BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Wellington nursing students claimed they were being used as slave labour while on

work experience in hospitals, according to a report broadcast by Radio New Zealand

on National Radio on 28 August 1996 at about 7.20am. The item was updated in

news bulletins on National Radio, and on The Radio Network throughout the day.

Capital Coast Health complained to both Radio New Zealand Ltd and The Radio

Network Ltd that the items made false claims, were unbalanced, and did not deal fairly

with Capital Coast Health.

In a joint response, the Complaints Committee for Radio New Zealand and The Radio

Network maintained that the claims about conditions for nurses were verifiable and

accurate. With respect to the Morning Report item, it pointed out that opportunities

were given to Capital Coast Health to respond to aspects of the story and that it had

failed to do so. It did not consider that Capital Coast Health had been dealt with

unfairly. Turning to the news bulletins on National Radio and The Radio Network,

the Committee noted that some of The Radio Network's bulletins omitted a summary

of Capital Coast Health's response to the stories. This aspect of the complaint was

upheld. The Committee advised that it was satisfied that the later bulletins on

National Radio included a satisfactory response, but noted that earlier stories failed to

include a summary of the response which was available at that time and misled

listeners into believing no response was available. On the aspects upheld, RNZ

concluded that they were minor breaches which were remedied in later bulletins.

Dissatisfied about the aspects of the complaints which were not upheld and about the

action taken on the aspects which were upheld, Capital Coast Health referred the

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the items and have read the

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The suggestion that student nurses were being used as slave labour was made in an

item on Morning Report broadcast on National Radio on 28 August 1996, at about

7.20am and updated in news bulletins during the day on both National Radio and The

Radio Network. The story originated from a student newspaper story which claimed

that two Wellington Polytechnic nursing students said that they had been taken

advantage of by Crown Health Enterprises in covering for sick nurses.

The item claimed that student nurses were having to do the work of registered nurses

while on work experience at Wellington Hospital, and that patient safety was being

compromised as a result. One student nurse was quoted as saying that she and other

students had been asked to give drugs and injections unsupervised, and had covered for

sick nurses at Wellington Hospital. Spokespeople for the Nurses' Organisation

confirmed reports that students in some hospitals had been left in positions of

responsibility, and were being used as a cheap work force.

The Complaint

Capital Coast Health (CCH) complained to both Radio New Zealand and The Radio

Network that the reports did not deal fairly with it, and were unbalanced and

inaccurate. It also maintained that because of the manner in which the allegations were

presented to it, it was impossible for CCH to investigate and answer the claims.

CCH's Communications Manager explained that the evening prior to the broadcast he

was contacted at home for comment on allegations based on an article written by a

Polytechnic journalism student, in which the national student chairperson of the

Nurses' Organisation stated that some hospitals were using student nurses as "slave

labour". According to the article, her statement was backed up by claims from two

Wellington Polytechnic nursing students who said they had been taken advantage of

by some Crown Health Enterprises in covering for sick nurses. The article quoted

CCH's General Manager of Human Resources as saying the practice of using student

nurses to cover for qualified ones was illegal and that CCH would not allow that to

happen. He said that he was not aware of other CHEs using student nurses in that

way.

When asked for comment on the allegations, CCH's Communications Manager

responded that the comments in the article accurately reflected CCH's position and

advised that there would be no appearance of any representative from CCH on the

radio report.

On the morning of the broadcast, the Communications Manager was again contacted

and asked for comment. It was at that time, he advised, that he learned that specific

allegations had been made about practices at CCH. In his view, it was unfair to CCH

to be expected to go on air to answer a charge he had only just learned of. Further, he

objected to his refusal being reported as "Capital Coast Health is refusing to

comment" since it was only a refusal to provide a live spokesperson for comment on

short notice, and RNZ had been referred to its denial in the student newspaper article

that the alleged practices occurred in its hospitals. Under those circumstances, CCH

contended, it was inaccurate and unfair to suggest that it had refused comment.

CCH maintained that RNZ made no serious effort to obtain its comments on the

specific allegations and, because the allegations were anonymous, CCH considered it

was impossible for it to refute them. It also pointed out that a student representative

to the Nurses' Organisation had made a statement in which she contradicted the

report, stating that in her experience, students were not used in the manner described

in the report. RNZ's failure to acknowledge that view was, in CCH's opinion, a

violation of the requirement to provide balance and significant other viewpoints. In

addition, it considered there were several other matters which should have forced RNZ

to question the substance of the allegations, including the fact that CCH stated that

such practices were not permitted; that the Polytechnic had received no confirmation

that the incidents occurred; that the student representative denied the practices

occurred; that there was no statement from the Nurses' Organisation implicating CCH;

and that the students concerned had not raised the matter with the proper authorities.

CCH argued that standards R1, R5 and R9 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice

were breached. Those standards require broadcasters:

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

programmes.

R5   To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

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.

Standard R1 – truth and accuracy

In news bulletins on The Radio Network at 7.30am and on National Radio at 8.00am,

it was stated that the Nurses' Organisation backed the claim that at Wellington

Hospital, students on work experience were asked to give drugs and injections. CCH

argued that there was no evidence that such a specific claim was correct, noting that

the Morning Report item quoted Nurses' Organisation representatives as making only

general statements about the treatment of student nurses by hospitals in general.

