BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The introduction of market based rents for state housing tenants was the subject of a

report broadcast by Radio New Zealand Ltd on Morning Report on 21 June 1995 at

8.55am. A particular case was used to illustrate how the changes could impact on

people.

The Minister of Housing, Hon Murray McCully, complained to RNZ, the

broadcaster, that the report lacked balance and was inaccurate because it did not

explain that the person identified was entitled to an Accommodation Supplement

which would make her better off financially than she was prior to the change.

RNZ maintained that balance about the introduction of the market based rents was

achieved by comments made by others in the programme and that the comments made

by the person identified were peripheral to that issue. It noted that the following day

it had broadcast a statement from Mr McCully which clarified some matters. It

denied that any part of the material broadcast was reported inaccurately and declined

to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision the Minister of

Housing referred his 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 complaint that the item was

neither objective nor impartial

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the transcript, listened to a tape of the

broadcasts on 21 and 22 June and read the correspondence (summarised in the

Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a

formal hearing.

An item on Morning Report broadcast by Radio New Zealand Ltd on 21 June 1995 at

about 8.55am examined the proposed rise in state house rentals, and included

interviews with a state house tenant, with a representative of a lobby group opposed

to the rent rise and with the General Manager of Rental Services.

The Minister of Housing (Hon Murray McCully) complained to RNZ on the day of

the broadcast that the item on 21 June was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate because it

painted "a harsh picture of unaffordable rent increases for a vulnerable tenant." The

tenant, described as "a paraplegic solo mum raising three children in a state house",

claimed that her rent increase was going to "blow her budget" and that she would no

longer be able to afford her house. The Minister maintained that by focusing only on

the affordability claims made by the tenant and not examining her entitlement to

income support, the item was in breach of broadcasting standards.

As a result of investigations by the Minister, it was ascertained that although the

tenant's rent was to rise by $20 per week, her income support entitlements were going

to increase by $29 per week, making her better off than before. That information was

included in a press release issued by the Minister later that day and was the basis for a

second item on Morning Report broadcast the next day (22 June).

RNZ's initial response to the complaint was to assist the Minister in seeking

permission to access details about the tenant in order to clarify the extent of her

entitlement. The following day it broadcast an item reporting the Minister's news

statement in the same time-slot in which the first report had been broadcast.

In its written response to the formal complaint, RNZ advised that it had assessed the

complaint under standards R1, R9 and R16 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting

Practice. The first two standards require broadcasters:

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

programmes.

R9  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

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

making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in

the same programme or in other programmes within the period of

current interest.

The other standard reads:

R16 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

RNZ contended that the item's emphasis was on pending action in response to the

market rent adjustment, and that the role of the tenant was peripheral. It maintained

that the central thrust of the story was contained in statements by the Housing

activist and by the General Manager of Rental Services. According to RNZ's reporter,

the tenant did not know what her income entitlement was, in spite of having

attempted to find out. The reporter believed that it was unlikely that the Housing

Corporation could have provided details about one client in time to meet the

programme's deadlines and so the piece went to air with what was available for the

morning of the 21st. RNZ noted that such a situation was not uncommon in the

electronic media and was explicitly recognised in s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act

1989, which reads:

(1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its

programmes and their presentation, standards which are

consistent with -

...

(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.

RNZ then undertook a detailed analysis of the 21 June item with respect to the

standards allegedly breached. Responding to the complaint that the item conveyed

inaccurate information about the tenant's circumstances, RNZ maintained that

although the statement about the tenant's circumstances was flawed, it was accurately

reported and attributed to its source. It suggested that it was not open to challenge the

accuracy of a recorded statement made by the subject of the item herself and declined

to uphold the complaint that the item contained inaccuracies.

