BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"Culture Shock" was the title of an item broadcast on 20/20 at 8.30pm on Monday 12

June 1995. It examined the situation of nursing tutor Brian Stabb who, it was said,

had been dismissed from the Waikato Polytech because he disagreed with the extent of

the weighting given to the Cultural Safety course. The item stated that he had been

labelled "culturally unsafe".

On behalf of the Waikato Anti Racism Coalition, Ms M J Stuart complained to TV3

Network Services Ltd that the item was inaccurate and partial and omitted the views

of the tangata whenua.

Maintaining that the item was accurate, objective and impartial and, moreover, that the

views expressed had not been distorted through editing, TV3 declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, the Coalition referred the 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 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 dismissal of nursing tutor Brian Stabb from the Waikato Polytech was featured in

an item broadcast on 20/20 on 12 June 1995. It reported that he disagreed with the

weighting given to a Cultural Safety course and that he had been labelled "culturally

unsafe".

On behalf of the Waikato Anti Racism Coalition, Margaret Stuart complained to TV3

that the item was inaccurate and unbalanced and in breach of standard G14 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It had breached the standard, she wrote, as

it focussed sympathetically on Mr Stabb while omitting or glossing over both the

statistics about Maori health and the professional relationship of the patient-helper.

Ms Stuart raised the possibility of guidelines for broadcasters when dealing with racial

identity. In view of the matters raised in the complaint, TV3 assessed it under

standards G14 and G19 of the Code. They read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

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.

Pointing out that the programme had not criticised the practice of teaching cultural

safety but had raised Mr Stabb's concerns about the weighting given to it, TV3

maintained that the item was accurate, objective and impartial. Furthermore, as there

was no evidence of distortion because of editing, standard G19 had not been

contravened.

The Coalition members elaborated on the complaint when referring it to the Authority.

Three specific factual errors were noted. The suggestion that Waikato Polytech had

total responsibility for the structure and content of the course was incorrect.

Secondly, it was inaccurate in that it had omitted the efforts which had been made to

discuss cultural safety with Mr Stabb. Thirdly, it had failed to explain the precise

reason for his dismissal. The item lacked objectivity and impartiality, they continued,

as Mr Stabb was presented as the "rational man" who battled "extremism".

Moreover, whereas his comments about the course were included, the views of others

had not been taken into account. Overall, they wrote, the item failed to take account

of Maori views.

The Authority approached the complaint by considering what was the issue which

had been addressed. It decided that the item had looked at the question of intellectual

or academic freedom on the Waikato Polytech campus. The avenue through which

that matter had been explored had been the dismissal of nursing tutor Brian Stabb after

he had contested what he considered to be the excessive weighting given to the

Cultural Safety component of the nursing course. The Authority did not agree with

the complainant's approach which seemed to be based on a concern that the item had

principally focussed on the issue of whether or not cultural safety should be taught.

The item clearly explained that weighting, ie the number of hours spent on cultural

safety when compared with the number of hours given to other aspects of the

syllabus, was the basis of Mr Stabb's disagreement with the Polytech.

Focussing on the matter which had been addressed in the item, the Authority was of

the view that it was fair and balanced, and that parties with a significant point to make

had been given an opportunity to present it.

As for the specific alleged factual inaccuracies, the Authority did not agree that the

script suggested that the Polytech could set its own prescriptions about whether or

not to teach cultural safety and the extent of resources devoted to it. As the other

alleged factual inaccuracies focused on Mr Stabb's dismissal rather than on intellectual

freedom, the Authority did not consider they raised relevant points. Mr Stabb, the

Authority considered, was used legitimately as the channel through which to approach

the subject and the expression of his beliefs were relevant to that topic. However, as

neither the specific aspects of his dismissal nor the case for teaching cultural safety

were the item's focus, the absence of a full review of these matters did not mean that

standards G14 or G19 were contravened.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith M Potter
Chairperson
14 December 1995

Appendix

Waikato Anti Racism Coalition's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 21

August 1995

In a letter addressed to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Margaret Stuart of the

Waikato Anti Racism Coalition asked the Authority to investigate an item broadcast

on TV3's 20/20 which had dealt with cultural safety.

The programme, she wrote, had used a white male presenter to investigate cultural

safety. He had spoken to a range of interest groups - except the tangata whenua who

could be said to represent the iwi perspective. Ms Stuart said that the 20/20 item

focussed on nursing tutor Brian Stabb in such a way as to arouse sympathy for him

while omitting or glossing over both the statistics about Maori health and morbidity

and the professional relationship of the patient-helper.

As the role of the media was crucial in dealing with issues such as racial identity and

inequality, especially the tauiwi and tangata whenua, she requested that the Authority

investigate the programmes under standard G14. Moreover, she sought clear

guidelines from the Authority as to television broadcasters' responsibilities in

programmes dealing with racial identity.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 October 1995

Assessing the complaint under standards G14 and G19 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TV3 said that the item did not contain any factual errors.

Further, it had met the requirements for objectivity and impartiality and, it pointed

out, the programme had not criticised the practice of teaching cultural safety but the

weighting given to it as an aspect of the nursing course.

As there was no evidence of distortion because of editing, it said that standard G19

was not contravened.

In conclusion, TV3 said it was required to comply with the Broadcasting Act 1989

and the broadcasting codes of practice. It did not consider complaints under the

Treaty of Waitangi.

The Coalition's Complaint to the Authority - 14 October 1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, J D Kirton, M J Stuart and S P Stuart referred the

complaint on the Coalition's behalf to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

Three factual errors were noted by the complainant. The first was the use of the

phrase "Waikato Polytech's Cultural Safety Course" which suggested, incorrectly,

that the campus was free to teach outside the curriculum. The course, they pointed

out, was set by the New Zealand Nursing Council with the New Zealand

Qualifications Authority's approval.

Secondly, the dismissed tutor the item featured (Brian Stabb) had said he was given no

explanation for his dismissal, A number of press clippings were attached to support

the proposition that:

... there have been a number of attempted dialogues about the issue.

Thirdly, the item failed to report that Mr Stabb had been dismissed for breaching the

terms of his personal grievance settlement - not for being "culturally unsafe".

As evidence of the item's lack of objectivity and impartiality, the Coalition members

referred to the emotional adjectives used and the scene setting which, they said,

portrayed Mr Stabb as victim and hero. On the other hand, the interviews with those

who spoke for the course were edited. The result, they claimed:

Implicit in the perspective was the portrayal of "rational man" crusading in a

campus that sided with "political and racial extremism".

Such implicit messages were further reinforced by the pre- and post-editorial

context where the views of the Minister of Education to unsubstantiated

"extremism" were discussed by [20/20's presenter].

A section of the referral dealt with the Treaty of Waitangi and, the complainant wrote:

... failing to take account of Te Tiriti O Waitangi fails to address mainstream

bodies' responsibilities to articulate minority cultural perspectives to all as

equity rights. Minorities by definition are part of the collective whole and need

to have their perspectives acknowledged.

The programme, they concluded, failed to take account of Maori views.

Appended to the referral were a number of articles about Mr Stabb and cultural safety

published in the "Waikato Times" in 1995.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 27 October 1995

When asked for a report on the referral, TV3 advised the Authority that it did not

wish to comment further.