BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The housing problems encountered by a family living in emergency accommodation in

a time of relative economic prosperity were the focus of an item broadcast on TV2's

60 Minutes between 7.30–8.30pm on Sunday 19 February 1995.

The Minister of Housing (Hon Murray McCully) complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item, having raised the issue of affordability,

breached the broadcasting standards in not exploring fully the financial assistance

which was available.

Acknowledging that the item should have dealt with the affordability issue in more

detail, TVNZ upheld the complaint. It said that the staff of 60 Minutes had been

advised of the need for proper research. Dissatisfied that the action taken did not

involve some public acknowledgment of the breach, the Minister referred the

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons 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.

The Minister of Housing (Hon Murray McCully) complained to TVNZ that a 60

Minutes item which examined the home life of a family living in emergency

accommodation breached the requirement in the broadcasting standards for balance,

impartiality and fairness. He claimed that it contravened the standard as it had not

dealt adequately with the options available to the family in finding affordable housing.

As the item had not canvassed the Accommodation Supplement and other benefits

which were available should the family find a suitable home either in the public or

private sector, he maintained that the item had lacked both substance and balance.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice nominated by the Minister which requires broadcasters:

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

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

Maintaining that the item was a human story about a hard-working family which was

struggling to make ends meet in a time of relative economic prosperity, TVNZ said it

reflected the belief of the family (the Maurangis) and its supporter (Mrs Brannigan)

that the family could not afford the weekly rental for a state house. It continued:

However, the committee felt that having indicated that the family could not

afford a state house, fairness required that a check be made to see whether the

Maurangis and Mrs Brannigan had their arithmetic right. As it stood, the

programme seemed to imply a fault in housing policy to which some sort of

response was required.

Having checked the arithmetic, TVNZ said that once the estimated rent for a State

house had been paid, about $44 per head would be left for each member of the family.

As that point should have been included in the programme, TVNZ decided that

standard G6 had been breached. It reported that the following action had been taken:

As a consequence of your complaint being upheld, this matter is being discussed

with the staff on "60 Minutes" to ensure that in future implications of

imbalance are avoided by proper research into the circumstances of such cases.

It goes without saying that for any news team it is an opprobrious experience to

be found at fault by a committee of broadcasting peers such as the TVNZ

Complaints Committee.

Dissatisfied with that action, the Minister referred his complaint to the Authority and

argued that appropriate redress would be some sort of balancing statement or

correction of the original story. He referred to the Press Council process where a

newspaper at fault was required to report in full the Council's decision.

Expressing the opinion that the aspect upheld involved an incidental financial detail, in

its report to the Authority TVNZ argued that a broadcast correction would run the

risk of showing the family at the centre of the story in an unfavourable light. It

continued:

Mr McCully has properly pointed out to us a failing in one aspect of the story.

The result is that in future he can expect that such matters, when they arise, will

be subject to an amended system of checking.

The business of dealing with formal complaints is one that leads to regular

amendments and revisions of existing rules contained in TVNZ's Journalists'

Manual. It is a "living" document, constantly under review, and decisions by

both the Complaints Committee and the Broadcasting Standards Authority are

principal factors in prompting changes.

In conclusion, TVNZ commented:

We note that in bringing this matter to the attention of the Broadcasting

Standards Authority the Minister has guaranteed wider publicity for the

decision, through the public release of the Authority's finding.

In his final comment, the Minister disputed TVNZ's use of the term "incidental" to

describe the aspect upheld and argued that "affordability" was a significant aspect of

the total story. He also drew a parallel between the powers of the Press Council and

the Authority's powers in s.13 of the Broadcasting Act. Finally, he disputed

TVNZ's suggestion that he was seeking a "punitive" remedy by stating that he only

sought rectification of the damage caused by the breach. He wrote:

It is my contention that the Authority should require some appropriate steps to

be taken by the broadcaster in this instance, not for the purposes of punishment

as TVNZ would assert, but in order to achieve the balance, fairness and accuracy

which the original item, by their own admission, failed to achieve.

The Authority agreed that this statement summarised the task with which it was faced

by this complaint – ie what were the appropriate steps to be taken by the broadcaster

in order to rectify the acknowledged breach?

While accepting that the mistake was not deliberate on TVNZ's part, the Authority

decided the omission added to the negative picture which had been advanced in an

emotive item. While the inclusion of the information would not have reversed the

item's thrust, the Authority was of the view that it would have attenuated its

depressing tone. Thus, the Authority was not prepared to accept TVNZ's argument

that the omission was incidental. Noting in addition that the item's title was "A

Home for Lavinia", the Authority considered that the omission of a detail which was

central to the family's quest was a relatively important breach of standard G6.