When later referring the complaint to the Authority, CCH requested that the

Authority seek evidence proving that specific allegations were made against it by the

Nurses' Organisation.

CCH also argued that it was inaccurate to report its refusal to provide at short notice a

spokesperson to comment as "Capital Coast Health is refusing to comment".

Standard R5 – dealing justly and fairly

CCH argued that it was not dealt with fairly because what it termed "the

preponderance of doubt" did not support the story's allegations. In particular it

objected to the reading of a nurse's statement that she was asked to administer drugs

and give injections, when it contradicted the denial by CCH that student nurses were

used to cover for qualified nurses in its hospitals. It also objected to the failure to

include the statement of the student nurses' representative that in her experience, the

practices described had not occurred and the Polytechnic's statement that it was not

aware of any information to verify that the practices occurred. In addition, CCH

complained that there was no evidence that the student whose statement had been

broadcast had gone to the proper authorities with her concerns. In its view, the

conclusions which could be drawn were unfair to CCH, and insufficient effort was

made to get a response to the specific allegations.

CCH argued that because the allegations made against it were vague and

unsubstantiated, and no place or date were mentioned, it was impossible for it to

investigate them, and to make an informed response. It also considered it unfair that it

was not forewarned of the allegations in time for it to carry out its own investigation.

CCH also complained that the manner in which the claims were put to it made it

impossible to respond in the time frame. First, it maintained that it was not made

clear by the reporter that the allegations were about practices at Wellington Hospital.

Secondly, it suggested that there had been adequate opportunity to seek comment

prior to the evening before the broadcast, particularly as it transpired the reporter had

been working on the story for two days. Finally, it objected to the fact that the claims

were anonymous and therefore not able to be verified.

Standard R9 – balance, impartiality and fairness

CCH maintained that it was given insufficient time in which to respond to the

allegations and therefore RNZ had not satisfied the requirement that a reasonable

opportunity be given to present CCH's point of view. CCH maintained that when

the allegations were first put to its Communications Manager – at 6.15pm the evening

before the broadcast – insufficient time was available to investigate the claims.

Furthermore, it contended, the claims were couched in general terms and it was not

made clear at that time that they pertained to the Wellington Hospital. According to

the Communications Manager it was not until the following morning at about 7.00am

that he was advised of the specific allegations against CCH and, he reported, because

he was at home, was in no position to investigate or respond to them.

Secondly, CCH complained that because the statement of an elected representative of

the Nurses' Organisation was not taken into account, either in the Morning Report

items or in the subsequent news bulletins, the items were unbalanced. In CCH's view,

her statement, which was relevant to the situation at Wellington Hospital, raised some

doubts about whether the alleged practices occurred in hospitals under CCH's

jurisdiction.

RNZ's Response

A joint response was prepared by the Complaints Committee of RNZ on its own

behalf and on behalf of The Radio Network. By way of background, RNZ explained

that the focus of the story was an allegation that student nurses throughout the

country were being exploited by their employers. The situation in the Wellington

region was also covered and it was stated that student nurses were being used to cover

for qualified nurses.

RNZ referred to a statement by the reporter in which she described the background to

the compilation of the story. According to the reporter, third year students at the

Wellington Polytechnic School of Nursing stated that they had performed tasks while

on work experience at CCH beyond their level of experience, including administering

drugs and giving injections, and being left to look after seriously ill patients. Upon

further investigation by the reporter, spokespeople for the Nurses' Organisation

advised that they had heard of such practices occurring at CCH and would not be

surprised if they were occurring elsewhere.

Standard R1 – truth and accuracy

After reviewing the Morning Report item, RNZ rejected the complaint that it was

inaccurate to report that the Nurses' Organisation backed the claim made by students

regarding work experience at Wellington Hospital. It referred to extracts spoken by

both the National Director of the Nurses' Organisation and the student chairperson

which, it maintained, supported the claim.

Turning to the allegation that it was inaccurate to state that CCH refused comment,

RNZ pointed to the "end piece" of the Morning Report item which, as noted above,

contained a summary of the response in the student newspaper article. However, it

acknowledged that because some of the morning news bulletins broadcast by both

National Radio and The Radio Network did not contain the information in the "end

piece" of the Morning Report item they were misleading, and to report that CCH had

refused comment without further explanation was capable of conveying an unfair and

unfounded implication.

RNZ upheld what it described as a minor aspect of the complaint.

Standard R5 – dealing justly and fairly

RNZ first questioned whether the standard was applicable to a company, and decided,

on a liberal interpretation, that it was.

With respect to the allegation that CCH was not dealt with fairly, and that the

preponderance of doubt did not support the allegations, RNZ responded to each point

separately.

To the allegation that it was unfair not to use a student's statement denying that the

practices occurred, RNZ responded that the student's comments were irrelevant

because they were confined to her knowledge of Whitireia Polytechnic and were not

pertinent to the specific subject. Further, it did not accept that the student's negative

statement should outweigh the authority of the Nurses' Organisation officeholders,

who confirmed they had knowledge of the practices.

