BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Chairperson of the Authority, as a director of ECNZ, declared a conflict of interest.

---

Summary

The economical use of electricity and the new wholesale electricity pricing system

were dealt with in an item on National Radio's In Touch with New Zealand broadcast

during the afternoon of 4 October 1996. The item included interviews with the chief

executive and an employee of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.

Mr Peter Kammler of Power for our Future complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd,

the broadcaster, that the item was one-sided. He listed a number of contentious issues

raised by the speakers which were not challenged.

Acknowledging that the discussion included – although unexpectedly – some advocacy

matters which were not challenged, RNZ partially upheld the complaint. Producers of

such programmes, it said, had been reminded of the need for balance should

contentious matters be raised albeit unintentionally.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's approach to electrical issues generally and, specifically, with

the action taken on this occasion, Mr Kammler on behalf of the complainant group

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action

taken was insufficient.

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 determines the complaint without a formal hearing. The Chairperson of the

Authority, as a director of ECNZ, declared a conflict of interest and declined to take

part in the decision.

National Radio's afternoon programme, In Touch with New Zealand, includes a

monthly discussion about the economical use of electricity for domestic purposes

with a spokesperson from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

(EECA). The EECA was represented on the broadcast on 4 October by Mr Martin

Gummer and Mr Matthew Everitt and the main topic was the recently announced new

pricing structure for electricity.

On behalf of Power for our Future, Mr K H Peter Kammler complained to RNZ that

the broadcast was one-sided and unbalanced and breached standard R9 of the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice. Mr Kammler noted that he had telephoned the

programme's producer at the time to register his complaint. He acknowledged that Mr

Gummer, as a government employee, was not able to be critical of the reforms.

However, Mr Kammler added, Mr Gummer adopted an "upbeat tone" which failed to

reflect the reservations held by a wide range of observers.

Mr Kammler listed nine specific points in the broadcast which, he said, were not

adequately discussed and he presented articles on the issues which he had contributed

to a number of publications. He also explained the approach adopted by the group on

whose behalf he wrote and commented that, generally, the group was critical of RNZ's

coverage of electricity issues.

RNZ assessed the complaint under the standard nominated by Mr Kammler. It

requires broadcasters:

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.

Explaining the background to the regular broadcasts on energy conservation, RNZ

acknowledged that the broadcast on 4 October had strayed from offering information

on the issues into giving "a significant degree of endorsement" for the policy advanced.

It continued

In the view of the [Complaints] Committee the balancing element this called for

would not have necessarily involved the full participation of representatives of

opposing views, the necessity for which would have been difficult or not

possible to anticipate. Either of two more practical measures would have been

sufficient to support a recommendation not to uphold: the advocacy comment

could have been met with challenging questions; or the contributors could have

been "pulled back on track", to prevent their moving into an advocacy

approach.

However, it added, because the issues had been dealt with in a balanced way in other

programmes during the period of current interest, it regarded the breach of this

occasion to be of a less serious nature than some others. Nevertheless, as the

broadcast included unchecked advocacy statements RNZ partially upheld the

complaint. As for the action taken following the upholding of the complaint, RNZ

advised Mr Kammler:

The attention of programme producers has been drawn by controlling

executives to the circumstances of the complaint, and the need to ensure that

programmes not intended to cover controversial matters do not unintentionally

move into advocacy or endorsement areas attracting a requirement for statutory

balance.

When he referred the group's complaint to the Authority, Mr Kammler listed a

number of reasons why he was dissatisfied with RNZ's response. Some of the

matters referred to raised concerns about the process by which the complaint had been

assessed and some referred to the group's dissatisfaction with RNZ's general coverage

of electricity issues. The comments relating to RNZ's response to the complaint

included:

The proposed remedy does not fulfil the requirements of the Act because

Power for our Future is not given the opportunity to balance, in our view, the

grossly one-sided statements by the interviewees.

and:

I submit that Power for our Future is well capable of presenting a balanced

view of what the electricity reforms mean for the consumer. We are, to my

knowledge, the only non-governmental organisation in New Zealand which is

independent from both the electricity industry and major electricity users, and

at the same time has sufficient depth of analysis.