The Authority noted the Minister's reference to the powers of the Press Council and

also noted TVNZ's argument about the irrelevance of any parallel between the bodies.

In the circumstances of this complaint, the Authority considered it was unnecessary

to comment on this argument.

While understanding TVNZ's argument that a decision by its Complaints Committee

to uphold a complaint was an "opprobrious experience" for the journalists involved,

the Authority was required to decide whether the action taken by TVNZ, having

upheld the complaint, was sufficient rectification for the error. On the basis that the

item's considerable emotional impact would have been diminished had the error not

occurred, the Authority decided that the action taken in response to the breach should

include the broadcast of a correction.

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

taken by Television New Zealand Ltd, having upheld the complaint that an

item broadcast on 60 Minutes on 19 February 1995 breached standard G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, was insufficient.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. As is apparent from the decision, the Authority believes that

the error should be publicly remedied and it decided that the broadcast of a correction

was the appropriate action in this instance.

In view of TVNZ's concern that such a correction could reflect on the family, the

Authority raises the possibility that the correction might be broadcast tactfully, for

example, by way of an "up-date" on the family as, during the correspondence, TVNZ

noted that the family were now living in a state house in Mangere and "doing well".

Order

Pursuant to s.13(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders

Television New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a brief summary of its Complaints

Committee's decision on the original complaint from the Minister of Housing

and this decision, approved by the Authority, arising from the broadcast of the

item "A Home for Lavinia" on 19 February 1995. The broadcast shall be made

on a 60 Minutes programme within one month of the date of this decision.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 July 1995

Appendix

The Minister of Housing's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 20

March 1995

The Minister of Housing (Hon Murray McCully) complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV2's 60 Minutes between 7.30 - 8.30pm on

Sunday 19 February. The item had focussed on Lavinia Maurangi, a ten year-old girl,

and her family.

The item had looked at Lavinia's home life in emergency accommodation which she

shared with others (at the Monte Cecilia House in Auckland) and had interviewed her

parents and Janet Brannigan who apparently ran the shelter. Ms Brannigan had said

that she was looking for a State house for the family but they would need to save

about $1,000 for the bond and the initial two weeks rent. The Minister wrote:

These assertions were given an uncritical airing by your reporter. I suggest the

Income Support Service could have suggested (perhaps on an off-the-record

basis), how the Maurangi family might be provided with the required funds if

your reporter had approached officials.

Noting that Ms Brannigan had been interviewed outside what was identified as a four

bedroom State house costing $230 a week to rent which, she said, was above market

rental, the Minister stated that she had asserted that if the Maurangis could not afford

a State house: "There is nowhere for them to go". He continued:

I am concerned that having raised the issue of affordability late in her item, your

reporter then does not explore this further but seems to accept an assumption

by Janet Brannegan that the Maurangi family couldn't possibly afford a $230

per week State house rental. I do not accept this assumption is well-founded.

The Minister said that he had asked his staff to use publicly available tables combined

with the material given during the item and, after the calculation, reported that the

family's residual income after paying rent of $230 per week would be about $305.00.

In addition, he observed:

This point may be obvious but I will make it anyway. Under the Government's

Housing Reforms, the Maurangi family doesn't necessarily have to rent a $230

State house; they will still receive the same Accommodation Supplement and

other benefits if they can find a suitable house in the private sector to rent at

$230 per week. (And they could still receive bond/rent assistance from Income

Support).

Describing the approach in the item as "lightweight" where "investigative journalism"

could have helped the family, the Minister stated that the item breached the

requirement for balance, impartiality and fairness in standard G6 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 26 April 1995

TVNZ said that it had assessed the complaint that the item was unbalanced when it

had suggested that a State house was beyond the reach of the Maurangis. It began:

TVNZ's Complaints Committee viewed the item and noted that it was, in

essence, a human story about a hard-working family which was struggling to

make ends meet even in a period of relative economic prosperity.

It was the committee's view that it is appropriate for the news media to draw

such examples to the public's notice because their existence "at the bottom of

the economic heap" is clearly a matter of public concern in a democracy such as

ours which upholds the rights of the less fortunate and promotes as best it can

the principle of equal opportunity.

Reporting that the family was seen to be responsible and striving to better themselves,

TVNZ then considered the specific aspects of the complaint. It then said the item

reported the family's genuine belief, supported by Mrs Janet Brannigan, that it could

not afford the weekly rental for a State house.