Regarding the claim that CCH was treated unfairly because insufficient effort was

made to get a response to the allegations, RNZ advised that it found it difficult to

reconcile CCH's Communications Manager's version of the request for a response

with that of the reporter. It rejected the assertion that the call was a set-up,

responding that it did not use such practices. When, at air time, it had not been

possible to obtain comment from CCH, RNZ advised that an "end piece" had been

prepared, which referred back to CCH's comment quoted in the student newspaper

article, that using student nurses to cover for absent sick qualified nurses was illegal,

and would not occur.

RNZ then considered CCH's belief that it was impossible to respond to the claims. It

acknowledged there might be difficulties, but considered that as a news organisation it

had to be able to report from confidential sources and preserve the confidentiality of

its sources. It suggested that it would have been reasonable for CCH to respond that

it was sure that because of its quality control measures such incidents could not and

did not happen. Because the claims were allegations of fact, RNZ did not accept there

was a preponderance of doubt which justified discarding the story.

Standard R9 – balance, impartiality and fairness

To the complaint that reasonable opportunities had not been provided to CCH to

express its views, or to make a statement in response, RNZ countered that CCH was

given a full opportunity to reply and that it could have done so without RNZ having

to make a full disclosure of its sources and contacts for the story. As noted above,

there was an apparent discrepancy between the recollections of CCH's

Communications Manager and the reporter as to what was revealed about the

allegations at the initial interview. Nonetheless, in RNZ's opinion, the opportunity

was given to CCH to respond and it noted that, since it had not by air time been

possible to obtain substantive balancing comment for incorporation into the piece, an

"end piece" was prepared which was read by the senior presenter at the end of the

item.

RNZ declined to uphold any aspects of the complaints, except for the minor aspect

noted above which related to subsequent news bulletins on National Radio and The

Radio Network. It advised that it did not intend to broadcast any correcting message

as a result of its decision, arguing that such a broadcast served little good purpose after

the lapse of time.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority was referred two aspects of the complaint. It was referred the

substantive complaint about breaches of standards R1, R5 and R9 and also a

complaint about RNZ's failure to take any action, having upheld the complaints about

some morning news bulletins. On the basis that there was a conflict of evidence with

respect to the recollections about the initial approach to CCH, that aspect of the

complaints was withdrawn by CCH.

On a procedural point, the Authority first refers to RNZ's question as to whether

standards R5 and R9 apply to a corporate entity. The Authority confirms that RNZ

correctly interpreted those standards as applicable to CCH.

The Authority notes CCH's suggestion that it require RNZ to present evidence in

order to verify certain points. CCH requested that the Authority seek details as to the

quality and quantity of information available at the time of the broadcast. The

Authority has received a Statutory Declaration from RNZ in which the reporter

outlined the investigative process undertaken. She declared that the claims that

students had administered drugs, given injections, and been left to look after seriously

ill patients while on work experience at CCH, were reported accurately.

The Authority accepts that the Statutory Declaration is the reporter's honest

recollection of the events. It does not require further verification of these facts.

It then turns to the allegations about lack of balance and fairness. The Authority's

task is to decide whether the reports as broadcast were fair to CCH and whether

sufficient opportunity was given to it to respond.

In the Authority's experience, large organisations such as CCH, which deal with the

media on a regular basis, need to be, and usually are, well prepared to respond in a

robust manner to media inquiries about aspects of their operations. A majority of the

Authority considers that although the approach to CCH for response was made late in

the preparation of the item, because the issue had already been put to it for comment

(by the student newspaper reporter), an appropriate response should have been

possible at short notice, even if it only consisted of a denial that the alleged practices

would occur. The majority does not believe it was necessary for the sources of the

allegations to be identified, and considers it was within CCH's purview to have

ascertained to its own satisfaction the accuracy of the claims made about practices in

its hospitals when the matter was first put to it by the journalism student. The failure

of CCH to make a full response when it was approached does not, in the majority's

view, constitute a failure by RNZ to provide an opportunity to respond. It considers

that CCH had sufficient information available to make a response, and that it was

within its competence to do so. It notes that the item on Morning Report summarised

CCH's reaction to the allegations by quoting its response in the student newspaper

article. Under the circumstances, the majority considers that sufficed to provide

balance, in the absence of a full statement from CCH.

Next, the majority considers the complaint that the items were unfair because "the

preponderance of doubt" does not support the allegations made. It acknowledges that

there is some disparity about the recollection of events, but does not consider that

sufficient evidence was provided to conclude that the items were wrong. It declines to

uphold the complaint that the items lacked balance.

Finally the majority turns to the complaint that the action taken by RNZ, having

upheld the complaints about lack of balance in news items on National Radio and The

Radio Network, was insufficient. It agrees with RNZ that the aspects upheld were

not substantive matters and it decides that because the deficiency was remedied in

later bulletins, and because RNZ acknowledged the breach, no further action was

warranted. It declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

A minority of the Authority considers that it was unfair to CCH that it was

approached so late in the day to answer the specific and serious allegations made

against it. In the minority's view, the particulars of the allegations should have been

put to CCH and it should have been given the opportunity to make a specific

response. The minority does not regard as sufficient the reporting of CCH's denial, as

reported in the student newspaper article, that the practices occurred. Accordingly it

upholds the complaints that the broadcasts breached standards R5 and R9 of the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold

the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 April 1997

Appendix I

Capital Coast Health's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited – 30 August

1996

The Communications Manager of Capital Coast Health (CCH) complained on its

behalf to Radio New Zealand Ltd that a series of stories about student nurses,

broadcast on 28 August 1996 in Morning Report at 7.25am and in news bulletins

throughout the day, reported serious allegations against CCH without making a

reasonable attempt at obtaining balance. In addition, CCH contended that the reports

were done in a manner which made it impossible for it to investigate and answer the

claims.

