BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

According to an item on Mana News, the Native Land Court was set up with the sole

purpose of destroying Maori organisations and alienating Maori land, because it was a

cheaper way of getting Maori land than paying armies to confiscate it. The comment

was made by Wiremu Wright, Claims Manager for the Te Uri O Hau Iwi, in the

context of an item on the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi grievances, broadcast on

Mana News, on National Radio on 25 October 1996 at 5.40pm.

Mr MacCallum complained to the broadcaster, Radio New Zealand Limited, that

overall the broadcast of the item lacked balance, and in particular, the comment made

by Mr Wright had the intended effect of fostering a sense of grievance in Maori

listeners, and inciting hostility and ill will against Europeans.

As RNZ had not responded to his complaint within the statutory time limits set out

in the Broadcasting Act 1989, Mr MacCallum referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(b) of that Act.

RNZ, in responding to the Authority, advised that a decision had been made by the

time that the complaint was referred to the Authority. While it recognised there had

been delays, it disputed that the complaint had not been actioned within the time

requirements of the Act. RNZ advised that it would send Mr MacCallum its decision

on the substantive issues.

RNZ pointed out that Mana News broadcasts were designed to meet the statutory

obligations to have regard to the interests and views of minority groups generally and

specifically those of the Maori population. It agreed that the issues involved were

controversial, but considered that it had made reasonable efforts to cover all points of

view within the period of current interest. It pointed out that the right of individuals

to express their own point of view was expressly protected within the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr MacCallum was not satisfied with the response and, when referring the matter to

the Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Act, stressed that the item lacked balance

and made no endeavour to present other points of view. He did not believe that the

persons whose opinions were sought in the item provided a "balanced panel".

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice,

the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on Mana News, broadcast on 25 October 1996 at 5.40pm, was introduced by

a statement that there was support for the suggestion that there should be no further

Treaty settlements until the Crown consulted Maori about the principles involved.

The item then went on to discuss the apparent inconsistencies in the approach to the

Native Land Court and the effect that had on treaty claims. The item reported

Wiremu Wright, Claims Manager for the Iwi, Te Uri O Hau, as saying:

... the Native Land Court was set up for the sole purpose of destroying Maori

organisations and to alienate Maori land even though the Treaty guaranteed to

protect tribal authority and Maori land ownership ... the Land Court was

regarded as a cheaper way to get Maori land than to pay armies to confiscate

it.

A pre-recorded interview with Mr Wright was then broadcast in which he said:

So they actually replaced the armies by the Native Land Court, so in other

words the Maori people themselves were required to pay for their own

colonisation.

Mr MacCallum complained to RNZ that the purpose of the comments in the item

were, without doubt, to foster a sense of grievance in Maori listeners and to incite

hostility and ill-will against Europeans. He said that the Maori Land Court was

created for a number of reasons and, he maintained, to suggest that it was set up for

the purpose of depriving Maori of their land in a manner comparable to armed

subjugation by soldiers distorted the facts so as to promulgate untruth, and remove

any element of balance from the news item.

Prior to receiving a substantive response from RNZ to his complaint, Mr MacCallum

wrote to the Authority complaining that RNZ had failed to respond within the time

limits set out in the Broadcasting Act. This was withdrawn upon receiving a

substantive response to the complaint from RNZ.

RNZ considered the complaint under section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, and the

following standards in the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The standards require

broadcasters:

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

affairs programmes.

R2   To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which

any language or behaviour occurs.

R4   To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

R6   To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

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.

Section 4(1)(d) provides:

4(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 interest are

discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities

given, to present significant points of view either in the same

programme or in other programmes within the period of current

interest.

RNZ believed that there had been no breach of good taste and decency by the

broadcast. Furthermore, it advised that because of the repetitive nature of the

comments, the status of the commentators and the thrust of the views expressed, it

did not believe there had been a breach of standard R6. In assessing the accuracy of

the item, RNZ took the view that the question of accuracy did not lie with the content

of the item, but whether it had been accurately reported. As that was not an issue in

this case, it considered there had been no breach of standard R1.

In reaching the view that the item did not breach either standard R9 or section 4(1)(d)

of the Broadcasting Act, RNZ pointed out that the purpose of the Mana News

broadcasts was to meet the statutory obligation to have regard to the interests and

views of minority groups generally and specifically of the Maori population. While

the item itself was controversial within a news and current affairs programme, RNZ

contended that the matters involved in the item could be validly seen as issues to

which an almost continuous and long term "period of current interest" could be held to

apply. RNZ then provided a summary of the earlier broadcasts on the issue and

declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr MacCallum re-emphasised his view that the comments made in the item were

divisive. He was firmly of the belief that there was another side to the story which

should have been presented.

