BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The government's decision not to proceed with legislation abolishing the right of

appeal to the Privy Council was discussed in an interview with Hon Doug Graham,

Minister of Justice broadcast on One Network News on 17 January 1997 between

6.00–7.00pm. Raising the minimum pay rates for people over the age of 20 years was one

of the matters discussed at the first meeting of the Coalition cabinet and was reported

on One Network News broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on 21 January 1997.

Mr Terry complained to TVNZ, the broadcaster, that the first item was biased in

favour of what he described as "colonial rules". He believed the issue of whether to

retain the right to appeal to the Privy Council should have been debated in the House.

With respect to the second item, he complained it was unbalanced because it did not

explain the subject adequately, thus discriminating against some viewers, and did not

include the views of all seven political parties represented in Parliament.

TVNZ responded that it had difficulty in identifying a breach of standards in the first

item. Turning to the second item, it advised that it did not share Mr Terry's view that

every time a political story was broadcast, the views of all seven parties should be

heard. Further, it did not understand Mr Terry's reference to its alleged failure to

explain the matter to viewers.

Dissatisfied with those decisions, Mr Terry referred the complaints to the

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaints in all

the circumstances.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Hon Doug Graham, Minister of Justice, was interviewed on One Network News

on 17 January, 1997 and asked the reasons why the government had decided not to

proceed with legislation to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council. The item

included an interview with a legal academic who predicted that the government would

succumb to public pressure and change its mind.

A report on the first Cabinet meeting of the new government was included on One

Network News broadcast on 21 January. The report identified areas where the

government would be focussing its attention, including raising the minimum wage for

workers over the age of 20.

About the first item, Mr Terry of Reefton complained that it was biased in favour of

retaining the right of appeal. In his view, the issue should have been debated in the

House. He believed those who shared his view were being discriminated against

because they advocated severing ties with Britain.

Mr Terry accused TVNZ of conveying the government line when it reported in the

second item that the minimum wage was being raised. Since the matter was a

controversial issue, he believed that all parties in Parliament should have been

questioned.

TVNZ responded to the complaints separately. To the first, it advised that it had

some difficulty in ascertaining the programme standards issue being complained about.

It considered that Mr Terry's objection was to the message which the broadcast

contained. With respect to the second complaint, it responded that it disagreed with

Mr Terry's contention that when political matters were discussed, the views of all

political parties should be heard. TVNZ pointed out that the report about raising the

minimum wage was factual, and accurately summarised the government's decision. It

declined to uphold the complaints, suggesting that the Authority might consider using

its powers under s.11 of the Broadcasting Act.

The Authority has also experienced some difficulty in establishing the alleged

programme standards breaches. It concludes that because Mr Terry's complaints are

based on his strong personal views and his opposition to the particular government

policies which were the subject of the items, the complaints are not able to be resolved

by the procedures set out in the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Accordingly, the Authority exercises its powers under s.11, which reads:

s.11 The Authority may decline to determine a complaint referred to it

under section 8 of this Act if it considers -

..

(b) That, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not

be determined by the Authority.

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to determine the

complaints in all the circumstances.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
10 April 1997

Appendix I

Robert Terry's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 17 January 1997

Mr Terry of Reefton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on

One Network News broadcast on 17 January 1997. The item concerned New Zealand

cutting ties with the Privy Council and included an interview with the Minister of

Justice, Hon Doug Graham.

Mr Terry argued that other points of view should have been included. He considered

there should have been debate about the constitution of New Zealand and challenged

the Governor General, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to

debate the issue of their appointments under British colonial rules. He complained

that there were factual errors in the item and that it encouraged denigration or

discrimination against those holding certain political beliefs.

Mr Terry believed that New Zealand should have a written constitution.

Mr Terry appended a copy of a letter to the Governor General and the reply from his

office and copies of letters from the Justice and Law Reform Committee and his local

MP.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 February 1997

TVNZ expressed some difficulty in ascertaining where there was a breach of

programme standards. It believed the objection was not so much to the broadcast as

to the message the item contained.

TVNZ noted:

The item accurately reported that the government had decided to shelve

legislation which would have ended ties with the Privy Council in London

because it did not have the support in parliament to pass such a measure. The

item quite properly included an interview with Mr Graham in which he

explained his thinking on the matter.

In TVNZ's view, the item was accurate, objective and impartial. It did not detect

anything in the item which encouraged discrimination against anybody. It added:

With respect you have confused the message (that the government has

abandoned the legislation) with the messenger (TVNZ, who told you about it).