CCH advised that it was making separate inquiries to obtain information under the

Official Information Act.

By way of background, the Communications Manager of CCH explained that prior to

the broadcast, the reporter had contacted him for comment on the allegations, which

were based on a Polytechnic journalism student's newspaper article. He responded to

the reporter that the comments in the article accurately quoted the spokesperson for

CCH and since it had denied the practices alleged, there would be no appearance by

anyone from CCH on radio. At that stage, he did not realise that the reporter had

some specific and new allegations against CCH, whereas the newspaper story

contained general remarks about an unspecified hospital. Early on 28 August, the day

of the broadcast, the Communications Manager was again contacted to see if he would

be prepared to comment on the student nurses issue. It was at that time that he

learned of the specific allegations against CCH. He told the reporter that he

considered it unfair that he was expected to go on air to answer charges he had never

heard of, adding in the complaint:

This latter conversation was reported in later bulletins as "Capital Coast

Health is refusing to comment". That is not true; our only refusal was to

provide a live spokesperson for Morning Report in a situation we regarded as

an ambush. Ironically, the same story carried comment from Capital Coast

Health.

CCH maintained that RNZ made no serious attempt to gain its comments on the

specific allegations against it. The approach made on the morning of the broadcasts

was "a token effort to obtain balance and at worst a set-up".

Because the allegation was anonymous, CCH pointed out that it was unable to

interview the individual concerned to determine the facts. It wrote:

None of the facts alleged in the Radio New Zealand News story accord with

any complaint to Capital Coast Health or any other information known to the

company.

...

Balanced coverage cannot be obtained if the party against whom allegations are

made is not given enough information to investigate and explain the true facts.

CCH contended that RNZ's failure to make a reasonable attempt to obtain balance,

and its report of claims in a manner which made it impossible for it to investigate and

answer them, constituted a violation of standards R5, R9 and R1.

Since the story was broadcast, CCH noted that no complaints had been made to the

Nurses' Organisation, or to the polytech, which supported the claims. In fact, it

reported, angry senior nurses at CCH had said the anonymous claims were

preposterous.

In a second letter, dated 24 September, CCH elaborated on its complaint. First, it

pointed out that a student representative to the Nurses' Organisation provided the

reporter with contradictory and balancing information which was not broadcast. In its

view, there were several matters which should have alerted RNZ to whether the

allegations had substance, including:

1.  CCH's denial that the alleged practices would ever be allowed;

2.  the Polytech's statement that it had received no information that the

alleged practices had taken place;

3.  the statements of the union rep;

4.  the absence of any statement from the New Zealand Nurses'

Organisation implicating CCH specifically; and

5.  the absence of any evidence that the students concerned had raised with

any proper authority their supposed concerns about illegal and unsafe

practices that they and others had supposedly engaged in.

CCH repeated its view that the broadcasts violated standard R5 (did not deal with it

fairly), and standard R9 (lacked balance). It contended that RNZ's failure to broadcast

the balancing information obtained from the student representative constituted a

separate violation of standard R9. CCH argued that the claim that students had given

drugs unsupervised while on work experience at Wellington Hospital was false, noting

that the National Director of the Nurses' Organisation was quoted only as having

received reports involving unnamed hospitals and nothing specifically involving CCH.

It appended copies of the transcript of the broadcast and its OIA request to RNZ.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 November 1996

RNZ explained that since the complaints traversed the same or similar ground, a joint

response would be made by its Complaints Committee on behalf of The Radio

Network and RNZ.

The Committee identified seven areas of complaint.

1.  That CCH was not dealt with fairly by the broadcasts.

2.  There was not a reasonable opportunity given to present alternative points

of view.

3.  It was unbalanced not to include comment made by the student

representative of the Nurses' Organisation.

4.  The reports that the Nurses' Organisation was backing students' claims was

incorrect.

5.  A refusal to provide at short notice a spokesperson to comment ought not

to have been reported as "CCH was refusing comment".

6.  That RNZ made no serious attempt to obtain CCH's view or response to

the allegations made against it.

7.  Claims were reported in such a way as to make CCH's investigation of them

impossible.

By way of background, RNZ explained that the focus of the story was on alleged

exploitation of student nurses nationally, although the use of student nurses locally to

perform work properly restricted to qualified staff was also covered.

Morning Report item

The introduction to the item referred to nursing students throughout the country

saying they were used as "slave labour" and that some Wellington students said they

had been taken advantage of and had to take on the role of a fully qualified nurse.

These claims were reported as being backed by the Nurses' Organisation which had

also heard reports of some students being left in positions of responsibility in some

hospitals. The item then went on to state that some third-year Wellington students

had had to cover for sick nurses and work full patient loads and quoted the comments

of one student nurse, who said her experience was typical of her class.