The Authority requested comment from RNZ on the referral in a letter dated 2

December 1996. RNZ's reply was dated 8 March 1997. The Authority records its

considerable dissatisfaction at that delay. It notes, however, that RNZ's responses

recently have been much more prompt. In view of the concerns expressed about

RNZ's past tardiness, the Authority sincerely hopes that the recent prompt replies

are an indication of RNZ's efforts to deal with complaints in a manner that recognises

the depth of complainants' concern when they use the formal complaints process.

Turning to the current complaint and, having listened to the programme, the Authority

agrees that the broadcast involved a breach of standard R9. An interview which was

intended to provide information for the domestic consumers of electricity included

statements which were clearly of a political nature. The comments which advanced

opinion in support of a political stance were not challenged and, in these

circumstances, the Authority concurs with RNZ's decision on the complaint.

However, the Authority does not agree with the remedy proposed by Mr Kammler on

behalf of the complainant group. It accepts unhesitatingly, taking into account the

material that accompanied the referral, that the group has a contribution to make on

the public debate about electricity issues. However, debates dealing with current

affairs issues are not within the scope of National Radio's afternoon programme. On

the occasion complained about, the presentation which was intended to provide

information for the domestic users of electricity strayed in such a way that the

standards were contravened.

In Touch with New Zealand is not a news or current affairs programme in the style of

Morning Report or Checkpoint and it failed on this occasion to comply with its brief

to inform. However, the Authority does not accept the implication in the complaint

that the format of In Touch with New Zealand is at fault. Rather, it is of the view that

the politics of electricity should be covered in programmes which are designed to

explore current affairs. Accordingly, the Authority considers that RNZ's action in

drawing the attention of programme producers to the circumstances of this complaint,

and to advise them to take care to ensure that a similar breach does not occur, is

sufficient.

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

action taken was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
21 April 1997

Appendix

Power For Our Future's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 13 October 1996

On behalf of Power for our Future, Mr K H Peter Kammler complained to Radio New

Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on In Touch with New Zealand on 4 October

1996, the afternoon programme on National Radio. The item involved an interview

with Mr Martin Gummer and Mr Matthew Everitt of the Energy Efficiency and

Conservation Authority which, Mr Kammler wrote, was one-sided and unbalanced

and breached standard R9 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Recalling that he had telephoned the programme's producer at the time and had been

told that the item was not a current affairs programme, Mr Kammler acknowledged

that Mr Gummer was not able to be critical of the electrical reforms in view of his

position as an employee of the government. Nevertheless, he continued, the "upbeat

tone" of the interview failed to reflect the reservations held by a wide range of

observers.

Mr Kammler then listed a number of important features which were relevant to the

issues discussed but had not been adequately canvassed during the broadcast.

First, electricity, unlike other commodities had to be produced and consumed at the

same time. Secondly, ECNZ and Contact Energy were not in competition, but were a

state-owned duopoly. Next, the wholesale market would have an impact on

consumers as power companies tried to pass costs on to consumers. Fourthly, the

market in New Zealand was unlike that in Norway and the UK as it did not have a

strong regulator. Further, any new station built by ECNZ would not be "taxpayer-

funded", but paid for by consumers over time.

Sixthly, he wrote, three years after deregulation only 1% of electricity was traded

cross-border and thus most consumers remained captive to the power company in

their region. Next, consumer groups were not involved in the creation of the wholesale

market as they had been listened to politely and then ignored. Penultimately, load-

management hardware had nothing to do with the wholesale market. Finally, contrary

to what was broadcast, the concept of the market was developed by The Treasury in

1992 and had not taken several months recently. He concluded:

This short list gives some insight as to how one-sided the interview was. I have

enclosed here three recent clippings from articles which Power for our Future

submitted to the press, and two articles by the respective reporters who

interviewed me. I want to point out that we did not have to resort to making

any complaints. The newspapers printed these articles because the editors

thought that we made a valuable contribution to the debate.