There has been no breach of programme standards and your complaint is not

upheld.

Mr Terry's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6 February 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold his complaint, Mr Terry referred

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

He argued that the matter of severing links with the Privy Council was a controversial

issue which should have been discussed. He considered that the New Zealand

population, including himself were being discriminated against and asked why could

TVNZ not address the issue of a modern written constitution.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 21 February 1997

TVNZ explained that it had some difficulty in identifying the nub of the complaint. It

appeared, TVNZ continued, that Mr Terry was expressing his own views, but had not

shown how those views were linked to breaches of the Codes of Broadcasting

Practice.

TVNZ suggested the Authority might consider using its powers under s.11 of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Terry's Final Comment - 4 March 1997

Mr Terry sought a copy of section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. He repeated that

the item about the Privy Council had to be challenged, and that he was challenging

TVNZ's reporting to the New Zealand public.

He appended copies of letters written to him in 1990 and 1991 from the New Zealand

Law Society, the Secretary of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Bolger),

Buckingham Palace, and TVNZ.

Appendix II

Robert Terry's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 22 January 1997

Mr Terry of Reefton complained to TVNZ about items broadcast on 21 January in

One Network News concerning the first post MMP Cabinet meeting. During the

news, it was reported that the minimum pay of people 20 years and over would be

raised to $7.00 per hour.

Mr Terry complained that TVNZ failed to explain that to viewers, and thereby

discriminated against a small sector of society. He noted that there was no comment

from Winston Peters, or from Deborah Morris, the Minister of Youth Affairs. He

reminded TVNZ that there were seven political parties represented in Parliament. He

believed that minority political party representatives in Parliament should have been

interviewed about the politics of the day, describing it as "participation in the

democratic process."

Mr Terry appended a copy of a 1991 High Court judgment of Temm J in which Mr

Terry had unsuccessfully applied to the Court to review the Employment Contracts

Act.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 4 February 1997

TVNZ advised that the complaint was considered in the context of standards G6 and

G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It noted that there were two

items in One Network News dealing with the cabinet.

One was a colour piece indicating that it was back-to-work for New Zealand's

senior politicians, while the other considered the workload facing the group.

Both items, TVNZ contended, were straightforward factual reports and contained no

inaccuracies.

With respect to the matter of parties represented in Parliament, TVNZ did not share

Mr Terry's view that every time a political story was broadcast, the views of all

seven parties should be heard. It considered such an approach would be impractical,

and confusing, adding that parties would be included in political coverage when the

subject matter was of direct relevance to them.

Referring to the minimum rates, TVNZ wrote:

...the programme made two statements. They were:

The first to benefit will be low income workers. The minimum wage

goes up ten per cent to seven dollars an hour in March...

and

...and those out of work will have to work for the dole.

In TVNZ's view, both of those statements were self contained and accurate. It did

not understand Mr Terry's reference to its alleged failure to "explain this to viewers".

TVNZ confessed it was not able to identify with certainty the kernel of Mr Terry's

complaint, but was satisfied neither item breached the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

Mr Terry's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6 February 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Terry referred the complaint to the

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

Mr Terry contended that under MMP, the views of all political parties should be

sought when political issues were discussed. For instance, he argued, TVNZ was

conveying the government line when it reported that the minimum wage was going up

10% to $7.00 per hour for 20 year olds and older. He wrote:

Mr Terry challenged TVNZ to advise minimum rates to 20 years and older.

The Crown guaranteed equal rights to 18 and 19 year olds in the workforce.

He concluded by stating that because this was a controversial issue, all parties in

Parliament should be questioned.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 21 February 1997

TVNZ repeated that it had some difficulty identifying the nub of the complaint. It

appeared, TVNZ continued, that Mr Terry was expressing his own views, but that he

had not shown how those views were linked to breaches of the Codes of Broadcasting

Practice.

TVNZ suggested that the Authority might consider using its powers under s.11 of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Terry's Final Comment - 4 March 1997

Mr Terry repeated that the item on minimum rates of pay dealt with people over the

age of 20. He challenged TVNZ to explain to the public that 18 and 19 year olds were

discriminated against by the Crown. He argued that TVNZ had shown bias in favour

of the Crown's Ministers' Policy. He challenged TVNZ to examine the facts. He did

not believe that TVNZ understood the two complaints, adding:

Democracy is about participation in a Modern Democratic State.

He concluded:

...I am forcefully expressing my opinion that your reporting is biased, in favour

of the Crown's Ministers and against New Zealand's youthful population,

who have the democratic right to express their opinion against your biased

reporting.