The student chairperson of the Nurses' Organisation stated that she had heard of

similar problems in other parts of the country, adding that it was a lot to ask students

to take on a registered nurse's role, and put both the patient and the student at risk.

Her comments were backed up by the Nurses' Organisation National Director, who

commented that it was clear the students were not being paid for what they were

doing and it was not surprising that it felt like slave labour. The Nurses' Organisation

was reported as urging students to refuse to take on the responsibilities of a registered

nurse.

The item concluded with a report that CCH's Human Resources Manager was

unavailable for comment, but that he was quoted in the Polytech newspaper as saying

the process of using students to cover nurses' work was illegal and that CCH would

not allow it to happen. Hope was expressed that another representative from CCH

would be contacted at a later time.

Alleged Breaches of Standards

To the complaint that CCH's representative was not informed of the scope of the

report (which included allegations about CCH), RNZ responded that its reporter had

specifically mentioned that students at CCH had carried out tasks which should have

been performed by senior staff.

RNZ also rejected the accusation that the call the following morning prior to the

Morning Report item was a "set-up". Such tactics, it wrote, were unprofessional and

unethical. It was simply giving CCH another opportunity to respond.

Regarding the report that CCH would not comment, RNZ advised that since it had not

been possible to obtain balancing comment by air time, the end-piece was prepared

and read by the presenter and referred to the comment published in the newspaper

article that it was illegal for student nurses to cover for qualified staff and that the

practice would not occur. It noted that the presenter referred to the possibility that

further comment would become available.

With respect to the complaint that the item failed to include the comments of the

student union representative, RNZ responded that neither the Polytech nor the

hospital(s) offering work experience were the specific subject, and the comment of the

student was therefore considered irrelevant. Further, it did not believe the comments

of the student representative outweighed those of the National Director of the Nurses'

Organisation or the student chairperson.

Turning to the complaint that it was false to state that the Nurses' Organisation

backed the students, RNZ quoted the views of both the national office holders in the

organisation who shared the view that "altogether, with course fees, the work-load

feels like slave-labour" and that the organisation had heard of students who were

undertaking the responsibilities of registered staff. RNZ therefore concluded that the

allegation of factual inaccuracy regarding the report that the students were not backed

by the Nurses' Organisation, could not be sustained.

RNZ did not agree that it had failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain a response

from CCH. It repeated that what was available as a response was in fact broadcast as

part of the extended item on Morning Report.

To the complaint that CCH found it impossible to respond, RNZ considered that to

say a response was impossible was to go too far. It wrote:

Any news organisation must be able to report from confidential sources,

preserving confidentiality, where confirmation of claims is available, as it was

in this case. A reasonable response would be a statement that no specific

response could be made, but that they were sure because of various quality

control measures that such incidents could not and did not happen.

RNZ considered that the claims made in the report were accurately reported and they

were allegations of fact, not statements of opinion or points of view. It did not accept

that there was "a preponderance of doubt" justifying the discarding of the story and

added that reluctance on the part of CCH to respond was not a reason not to run the

story.

Responding to the complaint that CCH was not treated justly and fairly, RNZ noted

that its report neither endorsed the allegations nor passed judgment on them. It

considered them to be worthy of repeating because there was confirmation of the

allegations from a number of sources.

It declined to uphold the complaints about the Morning Report item. Referring to the

allegation that it did not treat CCH fairly, RNZ repeated that it was given full

opportunity to reply and argued that it was not necessary, in order for CCH to

respond, to be given full disclosure of the sources used by RNZ.

News Bulletin items

With respect to the complaint about the news items, RNZ identified, in some of The

Radio Network stories, an omission of a summary of the available response material.

It therefore upheld a complaint of "failure to publish the available response in the

early bulletin stories" as a breach of standards R5 and R9. RNZ was satisfied that

later bulletin reports on National Radio included a satisfactory summary of the

available response, although it identified in the earlier stories a failure to include the

summary of the response available at the time. It agreed that the final line "...has

refused to comment" was misleading, adding:

It believed that to report Capital Coast Health as having refused comment

without further explanation or qualification was capable of conveying an unfair

and unfounded implication.

Accordingly, it upheld the complaint that some of The Radio Network and National

Radio news bulletins breached standards R5 and R9 because they failed to broadcast

available response comment. It advised that no action would be taken on the aspects

upheld, noting:

The elapse of even a few days is sufficient for a story to "drop out of sight";

the explanation required to make any correction, apology etc, understandably

entails explanation sufficient to stress once more the original error to little good

purpose.

Capital Coast Health's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –

3 December 1996

Dissatisfied with RNZ's and The Radio Network's responses to the complaints, CCH

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

CCH referred first to its attempt to seek information under the Official Information

Act to assist it in making the complaint. It reported that it had been hampered by

RNZ's inadequate response to its requests and expressed the view that full and

accurate answers to its questions were essential to determining its complaint. CCH

was of the view that the Authority should require RNZ to satisfy it about the

quantity and quality of evidence available at the time of the broadcast.

CCH repeated the seven aspects of its complaint and commented on RNZ's response.

