "truthfully and accurately"

described the present state of negotiations. It was not misleading and was not meant

to be insulting. Arguing that some of Mr Kirby's criticisms were based on his

personal views, TVNZ wrote:

We hold to the view that the background to the dispute, while abbreviated

because of the focus on the new developments, was accurately and fairly

portrayed in the item.

It also disagreed that the item was biased in favour of the Titfords and stated that

Federated Farmers was not involved in any way with the item. TVNZ concluded:

We affirm again that we do not believe that the programme portrayed either Te

Roroa, or Maori generally, as being inherently inferior.

Were we to accept Mr Kirby's argument at this point literally we would never

carry any interview or speech extracts from individuals, if there was a

possibility that an alternative view could be advanced. It is so that genuinely-

held opinion can be included in television programmes that sub clause (ii) is

attached to G13.

In this case Mr Titford's remarks were, we believe, directed primarily at the

government, were seen to be his personal opinions, and were responded to by

the Minister of Justice.

Mr Kirby's Final Comment - 24 January 1995

Emphasising that he was keeping his comments brief, Mr Kirby proposed that TVNZ

should commission a Maori producer to make a programme examining the history of

Te Roroa people and the events leading to the current situation on the land at

Mangonui. He offered to advise TVNZ of a suitable producer.

With reference to the item complained about, Mr Kirby said it was important that

issues involving race relations be handled delicately. At present, he wrote, television

tended to marginalise Maori. Listing a number of principally Pakeha institutions

which applied pressure to the media, he raised the possibility of whether they

manipulated the media.

Mr Kirby rejected TVNZ's arguments and maintained that the broadcast was neither

moral nor balanced.