Pointing out that the group had supplied material to National Radio but had not

received a response, Mr Kammler advised that his colleague, Molly Melhuish, in her

contributions to the print media had consistently argued for input from consumers.

Mr Kammler referred to an earlier discussion on Morning Report in which David

Russell of the Consumers Institute and Barry Leay of the Electrical Supply

Association were interviewed. While stating specifically that this interview was not

an aspect of the complaint, Mr Kammler said that Mr Leay made grossly misleading

statements to which Mr Russell was not sufficiently well-informed to respond. Mr

Kammler attached material which, he said, showed that Mr Leay was incorrect, and

stated:

As a watchdog organisation, we are extremely frustrated that Mr Leay and other

representatives of the electricity industry, and the government, are getting away

with their Father Christmas-routine every time they appear on radio.

Apparently the reporters and interviewers are not well enough informed to

present a balanced and true picture of events. Mr David Russell also was unable

to pick up on the inaccuracies presented by Mr Leay. This indicates that Mr

Russell is no match for the representatives of the industry. Electricity is only

one of many concerns for the Consumer's Institute. It lacks the depth of

analysis which Power for our Future has.

Expressing a concern about the need for a balanced discussion on electricity issues, Mr

Kammler summarised the organisation's position:

We are founding members of the Consumer's Coalition 93, which was convened

by the major electricity users to prevent the privatisation of Transpower. That

achieved, the Coalition's focus shifted to the wholesale market. That was when

Molly Melhuish and myself realised that voting power in the Coalition was

dominated by the Major Electricity Users Group, Federated Farmers (who seem

to approve of anything the government does), Comalco and the Manufacturers

Federation. Rather than being used as the token consumer advocates and being

overruled every time the interests between large and small consumers diverge, we

decided that we could serve the small consumers better outside the coalition,

unhampered by the directives of the large electricity users.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 25 November 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standard, RNZ noted that Mr Kammler

acknowledged that he had not heard the item and that the programme's producer,

when telephoned, was unable to give his full attention to the call because of other

responsibilities. It also noted that standard R9 did not apply exclusively to news and

current affairs programmes.

RNZ explained the background to the broadcast:

The broadcast complained of is one of a series scheduled on the first Friday of

each month, with the aim of informing National Radio listeners about economical

use of electricity for domestic purposes. The Energy Efficiency and

Conservation Authority's CEO, Martin Gummer, is the regular guest speaker on

the subject. As the occasion of the broadcast in question practically coincided

with the advent of the new pricing structure, it was chosen as the subject of

useful explanation. An expert analyst accompanied Gummer on that occasion to

ensure the details were correct (Matthew Everett, also from EECA).

However, RNZ decided, the broadcast had strayed from offering information on

background issues into giving "a significant degree" of endorsement. RNZ concluded:

In the [Complaints] Committee's view, this happened often enough and was

marked enough to attract the need for either balancing comment or a more

challenging question line, neither of which was apparent in the item. It seems

likely that the unexpected direction the item was taking was not perceived at the

time and that the need to exercise tighter control (a third possible approach) was

not appreciated.

Nevertheless, despite this decision, RNZ maintained that the issues had been dealt

with in a balanced way overall in its news and current affairs coverage. Thus, the

failure to achieve balance in one item was less serious when compared with the failure

to achieve balance in current affairs programmes. It concluded by partially upholding

the complaint in that unchecked advocacy statements were broadcast.

RNZ then reported that the action taken was to draw the attention of programme

producers to the need to ensure that programmes, although not intended to cover

controversial matters, did not move unintentionally into advocacy or endorsement

which attracted a requirement for balance.