In its analysis of the rest of the item, RNZ contended that the statements made by the

Housing activist were balanced by comment from the General Manager of Rental

Services, while the tenant's pessimism about her future circumstances was balanced

by the reporter's final comment which alluded to the proposed adjustment to benefits

and allowances. RNZ argued that not only was balance achieved within the

programme but further, that the broadcast in the same time slot the following day of

an item summarising the tenant's entitlement and containing comment from the

Minister, met the requirements of the Broadcasting Act and the Code of Practice that

balance be achieved "within the period of current interest". It declined to uphold the

complaint that standard R9 was breached.

RNZ categorically rejected the complaint under standard R16 that the item was not

impartial and lacked objectivity. It maintained that not only was balance achieved

within the item, but it was also provided by the development of the story the next

day.

In applying the standards cited, the Authority considered that standard R16, a

standard which pertains only to news, was the most appropriate standard under

which to assess the complaint. It believed all of the complainant's concerns were

addressed under that standard and consequently declined to determine the complaint

under standards R1 and R9.

Standard R16 creates an obligation for broadcasters to present news accurately,

objectively and impartially. With respect to the allegation that the news item on 21

June was inaccurate, the Authority accepted RNZ's argument that it reported

accurately the tenant's comments. On this occasion, the Authority believed that the

subject, "a paraplegic solo mum" with three children living on benefits in what she

described as a damp, shoddily repaired state house, was emotively selected to create

maximum impact. Unfortunately, the tenant did not know whether she was entitled to

any additional income support and if so, what that amounted to. In the Authority's

view, a broadcaster must select interviewees for such items with care, as the substance

of their remarks might give a false impression for which the broadcaster must accept

responsibility. Failure to do so in this case led to a distorted and inaccurate report.

And while the Authority acknowledged that the reporter summarised accurately the

view of the General Manager of Rental Services that:

...the combination of increased accommodation supplements, special benefit

provisions and moving state house tenants to more suitable homes should

mean that most problems can be avoided.

that brief comment was at the end of the item and was not specific enough to provide

balance to the desperate situation earlier portrayed. In the Authority's view, greater

prominence should have been given to the income support entitlements available.

The Authority considered that the report the following day, which underscored the

benefit entitlements and contained comment from the Minister, went some way

towards mitigating the erroneous impression given in the 21 June broadcast.

Notwithstanding the full report broadcast on 22 June which clarified the true situation,

the Authority decided that the requirement for objectivity and impartiality was not

satisfied in the 21 June report. In its view, because the report was predicated on the

basis of factually incorrect information – that those already at the mercy of the state

were going to be further penalised by the move to full market rents – and because it

failed to challenge that perception, it lacked objectivity. The comments from the

Housing Corporation spokesperson were not specific enough to provide balance to the

emotive portrayal of the penury of the disabled tenant.

Finally, the Authority expressed its view that the 21 June report was not impartial

because it appeared to accept the validity of the planned rent strike by state house

tenants without ever querying whether it was necessary. In light of the information

given in the subsequent broadcast it appeared that most state house tenants, including

the one featured, were eligible for income support. In the case of the tenant whose

comments were broadcast on 21 June, it transpired that she was eligible for an

additional benefit of $29 per week, making her better off than before by $9 per week.

Accordingly, the Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached standard R16.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast of an item by Radio New Zealand Ltd on Morning Report on 21 June at

8.55am breached standard R16 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice

because it failed to comply with the requirement to be accurate, objective and

impartial.

It declines to determine the other aspects of the complaint.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so on this occasion because RNZ, in

its broadcast of 22 June, had taken steps to correct the impression given.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
19 December 1995

Appendix

The Minister of Housing's Formal Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 21

June 1995

The Minister of Housing, Hon Murray McCully, complained to Radio New Zealand

Ltd that its broadcast of an item on Morning Report at 8.55am on 21 June 1995

breached broadcasting standards because it lacked balance and contained factual

inaccuracies.

The item referred to the change to market based rents for all state housing tenants and

the protests which were being organised by Housing action groups. One tenant - a

paraplegic solo mother with three children - described how the changes would affect

her. She said the increase "would blow her budget" and that she did not know how

she would manage in the future. A spokesperson for the State Housing Action

Coalition reported that tenants were being encouraged to refuse to pay rents and to

use passive resistance to occupy homes if faced with the prospect of eviction because

they could not pay their rents.