In response, RNZ made the point that the item at issue was not intended to be a

balanced presentation of interviews undertaken for a structured current affairs piece.

It said that sufficient detail had been provided to demonstrate the balanced nature of

the progressive coverage of an ongoing situation and debate.

The Authority notes the unsatisfactory manner in which RNZ handled the complaint.

First, it is unable to understand the delay in responding to Mr MacCallum's complaint

initially. All broadcasters are responsible for maintaining the standards of programmes

it broadcasts. In this case, while it was useful for the independent producer to be

consulted on the complaint, the Authority is of the opinion that this should have been

done within the time limits set out in the Act. Secondly, there seems to have been

confusion by RNZ over the relationship between section 4 of the Broadcasting Act

and the Codes of Broadcasting Practice. In any assessment of a complaint, the Codes

of Broadcasting Practice may be seen as helpful in assisting with an interpretation of

section 4 but, the Authority points out, are not a replacement for it.

The Authority is of the view that the comments complained about in the item were

clearly an expression of opinion by Mr Wright and standard R4 expressly recognises

the rights of individuals to express their own opinions.

While the Authority does not consider the particular item to have been balanced in its

representation of the Native Land Court, it accepts RNZ's argument that RNZ is well

aware of its obligations under the Code to provide a variety of perspectives. The

Authority is also of the view that the period of current interest applying to the issues

raised by the broadcast is a long one. As various points of view have been advanced

on the issue during that period, the Authority is not prepared to hold that there has

been a breach on this occasion, of standards R1, R2, R4, R6, and R9 of the Radio Code

of Broadcasting Practice, or of section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In reference to Mr MacCallum's complaint that the item breached the Human Rights

Act, the Authority notes that it has no jurisdiction to consider any complaint under

that Act.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
17 April 199

Appendix

Mr MacCallum's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited - 15 November 1996

Mr P M MacCallum of Havelock North complained to Radio New Zealand Limited

that an item on Mana News broadcast on 25 October 1996 at 5.40pm was in breach of

sections 4(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, and section 131 of the

Human Rights Act 1993.

His complaint related particularly to comments made by Wiremu Wright, Claims

Manager for the Iwi, Te Uri O Hau, in which he was reported in the item to have

stated:

...the Native Land Court was set up for the sole purpose of destroying Maori

organisations and to alienate Maori land even though the Treaty guaranteed to

protect tribal authority and Maori land ownership...the Land Court was

regarded as a cheaper way to get Maori land than to pay armies to confiscate

it.

A pre-recorded interview with Mr Wright was then broadcast in which he said:

So they actually replaced the armies by the Native Land Court, so in other

words the Maori people themselves were required to pay for their own

colonisation.

In his complaint, Mr MacCallum wrote:

I do not purport to know the motives of the commentator quoted in the item

but the effect (and we must assume the intended effect) of such comments is

without a doubt to foster a sense of grievance in Maori listeners, incite

hostility and ill will against Europeans and as such to militate against the

maintenance of law and order.

He maintained that the Maori Land Court was created for a number of reasons and, he

said, to suggest that it was set up for the purpose of depriving Maoris of their land in

a manner comparable to armed subjugation by soldiers was to so distort the facts as to

promulgate untruth, and remove any element of balance from the news item.

Mr MacCallum's Referral to the Authority - 20 December 1996

As Mr MacCallum had not received a response to his letter addressed to Mana News

within the 20 working days required by section 9(1) of the Broadcasting Act, under

s.8(1)(b) Mr MacCallum asked the Authority to investigate and review the matter.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 8 January 1997

RNZ enclosed a copy of a letter dated 20 December 1996, addressed to Mr

MacCallum, in which it had asked for an extension of time in which to respond to his

complaint.

In its letter to the Authority, RNZ disputed that it had breached the time limits for a

response within the Act. It advised that Mr MacCallum's letter containing the formal

complaint had been addressed to Mana News c/- RNZ, and had been directed to Mana

Maori Media Ltd as producer of Mana News. Only after it had been identified as a

formal complaint against the broadcaster, RNZ, had it been sent there. RNZ advised

that once it had been received from Mana Media Ltd, it was not possible to make a

formal decision by Christmas and, accordingly, a request for an extension of time was

sent to Mr MacCallum. In the meantime, however, Mr MacCallum had complained of

the time delay to the Authority. RNZ suggested, and the Authority agreed, that it

would consider and respond to Mr MacCallum's substantive complaint.

