BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The presenter's introduction to an interview on National Radio's Nine to Noon on 24

June 1995 began:

There's been a call to get to the bottom of the mess that cultural safety has

become. You remember Anna Penn, former Christchurch nursing student who

sparked off the debate when she was kicked off her course almost two years

ago?

Mr Barclay complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that as Ms Penn had not been

"kicked off" her course, the statement was factually incorrect.

Maintaining that a "course" consisted of the entire programme leading to a

qualification and that a break during the "course" did not bring it to an end, RNZ

declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Barclay

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to 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 presenter on RNZ's Nine to Noon on 24 June 1995 introduced the issue of

cultural safety in the following way:

There's been a call to get to the bottom of the mess that cultural safety has

become. You remember Anna Penn, former Christchurch nursing student

who sparked off the debate when she was kicked off her course almost two

years ago?

As Ms Penn had left the course in 1991, Mr Barclay complained the reference to

being "kicked off" in 1993 was factually incorrect. The matter was important, Mr

Barclay continued, as it was an example of the inaccuracies which underlined the

cultural safety media furore.

RNZ assessed the complaint under standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting

Practice which requires broadcasters:

R1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

programmes.

Arguing that the correct account of Ms Penn's career as a nursing student at the

Christchurch Polytech was to be found in the report released by the Polytech in July

1993, RNZ quoted the conclusion:

"... Ms Anna Penn has demonstrated such flaws of judgment and behaviour

that she would not now be welcomed back as a nursing student."

RNZ then reviewed Ms Penn's career from 1991 to 1993 and maintained that the

presenter's comment, while colloquially expressed, "was not factually incorrect in the

context of a one-sentence, scene-setting recapitulation".

Mr Barclay reviewed RNZ's conclusion when he referred the complaint to the

Authority. Under the heading "My Version", he added:

In 1991, Anna Penn failed her year-one nursing course because she had not

passed the culture and society unit. She left Christchurch to spend a year in

England. When she returned, she applied to enter the year-two nursing

course but was refused because she had not passed the year-one course.

He commented:

Whichever version one takes, I submit it is clear that while Anna Penn was in

England and after her return, she was not on any nursing course, and that not

being on a course, she could not have been kicked off one.

At the end of the referral, he emphasised that the matter was not frivolous, vexatious

or trivial. Rather, he stated, the birth of the national disquiet about cultural safety

could be traced to minor but crucial media errors which were exemplified by the

comment on 21 June.

In its report to the Authority, RNZ did not accept that it had "got it wrong". A gap

between two halves of the course did not mean that the student had left the course. In

his final comment, Mr Barclay disputed that point and asked how could Ms Penn be

on the course in 1993 when, over a year earlier, she had travelled overseas for an

indefinite period.

Because of Mr Barclay's obvious concern about the extent to which cultural safety

has become a media issue, the Authority quickly put aside the possibility raised by

Mr Barclay of dismissing the complaint as trivial. Mr Barclay argued that as Ms

Penn had left the nursing course in 1991, she could not have been "kicked of" when

she applied to re-enrol in 1993. RNZ maintained that she had taken some time off

after she had been suspended and the expression "kicked off" was appropriate to

describe what had occurred when she had sought to continue her course in 1993.

The phrase used, as RNZ acknowledged, was a colloquial one included in a brief

summary by way of introduction to the issue. In view of the history of the events

leading up to the Polytech's action in 1991 and 1993 – provided by both Mr Barclay

and RNZ – the Authority was not prepared to conclude that the comment was

factually inaccurate. While understanding both the broadcaster's and the

complainant's arguments, it believed that the way that the remark was broadcast

substantiated its decision. It was clearly a comment made to introduce an interview

and the particular term objected to, "kicked off", was not emphasised in any way.

Even if the words were not totally accurate given the different interpretations which

can be given to Ms Penn's and the Polytech's actions in 1991 and 1993, it was, the

Authority concluded, an acceptable brief summary in the context in which it was used.

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

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 September 1995

Appendix

Mr Barclay's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 7 July 1995

Barry Barclay of Wellington complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the

programme Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 14 June 1995.

The item included an interview with a Ketana Saxon and the presenter (Kim Hill)

began:

There's been a call to get to the bottom of the mess that cultural safety has

become. You remember Anna Penn, former Christchurch nursing student who

sparked off the debate when she was kicked off her course almost two years

ago?

Disputing that statement, Mr Barclay said it amounted to a breach of standard R1 of

the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. He referred to an article in the "Dominion"

dated 30 June 1995 which, he said, reported correctly that Miss Penn had left the

course after criticising the cultural safety component.

Although Ms Penn had left the course, Mr Barclay observed that media commentators

(since mid 1993) had consistently used such phrases as "forced out" or "expelled".

With regard to the issue of cultural safety, Mr Barclay commented:

It might seem petty to take Kim Hill to task for still getting it wrong after all

this time but along with Brian Stabb and Melanie Davis, Anna Penn is a corner

stone of the whole cultural safety media furore. No Penn, Stabb and Davis, then

no headlines. Yet all three stories are built on fabrications: Penn was kicked off

her course [she wasn't]; Stabb was sacked for being culturally unsafe [he

wasn't]; and Davis is spending her classroom time on cultural safety [she isn't].

Penn has become the doyenne of the whole outrage. In the Dominion story

cited above, her views on the value of a national cultural safety review were

sought. Now in Queensland in her final year of nursing, she is reported as

saying; ÔI'm absolutely rapt. It would have been ideal if it happened in my

time, but it was new, and I didn't have enough clout'. This from a junior

student who lied about the circumstances of her leaving Christchurch

polytechnic.