The Hon Mr McCully complained that the item breached the standards requiring

balance and accuracy. He wrote:

...the programme paints a harsh picture of unaffordable rent increases for a

vulnerable tenant.

..

The crucial defect....is that your reporter focused in some detail on the

affordability claims of Ms Phillips (quoting some apparently pertinent figures)

without then focusing in detail on the income support which Ms Phillips is

receiving.

He contended that it was impossible to make a balanced statement about affordability

without also exploring the income support entitlement of individuals and in particular

their Accommodation supplement entitlement. The Minister noted that in the

example given, while the beneficiary's rent increased by $20 per week, her income

entitlements increased by $29 per week.

The Minister concluded that for RNZ to feature prominently a $20 per week increase

in rent while failing to acknowledge the $29 increase in income support was a breach

of broadcasting standards.

A transcript of the 21 June item and Mr McCully's news release were appended.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 28 August 1995

In its response, RNZ emphasised that the tenant's views were about her rental were

not central to the story and that the major thrust was in the statements of the

spokesperson for the action group and the General Manager of Rental Services.

The reporter advised that the woman interviewed did not know what her

accommodation supplement entitlement was and although she had inquired on several

occasions about her future financial position, she had not been able to obtain definite

information. RNZ explained that it was not possible to check the details because of

potential privacy problems and the fact that the Housing Corporation would have

been unlikely to have information on one particular client in time to meet programme

deadlines.

RNZ noted that the Minister's office was in touch after the item was broadcast. The

Minister sought RNZ's cooperation in accessing the beneficiary's file and arranging

for her consent to her personal information. Later that day, the Minister released a

statement demonstrating that despite the increase, the beneficiary referred to would

better off in terms of cash-in-hand than before. RNZ pointed out that its report

alluded to that possibility in its reporter's summary which stated:

John Hamilton (General Manager, Rental Services) says the combination of

increased accommodation supplements, special benefit provisions and moving

state house tenants to more suitable homes should mean that most problems

can be avoided. He says it is not necessary for them to put themselves at risk

of eviction.

RNZ stressed that the thrust of the item on 21 June was that tenants were planning

rent strikes and that was balanced by comments from the Housing Corporation.

The following day at the same time, Morning Report broadcast an item reporting Mr

McCully's news statement. RNZ considered that the 22 June broadcast was within

the period of current interest and that therefore balance was achieved.

Turning to the standards allegedly breached, RNZ denied that standards were breached

when the report of an attributed statement was accurate, but the statement itself was

flawed. It believed the content of the statement was not related to the accuracy of the

report.

RNZ then analysed the report line by line. It concluded that there was no inaccuracy

in the 21 June report - statements were accurately reported and the reporter's own

statements contained no errors of fact. It noted that the beneficiary's uncertainty

about her position was recorded by the reporter as well as what bearing benefits

would have on tenants' circumstances. RNZ found no ground to support a complaint

of inaccuracy and rejected the complaint of partiality and lack of objectivity under

standard R16.

With respect to the standard R9 complaint, RNZ considered that the comments of the

activist on rents were balanced by the Housing Corporation representative. It also

noted that while the beneficiary was pessimistic about her future, she acknowledged

that she had not checked what other benefits she was entitled to. Further, RNZ

pointed out that it had provided assistance to the Minister to obtain access permission

from the beneficiary.

RNZ considered that the report on 22 June fully complied with the balance

requirement. It determined that there was no breach of standard R9 because the

statements in the 21 June item were balanced within the item, and the whole of the 21

June item (particularly the statements of the beneficiary) was fully balanced by the 22

June item which contained the comments of the Minister and the financial details of

the beneficiary.