RNZ's Response to Mr MacCallum - 15 January 1997

In its letter to Mr MacCallum, RNZ dealt first with the issue of whether it had

breached the statutory time limits in considering his complaint. It explained that a

letter addressed to Mana News did not oblige it to treat that correspondence as

intended for action by both it and Mana Media Ltd, and therefore informal complaints

were automatically forwarded to Mana Media Ltd for comment. RNZ accepted that

immediate acknowledgment of Mr MacCallum's formal complaint was not made due

to a communication misunderstanding with Mana Media Ltd. However, it considered

that the explanation provided to Mr MacCallum in its letter to him of 20 December

should have made it plain that RNZ intended to respond to the formal complaint and

to explain the confusion leading to any delay there may have been. It believed that Mr

MacCallum's response of 31 December to it was unfavourably interpreted, and it had

some difficulty in understanding Mr MacCallum's viewpoint.

RNZ then considered Mr MacCallum's complaint under the standards relating to good

taste and decency, balance, accuracy, and the need to respect principles of law

(contained in standards R1, R2, R4, R6, R9, of the Radio Code of Broadcasting

Practice and section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act).

Good Taste and Decency

RNZ did not believe that in the context of the programme the standard had been

breached.

Respect for the Principles of Law

RNZ saw three factors mitigating against any breach of the standard. First, the status

of the commentators whose opinions were quoted in the item; secondly, the

essentially repetitive nature of the views expressed, dealing as they did with the

application of historical aspects to current matters of Maori settlement debate and

investigation; and thirdly, the thrust of the views towards a revision of approach to

the settlement of Treaty claims within legal statutory processes.

Accuracy

RNZ's view was that the accuracy of the report of a statement did not depend on the

content of that statement. The content, it said, may or may not give rise to a need for

follow-up reporting, but that was not a matter of accuracy.

Balance

RNZ pointed out the following:

1 The subject of the item was controversial within a news and current

affairs programme.

2 The purpose of Mana News broadcasts was to meet the statutory obligation to

have regard to the interests and views of minority groups generally and

specifically of the Maori population

3 The right of individuals to express their opinions was provided for in the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice and protected in other statutes.

RNZ advised that the matters involved in the broadcast could be validly seen as issues

to which almost continuous and long term "current interest period" could be held to

apply. In this respect, RNZ provided a summary of the broadcasts in September and

October 1996 on the issue. Following this, RNZ advised:

The committee noted, as remarked above, the status of the contract historian-

researchers; the fact that they were and are, working formally to a brief from

the Waitangi Tribunal; the complete attribution of every statement reported;

the opportunities given to, and taken by, the appropriate government Minister

to respond; and the ongoing nature of the issue, coverage of which will

certainly gain momentum as the political scene settles down. The committee

felt it was to be noted specifically that the views expressed in the item

complained of are comments about statements made by impartial historian

researchers.

RNZ considered that it had no jurisdiction to consider a complaint under s.131 of the

Human Rights Act. It declined to uphold the broadcasting standards complaint.

Mr MacCallum's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 28

January 1997

Mr MacCallum advised the Authority that he did not wish to pursue the complaint

about a breach of the time limits in the Broadcasting Act. However, he was

dissatisfied with RNZ's decision on his substantive complaint. In a letter received by

the Authority on 6 March 1997, he expanded on his reasons for referring the

complaint to the Authority.

In reference to the comments made by Mr Wright in the item complained about, Mr

MacCallum stated:

This necessarily implies firstly that it was the intention of the Crown to strip

Maori of their land without payment, and secondly that the native Land Court

was established as a Crown tool.

Comment such as that is a divisive influence in an already dangerously divided

nation.

Mr MacCallum set out his understanding of the function of the Maori Land Court and

then went on to say:

My point in saying the foregoing is that there is very much another side to the

story presented by Mana News on 25th October last. Both of the main

contributors are negotiators for tribes seeking compensation. The item lacks

balance and makes no endeavour to present the other point of view. When the

broadcaster is dismissive of the suggestion that such items are so distorted as

to be inconsistent with the maintenance of the law and order I am left

wondering whether it is out of touch, failing to detect a trend. It certainly

seems oblivious to the fact that it is essential to our democracy that we

preserve respect for the Courts and the judiciary - warts and all.

He also stated that he believed that the Authority should look on the item as a breach

of section 131 of the Human Rights Act.

RNZ's Final Response to the Authority - 7 March 1997

In commenting on Mr MacCallum's letter to the Authority, RNZ advised :

We suggest that the letter raises many issues which would relate to an extended

current affairs examination of a wide area of the subject. The Authority will no

doubt recognise that the news items at issue report certain statements made in

public, and are not intended to be a balanced presentation of interviews

undertaken for a structured current affairs piece. Sufficient further detail has

been provided to demonstrate the balanced nature of the progressive coverage

of an ongoing situation and discussion.