1.  That the broadcast of the news items was questionable in view of the

"preponderance of doubt" perceived by the complainant, and had violated

Statutory Programme Standard R5, which requires broadcasters to deal fairly

with persons named or taking part in the programme.

CCH maintained that the "preponderance of doubt" remained. It noted that the

allegations were broadcast despite CCH's denial that the alleged practices were

allowed; the Polytech's statement that they had no information that the practices had

taken place; the statement by a student nurse (who was also an elected representative

of the Nurses' Organisation) that the allegations were not true to her knowledge; the

absence of any statement from the Nurses' Organisation implicating CCH specifically;

and the absence of any evidence that the student had raised with any proper authority

her supposed concerns about illegal and unsafe practices that she and others had

supposedly engaged in.

Against these factors, CCH continued, Morning Report broadcast the words of a single

student nurse making allegations against it, supposedly supported by "some third-

year nursing students". To RNZ's assertion that up to four others supported the

allegations, CCH noted that it had not responded to its Official Information Act

request to elucidate exactly what each said.

CCH considered that the Authority should seek from RNZ clarification of the

quantity and quality of information available at the time of the broadcast. It

considered the relevant questions were:

* Did four Polytech students each tell RNZ that they each had to give drugs and

injections unsupervised and cover for sick nurses while on work experience at

Wellington Hospital? Did each of them give the explanation stated by RNZ in its

reply to the OIA request? Did they state which managers expected them to do the

work of registered nurses?

* Were other contradictory views omitted from the broadcast, apart from the one

from the first year student?

* In deciding to broadcast the items, what constituted "exhaustive editorial

discussions"? Did the senior editorial staff know of the dissenting comments?

Why was it decided to give no weight to those comments?

With respect to the statement given by the first year student, CCH contended that

RNZ had misunderstood its relevance to the situation at Wellington Hospital. It

wrote:

We submit that had Radio New Zealand properly understood the information

it received from [the student], it would have raised significant issues about the

credibility of its other source or sources.

CCH rejected RNZ's argument that reporting a statement did not imply editorial

support of its content, or editorial endorsement of what was said. CCH argued that

such a disclaimer was pure sophistry. It asserted that RNZ's duty of care was higher

when it proposed to broadcast allegations anonymously, and therefore, that there was

an onus on RNZ to demonstrate to the Authority that the quality of its research and

credibility of its sources were high enough to justify broadcast. It asked that the

Authority seek the necessary information.

2.  Breach of standard R9 ( the requirement to show balance, impartiality and

fairness)

CCH maintained that there was insufficient time for it to respond to the allegations,

and further, that there was insufficient detail about the allegations. Why, it asked,

when the story was being prepared over a two day period, was it asked for comment

at the end of the business day on the day before the broadcast? CCH considered that it

was denied a reasonable opportunity to provide an alternative point of view.

3.  Failure to cite a statement made by a representative to the Nurses'

Organisation constituted a breach of standard R9.

CCH maintained that RNZ had failed to understand the student's statement – that she,

as an elected representative of students, some of whom have work experience at

Wellington Hospital, had not had such allegations brought to her attention. In CCH's

view, her comments were directly relevant to the reporting of practices at Wellington

Hospital and should have been reported.

4.  That reports that the Nurses' Organisation was "backing students' claims"

was incorrect and breached standard R1.

CCH maintained that there was no evidence that the Nurses' Organisation backed any

such specific claim against it. The union representatives made general comments about

the treatment of student nurses by hospitals in general.

CCH suggested that the Authority seek evidence to support the claims made that

student nurses had "given drugs unsupervised while on work experience at Wellington

Hospital". If no such evidence existed, it argued that there was a breach of standard

R1.

5.  That a refusal to provide at short notice a spokesperson to comment ought not

to have been reported as "Capital Coast Health is refusing to comment"

CCH noted that RNZ upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, it was

dissatisfied with the action taken.

6.  That RNZ made no serious attempt to obtain CCH's view or response to the

allegations made against it; the reporter had "two opportunities to do so" on

the evening before the broadcast but did not take them, and the approach the

following morning was a token effort or a set-up amounting to an ambush.

Because the facts were in dispute, CCH withdrew this aspect of the complaint.

7.  Reporting claims in such a way as to make CCH's investigation of them

impossible (breach of standard R5)

The anonymity of the sources and the lack of detail about the substance of the

allegations made it difficult to answer them and was therefore unfair to CCH.

Action taken

With respect to the aspects of the complaints which were upheld, CCH complained

that the action taken by RNZ was insufficient. It did not agree that the broadcast of a

correction would serve little purpose. It pointed out that the items were broadcast

nationally and the stories were picked up by the press and published by newspapers

throughout the country.

Despite the passage of time, CCH considered it important that the point be corrected

and the admission about lack of balance be broadcast. It believed the broadcast of a

correction and apology should be made.

Failure to respond within statutory deadline

CCH noted that the response from RNZ and The Radio Network was received 46

days after it had filed its original complaints. It understood that it was required to

complain within 40 working days after the date of the broadcast about the

broadcaster's failure to respond. [The Authority notes that in fact the complainant

has 60 working days in which to respond].