However, TVNZ added, because it implied some criticism of the housing policy, the

item should have then checked whether the Maurangis and Mrs Brannigan had their

arithmetic right. It reported:

To this extent, the committee supported your view that some investigation of

the funds available to the family should have been made. It seemed to the

committee that it was not really an issue of whether a state house could be

afforded, but what might be left over to live on once the outgoings on rent had

been paid. Judging by your figures, it would seem that about $44 per week

would be left for each member of the family.

TVNZ upheld the complaint that that aspect of the programme breached standard G6.

TVNZ strongly disagreed with the complainant's remark about "lightweight"

journalism, observing that the item's efforts to put the issue in personal and human

terms were appropriate. It added that it was pleased to report that the Maurangis

were now living in a State house in Mangere and doing well.

TVNZ reported that, having upheld an aspect of the complaint, it had taken the

following action.

As a consequence of your complaint being upheld, this matter is being discussed

with the staff on "60 Minutes" to ensure that in future implications of

imbalance are avoided by proper research into the circumstances of such cases.

It goes without saying that for any news team it is an opprobrious experience to

be found at fault by a committee of broadcasting peers such as the TVNZ

Complaints Committee.

The Minister's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 11 May

1995

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ having upheld the complaint, the

Minister referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

Pointing out that the Press Council requires the publication of a written statement

when a complaint was upheld, the Minister commented:

This procedure implicitly acknowledges that some disadvantage has been

suffered by the complainant who is therefore entitled to have that disadvantage

diminished by way of a balancing statement.

By analogy, he argued, TVNZ's response meant that he was entitled to redress and he

suggested that the Authority should require the broadcaster to take some reasonable

steps to correct the original story.

Not to do so would, in my view, substantially rob the complaints process of its

substantive purpose.

Because television was a powerful medium and referring to the remedies required in

the print medium, the Minister concluded:

I ask the Authority to rule that TVNZ should take appropriate steps to

acknowledge the complaint which has been upheld and to make a suitable

statement to that effect. I ask the Authority to consider whether it (the

authority) should draft such a statement and direct the nature of its publication.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 31 May 1995

In its report to the Authority on the referral, TVNZ explained that it had decided that

60 Minutes should have checked to ensure the accuracy of the featured family's

arithmetic when deciding whether it could afford a State house.

In response to the Minister's complaint that the action taken was insufficient, TVNZ

said that it had not treated the matter lightly. The Complaints Committee's decision

had been drawn to the attention of all 60 Minutes' staff and the programme's executive

producer had spoken specifically to the item's reporter and producer.

As for the reference to the Press Council, TVNZ wrote:

With respect to the Minister, his comparison with the Press Council is not a fair

one. The type of statements published in newspapers routinely run to over half

a column of newsprint. In broadcast terms this would amount to a statement of

several minutes duration - a penalty, we would argue, completely out of

proportion to the error identified.

Arguing that the Minister's complaint dealt with an incidental "financial detail",

TVNZ said that had the Complaints Committee ordered the broadcast of a correction,

a distortion which reflected adversely on the family at the centre of the piece would

have arisen. It added:

Mr McCully has properly pointed out to us a failing in one aspect of the story.

The result is that in future he can expect that such matters, when they arise, will

be subject to an amended system of checking.

TVNZ maintained that the company's Journalists' Manual was a living document

which incorporated adverse findings and, maintaining that any further punitive action

was unnecessary, observed:

We note that in bringing this matter to the attention of the Broadcasting

Standards Authority the minister has guaranteed wider publicity for the

decision, through the public release of the Authority's findings.

The Minister's Final Comment - 7 June 1995

In his response, the Minister said TVNZ appeared to be making three points; that the

matter in the complaint was "incidental" to the item, that the comparison between the

Authority and the Press Council was inappropriate, and the action already taken by

TVNZ was sufficient.

As for the first point, the Minister argued that the issue of affordability "constituted a

significant part of the total picture". TVNZ, he added, should not be allowed to

dismiss the point as "incidental".

Secondly, referring to the Authority's powers in s.13 of the Act when a complaint

was upheld, he maintained that the position was "entirely analogous". The section

gave the Authority a discretion as to the appropriate kind of order in the particular

circumstances to match the breach. He added:

Television is an extremely powerful medium. Breaches of the Code may have

consequences for affected parties which are significant. It is my contention that

the Authority should use its discretion on this occasion to require an

appropriate acceptance of the programme's shortcomings with an appropriate

expression of regret.

Finally, he disputed TVNZ's description of the remedy as "punitive". The Act, he

noted, was concerned with standards - not punishment - and that the damage caused

by breaches was rectified. He concluded:

It is my contention that the Authority should require some appropriate steps to

be taken by the broadcaster in this instance, not for the purposes of punishment

as TVNZ would assert, but in order to achieve the balance, fairness and accuracy

which the original item, by their own admission failed to achieve.