In view of the continuing errors by Nine to Noon on this point, Mr Barclay sought an

on-air correction and apology.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 18 July 1995

Advising that it had focussed on the specific colloquial comment which was alleged to

be inaccurate, ie whether Ms Penn "was kicked off" her course", RNZ recalled that

there had been considerable confusion at the time as to what actually had happened.

The authoritative record, RNZ maintained, was the report of the incident from the

Polytech's John Hercus which was endorsed by the chair of the Polytech Council.

That report, dated July 1993, concluded:

... Ms Anna Penn has demonstrated such flaws of judgment and behaviour that

she would not now be welcomed back as a nursing student.

In view of the above report, RNZ expressed the opinion that the "Dominion" item

referred to by Mr Barclay was "in error", or it referred to a different incident or a

different aspect of the same story. RNZ also noted that the "Dominion" article

specifically referred to 1992.

RNZ then presented a chronological record of events involving Anna Penn and her

nursing course at Christchurch Polytechnic. It reported that Ms Penn had been

suspended on two occasions in 1991 - the first year of her two year course - and had

been overseas in 1992. In 1993 she applied to continue her studies which, RNZ

maintained, was part of the same two year course. However, her appeal against the

second suspension from 1991 was unsuccessful. The suspensions had involved the

cultural safety aspect of the course and the "cultural safety" debate re-emerged as a

matter of public concern in 1995. When the matter was addressed on Nine to Noon,

RNZ said:

The introductory sentence of the broadcast is the only reference made to Anna

Penn and the 1993 events at all, and it is of the briefest.

RNZ reported:

The [Complaints] Committee considers the 1993 refusal of the Polytech

conveyed by its director to Penn and confirmed in his formal report is a clear

rejection of Penn's application to continue her nursing studies, and that the

thrust of the differences that arose between Penn and the Polytech involved

aspects of the "cultural safety" course.

As the colloquial introduction was "a one-sentence, scene-setting recapitulation"

which was not factually incorrect, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint, observing:

Anna Penn had not completed her nursing studies, and with the intention of

continuing the course, she applied to do so in the following year. She was

refused enrolment to continue her nursing studies course. In other words, she

was "kicked of her course", or in other words again, the Polytech refused to

accept her as a second-year student.

Mr Barclay's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 9 August

1995

As he was dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Barclay referred his complaint to the

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

Repeating his complaint about the presenter's introduction, Mr Barclay accepted that

the event to which he referred had occurred in 1993 and that the "Dominion" article

had dealt with different incidents.

However, Mr Barclay continued, from the two parallel accounts of the events given

by RNZ he was unable to find an "exact" summary of what RNZ said had occurred.

He provided the following summary of RNZ's report:

During 1991 Anna Penn attended the first-year nursing course at the

Christchurch Polytechnic. Come 1992, she applied to take the second year

course. She attended the first day, felt she wasn't welcome, and then left for

Britain. She spent one year abroad. Returning to Christchurch in 1993, she

duly applied to take the second-year course. She was refused entry on the

grounds that she had failed to complete the culture and society section of the

first year of the course.

An article in the "Listener" in August 1994 gave the following account:

Nurses are required to pass the culture and society segment of their course.

Penn didn't pass it, nor did she meet the reassessment requirements of her

probation. Hercus dismayed nursing staff by agreeing to her enrolment anyway.

In the event, Penn withdrew, left New Zealand for a year, and re-applied for the

year-two course. The application was refused because she had not passed the

culture and society unit of year one. Penn could have appealed but did not.

Under the heading "My Version", Mr Barclay wrote:

In 1991, Anna Penn failed her year-one nursing course because she had not

passed the culture and society unit. She left Christchurch to spend a year in

England. When she returned, she applied to enter the year-two nursing course

but was refused because she had not passed the year-one course.

The consistent message, Mr Barclay said, was:

Whichever version one takes, I submit it is clear that while Anna Penn was in

England and after her return, she was not on any nursing course, and that not

being on a course, she could not have been kicked off one.

Maintaining that Ms Penn, because of her actions in 1992, was not a nursing student

in 1993, Mr Barclay continued:

I submit therefore that in stating that Anna Penn was kicked off her course, Kim

Hill was not truthful and accurate on points of fact as is required under Code R1

of the Code of Broadcasting Practice and I ask that the Authority uphold my

complaint.

By way of final comment, Mr Barclay added:

Lest the Authority consider my complaint Ôfrivolous, vexatious or trivial', I

make again a point I made in my letter to RNZ: the birth of a major national

disquiet [about cultural safety] can be traced back directly to minor but crucial

errors of fact and untruths in the media. The Kim Hill comment should be

evaluated for seriousness in that general context.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 15 August 1995

In its report to the Authority, RNZ maintained that part of Mr Barclay's argument

rested on the confusion over the word "course", adding:

The Company concedes that one cannot be "kicked off" a course if one was

never "on" the course to be kicked off it.

However, it used what it described as the "commonsense understanding" of "course"

which referred to the entire programme for the qualification sought. A break between

two halves of one course did not make any difference, opined RNZ, to the total course

for the one qualification.

As a further point, RNZ commented:

The Company would ask the Authority to note that the whole complaint was

based on the introduction to the discussion, a recapitulating statement of one

sentence only as far as Anna Penn was concerned; and the Company does not

accept that what that sentence says is significantly inaccurate.

In conclusion, RNZ said it would make library material available to confirm its record

of the events traversed.

Mr Barclay's Final Comment.- 31 August 1995

While accepting RNZ's definition of "a course", Mr Barclay maintained that Anna

Penn had left the course when she had gone overseas for an indefinite period. The

statement which was broadcast was inaccurate, he concluded, and the inaccuracy was

significant.