The Minister's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 25

September 1995

Dissatisfied with RNZ's response to his formal complaint, the Minister referred it to

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

The Minister contended that RNZ had not properly applied standards R1 and R9 in

its consideration of his complaint. He pointed to the 21 June item in which the

reporter focused on the affordability claims of the beneficiary interviewed, without

focusing on the income support she would receive. In particular, he complained, the

reporter did not focus on the Accommodation supplement, adding:

It is my contention that it is impossible to make an accurate reference to

affordability without also exploring the income support entitlement of

individuals, and in particular their Accommodation Supplement entitlement.

He commented that a thorough report would have shown that while the beneficiary's

rent increased by $20 per week, her entitlement increased by $29. Referring to RNZ's

response to his complaint, the Minister concluded that it was obvious the reporter had

not bothered to examine the income support situation of the beneficiary before putting

the piece to air, and in light of that:

...the proper step would have been not to publish an item which would be

unbalanced because of an inability to deal appropriately with the issue of

affordability.

Referring to the item broadcast the following day, the Minister said that while he

appreciated the step which RNZ was obliged to take in publishing a correcting

statement, it in no way diminished its responsibility to ensure balance and accuracy in

the original story.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 18 October 1995

RNZ disagreed with the Minister that the report broadcast the following day

amounted to a "correcting statement" and pointed out that that broadcast was within

the period of current interest.

It advised that it did not wish to repeat its arguments concerning the alleged breach of

standard R1, but reiterated that it rejected completely the allegations of untruth and

inaccuracy. In its view the complaint confused the accurate report of a statement with

the substance of the reported statement.

RNZ noted that the item on 21 June clearly referred to compensating entitlements

although at that time it was not possible to quantify what those were. The main focus

of the item, it continued, was the approaching deadline for the adjustment of housing

rentals to full market value, and on the State Housing Action Coalition's intention to

make things difficult. It noted that the General Manager of Rental Services referred in

the item to potential benefit adjustment and moving to more suitable locations. Thus,

it maintained, balance was achieved within the item.

Turning to the press release prepared by the Minister, RNZ noted that it was the core

of the full item which was broadcast the following day and provided balance to the

comments made by the beneficiary. RNZ repeated that it did not consider the item on

the following day amounted to a correction.

RNZ denied any suggestion that achieving balance by coverage the following day was

a licence to be lazy. It also rejected the Minister's suggestion that it should hold a

story back until all relevant information had been obtained, pointing out that that

would be quite impractical for an electronic news service with hourly bulletin

deadlines.

The item the following day, it continued, was not a correcting statement, but a

development of the story.

The Minister's Final Comment - 14 November 1995

When asked to make a brief final comment, the Minister responded to a number of

points in RNZ's response to the Authority.

First, with reference to RNZ's argument that it did not broadcast a correcting

statement the following day, he suggested that RNZ had missed his point when he

stated:

Whilst I appreciate the step which RNZ was obliged to take in publishing a

correcting statement the next day, that in no way diminishes their

responsibility to ensure balance and accuracy in their original story.

The Minister refused to accept RNZ's apparent argument that he should accept a

lower standard of balance and accuracy because his complaint was received within the

period of current interest.

Turning to RNZ's suggestion that it had a "licence to be lazy" in meeting its obligation

to achieve balance, the Minister wrote:

I think "lazy" would be an overly kind description of the Radio New Zealand

reporter's failure to undertake the preliminary checking that would reasonably

be expected of any competent journalist covering this type of housing story.

The Minister argued that all of the material which he included in his press release after

the item went to air should have been included in the initial report. He suggested that

it was not a question of holding a story back, but of getting it right before publication.

The crucial defect in the item, he continued, was that the reporter focused in some

detail on the affordability claims of the beneficiary without focusing on the income

support she was receiving. The truth of the matter was that she was better off as a

result of the changes.

The Minister maintained that the report was lacking in balance and accuracy and he

rejected RNZ's argument that a balancing item 24 hours later provided the necessary

balance. He wrote:

Followed to its logical conclusion, that type of reasoning would excuse any

manner of extravagant inaccuracy, so long as a balancing statement was made

later in the event of someone taking offence.