Summary

CCH summarised its complaint thus:

The essence of our complaint is that Radio New Zealand News reported

serious allegations against Capital Coast Health without making a reasonable

attempt at obtaining balance, and in a manner that made it impossible for

Capital Coast Health to investigate and answer the claims.

If the methods used by Radio New Zealand News in this case became accepted

practice, anyone could make any allegation and, by requesting anonymity,

simultaneously make the allegations unanswerable and protect themselves from

accountability for the truth or otherwise of their accusations.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 4 February 1997

Commenting first that there was little to add to its detailed response, RNZ drew

attention to the Press Association taking up the story.

RNZ interpreted CCH's comment as implying that an ill-founded, groundless story,

started by RNZ, was then spread through the community. It pointed out that no

organisation would copy another organisation's story and that common practice was

for the story to be used as a lead to be followed up by further checks and inquiries. It

considered the fact that the story ran in newspapers suggested that independent

inquiries had satisfied that the facts could be confirmed.

RNZ noted that the complainant requested that the Authority act on some matters

outside its powers.

It then commented on the question of the identity of news sources, suggesting that

part of the reason for CCH's approach to the Ombudsman was to obtain information

regarding news sources and also to impede RNZ News's use of such sources in future.

RNZ drew the Authority's attention to past rulings of the Ombudsman's office and to

the interim decision of the Ombudsman in the present matter, which supported its

refusal to provide information identifying news sources. In the interim report the

Ombudsman commended RNZ for undertaking to pass on to its news sources an open

letter from CCH asking that any person with information about the alleged practices

to make that information available to CCH on a confidential basis.

RNZ recorded its firm belief that the use of such sources, and their protection, was

essential in its function to keep the public informed.

It believed the complaint could be dealt with without a formal hearing but emphasised

that if the Authority intended to include any ruling which restricted the use of

unnamed news sources, RNZ would formally request to be heard before the Authority

on the general issues which any such proposals would raise.

With respect to the elapsed time, RNZ pointed out that although the first letter of

complaint was dated 30 August, the whole complaint was not finalised until 24

September when the complainant included news bulletin material and made a further

complaint associated with the 30 August complaint.

Finally, RNZ wrote that it did

...not concede that the principle of accuracy applying to the report of an

attributed statement but not by extension to an editorial endorsement of the

content of that statement is "sophistry". It is, on the contrary, one of the

most important principles, allowing statements to be reported impartially and

with accuracy.

Further, RNZ did not concede that reasonable attempts to obtain balancing comment

or views were not made. It also rejected the suggestion that the attempts to obtain

comment up till the eleventh hour was an attempt to mount an electronic ambush.

CCH's Final Comment – 25 February 1997

In its final comment, CCH complained that RNZ had made no attempt to explain to

the Authority the quantity and quality of the information available at the time of the

broadcast, and RNZ's reasoning in deciding to broadcast. It reiterated the point made

in its 3 December letter that because the allegations were anonymous and uncheckable

it was impossible to debate the issues. It submitted that there was an onus on RNZ to

demonstrate to the Authority that the quality of its research and the credibility of its

sources were high enough to justify broadcast.

CCH referred to a response it had received from RNZ to its Official Information Act

request, including its response to a statement made by a student representative from

Whitireia polytech. On the question of how many students were approached by RNZ

News and denied knowledge of the suggestions broadcast, and/or reported the

opposite experience, CCH noted that after the Ombudsman intervened, a response

was received from RNZ which asserted that the question was a request for an opinion

and did not answer it.

CCH pointed out that RNZ ignored the student nurse's comments on the basis that

she represented Whitireia students and not Wellington Polytechnic. It suggested that

RNZ had avoided the opportunity to provide satisfactory evidence that its editorial

judgments were sound and that its reports were fair and balanced.

Instead of addressing those issues, CCH contended, RNZ had introduced an irrelevant

Official Information Act matter, and accused CCH of impeding its use of sources.

CCH denied that it was seeking to identify RNZ's sources.

CCH described as "illuminating" the Ombudsman's observation that no tape

recordings were retained of the broadcasts and the only information available consisted

of rough jottings comprising the names and numbers of contacts. It contained no

details of the allegations made, nor did it include the names of the student nurses who

made the allegations. CCH continued:

It is sloppy that after two days of supposedly thorough investigations the

reporter's only notes were "rough 'jottings'". And if there really were four or

five students making each allegation, why did the journalist not report this, and

why did she quote only one?

In summary:

* Radio New Zealand has delayed or frustrated every request to provide

evidence about the validity of its news judgment and the fairness and balance

of its broadcasts.

* It is now revealed that it broadcast prominently very serious allegations of

illegal behaviour without retaining any tangible evidence that would enable it to

demonstrate to impartial third parties that the broadcasts had substance.

* It refuses to acknowledge the importance of a key source who denied the

allegations.

* Finally, it has refused to state whether it was aware of other evidence that

questioned the validity of the allegations it broadcast.

In CCH's view, the Authority could conclude that RNZ's research was haphazard,

ignored evidence which did not suit its case, and failed to weigh up all the evidence in

its possession before deciding whether and what to broadcast.