Power For Our Future's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 28

November 1996

Dissatisfied with RNZ's reply, Mr Kammler for the complainant group referred the

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

Act 1989. He made nine points:

1) The complaint was based on a tape of the broadcast obtained from Reply Radio.

2) He had telephoned the producer at a time suggested by the RNZ telephonist and

although he offered both to forward written material or call at a more convenient

time, his offers were curtly rejected.

3) He was unable to comment further on the producer's comments as a request to

RNZ for them had not been considered.

4) The proposed remedy, he maintained, was insufficient as it did give his group

the opportunity to respond.

5) He disputed RNZ's claim that it had achieved balanced coverage on the issue

overall in its news and current affairs programmes as its general interviewers

lacked sufficient knowledge of the issues to question interviewees adequately

and its economics reporter seemed to recycle the government's and the

industry's press releases. He observed:

To examine the point above, it may please the Authority to request from

RNZ a list of interviewees on electricity matters for the past 12 months.

6) He regarded as wishful thinking the possibility that future broadcasts would be

free of advocacy.

7) He argued:

In my view, the proper remedy would be to allow Power for our Future

the same air time as the Energy Efficiency Authority got on the same

programme, to expand on our own perception of the wholesale market

(which, incidentally, is shared by the print media).

8) His group, as a consumer watchdog, he said, was able to give impartial advice.

9) Overall, he complained:

While I am aware that my complaint can be only about a specific

broadcast, I submit that the broadcast in question is not a one-off accident

but is an expression of the corporate culture of RNZ.

Mr Kammler concluded:

I submit that Power for our Future is well capable of presenting a balanced view

of what the electricity reforms mean for the consumer. We are, to my

knowledge, the only non-governmental organisation in New Zealand which is

independent from the both the electricity industry and major electricity users,

and at the same time has sufficient depth of analysis.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 8 March 1997

RNZ began its report by pointing out that it had responded by fax to the group's

request for the producer's comments - point 3 and it enclosed a copy of the fax sent to

Dr Kammler on 3 December in which it had declined the request.

RNZ continued by referring to the explanation contained in the fax that its decision on

the complaint - to uphold it particularly - was made on its merits. It explained:

In brief, the [Complaints] Committee upheld Mr Kammler's complaint because

the "In Touch with New Zealand" programme had moved into an area which its

format does not embrace. The programme's brief is to background and explain,

to sum up news of interesting events from different parts of New Zealand, to

provide information about new routines and unfamiliar or novel cultural aspects.

It is not a current affairs or news programme as such, and is not intended to

mount broadcasts which generate an obligation for balance.

Expressing the opinion that the referral dealt with long-term coverage of the issue

rather than focussing on a specific programme, RNZ questioned whether it was

appropriate for the Authority to investigate some of the matters raised. Dealing with

one of the specific matters, RNZ observed that its telephone receptionist was unlikely

to be aware of the particular pressures faced by programme producers at any

particular time.

RNZ commented:

The Committee described its recommended decision as a partial upholding,

because Mr Kammler's formal or "official" complaint appeared to be grounded

on a perceived lack of balancing material, whereas the fault lay in the

programme's straying into an area which it was not intended to cover.

For a similar reason, the [Complaints] Committee and the Company did not

regard as desirable any further confusion by the subsequent running in the

programme of balancing controversial material. The Company regarded the

discussion with and later written instruction to the programme principals as

appropriate action to have taken.

In conclusion, RNZ wrote:

The Authority will note that ongoing coverage of various aspects of the electrical

power industry has been achieved, and continues, in a period of current interest

which will be as extended as any.

Power For Our Future's Final Comment - 15 March 1997

Arguing that RNZ had little to say that was new in its report to the Authority, on

behalf of Power for our Future, Mr Kammler noted that despite in its earlier stance

that previous broadcasts were not relevant to the complaint, it now referred to

previous broadcasts to justify its claim that the item was balanced.

Explaining that the Consumer Coalition was a diverse group, Mr Kammler

maintained that comment from that group was not sufficient to meet RNZ's obligation

to provide balance.