According to CCH, RNZ was correct when it said that it (CCH) was implying that an

ill-founded, even groundless story was originated by RNZ and spread throughout the

community. It noted that NZPA had confirmed they had taken the Morning Report

story at face value and reported it. CCH noted that the press reports showed that the

"no comment" response attributed to CCH was widely reported. It reminded the

Authority that that aspect of the complaint had been upheld by RNZ and thus, it

argued, demonstrated that the remedy of a correction was appropriate because such

correction would be able to be publicised through the NZPA.

Regarding the question of lateness of RNZ's response, CCH pointed out that the

complaint was finalised on 24 September and RNZ's response was not received until

5 November – well outside the statutory deadline.

In conclusion, CCH wrote:

The allegations broadcast in August were very serious. If they were true, they

would constitute illegal, dangerous and unethical activity. The broadcasts

could not have been better calculated to undermine public confidence in

Wellington hospital.

CCH assured the Authority that neither the publicity nor its own investigations had

produced a trace of evidence that the allegations were true.

CCH appended copies of RNZ's first response to an Official Information Act request,

CCH's request for further information and RNZ's second response.

Further Correspondence – 18 March 1997

RNZ provided the Authority with a statutory declaration from the reporter in which

she outlined the process undertaken in preparing the item for Morning Report.

RNZ noted that there were a number of questions of fact which were at issue and

believed that the declaration was therefore a valuable aid to the Authority. It also

pointed out that there were other reports from editorial staff and producers (though

not in the form of Statutory Declarations) in the Company's complaint file which

confirmed its account of matters.

When given an opportunity to comment on the Statutory Declaration, in a letter dated

26 March 1997, CCH maintained that the reporter had been "more circumspect" in her

statutory declaration than in her statements to the Complaints Committee, reported in

RNZ's letter of 4 November 1996. CCH still did not accept that the reporter did any

more than ask if CCH would respond to the story. It noted that in her Statutory

Declaration, she made no mention of the allegations that drugs and injections were

given unsupervised. As for the timing of the approach, CCH noted that it was outside

of office hours, and repeated that it was unfair to give it so little time in which to

respond to serious and complex allegations.

As for the suggestion that CCH should have expressed concern about the stories, CCH

emphasised that the fact that it was not concerned added weight to the view that it

was not told that they contained specific allegations about CCH. It added:

Given that Wellington Polytechnic sends its nursing students to institutions

such as Hutt Valley Health and private rest homes, it is not safe to assume that

any generalised comments about abuse of Wellington Polytech students apply

to Capital Coast Health.

CCH concluded that there were still three matters which RNZ had not addressed. It

complained that RNZ had not explained how it weighed up the conflicting evidence

before deciding the merits of the story. Secondly, it did not consider a satisfactory

explanation had been given as to why the student representative's comments were not

included, and RNZ had not stated whether it received similar complaints from other

nurses. Finally, CCH complained that there was still no clarification of whether the

Nurses' Organisation confirmed statements against Wellington Hospital or whether it

just endorsed comments on the general industrial relations issues. CCH believed the

latter to be the correct interpretation of the information available.

Appendix II

Capital Coast Health's Complaint to The Radio Network Limited – 

24 September 1996

Capital Coast Health, through its Chief Executive, Jim Harrison, complained to The

Radio Network Limited about two news items broadcast on Newstalk ZB at 7.30am

and 3.00pm on 28 August 1996.

CCH alleged that the items breached broadcasting standards because:

Insufficient weight was given to the following factors:

i)  CCH's denial that the alleged practices would be allowed

ii)  the Polytech's statement that they had received no information that the

practices had taken place

iii)  the statements by the student representative on the union

iv)  the absence of any statement from the New Zealand Nurses'

Organisation specifically implicating CCH

v)  the absence of any evidence that the student(s) interviewed had raised

with any proper authority their supposed concerns about illegal and

unsafe practices that they and others had supposedly engaged in.

Taken as a whole, CCH argued, these factors should have created a doubt about

whether the allegations had substance. It maintained that the broadcasts violated

standards R5 (dealing fairly) and R9 (balance).

Next, CCH complained that failure to give it a reasonable opportunity to comment

violated standards R5 and R9 and that reporting the claims in a manner which made it

impossible for CCH to investigate and answer them constituted a breach of standards

R5 and R9. CCH suggested if the methods used in this case became accepted practice,

anyone could make any allegation and, by requesting anonymity, could simultaneously

make the allegations unanswerable and protect themselves from accountability for the

truth or otherwise of their accusations.

CCH contended that the failure to include the balancing comment of the union's

student representative was also a violation of standard R9, and the claim in the 7.30am

news bulletin that the students' claims were backed by the Nurses' Organisation was

false.

In addition, the bulletin quoted a student nurse as saying:

...while on work experience at Wellington Hospital...sometimes you're left to

do things unsupervised like giving patients drugs and injections. It's just

waiting for students to give patients the wrong amount of drugs by not having

them supervised properly.

CCH stated that it knew of no evidence that the Nurses' Organisation supported the

specific claims involving Wellington Hospital. In other bulletins, the reports were

only concerned with unnamed hospitals, and nothing specifically involving CCH. It

complained that the statement violated standard R1.

The Radio Network's Response to the Formal Complaint

The Radio Network's response was made jointly with Radio New Zealand and is

summarised in Appendix I.