BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Coalition Government's plan to require the unemployed to work in order to

qualify for the unemployment benefit was referred to in an item broadcast on One

Network News between 6.00–7.00pm on 12 March 1997.

The Director of the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development (Mr J M Stevenson)

complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the item failed to

respect the principles of law and, moreover, was biased. It breached the standards, he

wrote, as the item did not acknowledge that the proposal contravened the International

Labour Convention on Forced Labour ratified by New Zealand.

Explaining that the Department of Labour advised that the proposal did not amount to

forced labour within the terms of the Convention, TVNZ declined to uphold the

complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision as the Department's advice was contrary to

rulings by the ILO, Mr Stevenson, on the Centre's behalf, 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.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed 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 Coalition Government's intention to require the unemployed to undertake some

community work in order to qualify for the unemployment benefit was dealt with in

an item on One Network News. The item showed the Minister of Employment

visiting Auckland and he was questioned about the progress in putting the policy into

practice. Criticism of the policy on the basis of fairness was advanced in the item by

the Alliance Party's spokesperson on employment.

The Director of the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development (Mr J M Stevenson)

complained to TVNZ that the item breached two standards. Because the item did not

acknowledge that the policy was in breach of the International Labour Convention on

Forced Labour, he said, it breached the standards requiring respect for the principles of

law and balance. Recording that New Zealand was a signatory to the 1930

Convention, he pointed out to TVNZ that he advised that company, and specifically

its political editor, of New Zealand's Convention obligations several weeks before the

item complained about was broadcast.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G5 and G6. They require

broadcasters:

G5   To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

G6   To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

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

In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ sent Mr Stevenson a copy of the

Department of Labour document dealing with the International Labour Conventions

ratified by New Zealand. In its summary of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, the

Department records:

A requirement that unemployed people be directed to work in order to qualify

for unemployment benefits has been held by ILO's Committee of Experts not to

be forced labour.

Mr Stevenson of the complainant group challenged this statement when he referred the

complaint to the Authority. He enclosed copies of documents received from the

International Labour Organisation in Geneva where the ILO's Committee of Experts

had addressed the situation in Chile and the Federal Republic of Germany in regard to

legislation concerning unemployment benefits. Mr Stevenson argued that the ILO

records suggested that the proposal advanced in New Zealand would contravene the

Forced Labour convention.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ stated that the documentation included with the

referral took the complaint "a considerable distance from the news item as broadcast".

It wrote:

We are discussing here a simple, straightforward piece which updated an on-

going story about the possibility of a scheme being introduced requiring

unemployed people to work in order to receive the benefit. The opportunity

was taken by TVNZ to get the view of the Employment Minister, Mr

McCardle, that day on a visit to the Auckland area.

It continued:

The debate over whether this scheme might be an "apparent dehumanisation of

New Zealand society by means of unconscious processes", as the complainant

puts it, was quite beyond the intent or scope of this brief item.

Averring that the position in New Zealand was that contained in the Department of

Labour's report, TVNZ did not accept that the item had breached the standards.

In the complainant group's final comment, Mr Stevenson found disturbing TVNZ's

refusal to accept the records of the ILO's Committee of Experts as being more

persuasive than the opinion from a branch of government. He also emphasised the

importance of the complaint, arguing that one measure of a civilised society could be

the way it treated minorities.

The Authority's approach to the determination of this complaint takes into account

the fact that the item complained about was a relatively brief news item. The item's

focus was the Minister's visit to Auckland and his intention to proceed with his

proposal although there was some political criticism of it. Given the essentially news

nature of the item, the Authority accepts that TVNZ was entitled to rely on the

Department of Labour's interpretation of the Forced Labour Convention.

In view of the material advanced by the complainant group, the Authority expects that

it would be taken into account in any programme which explored the proposal in

detail. However, as that was not the focus on this occasion, the Authority does not

accept that the item was unbalanced. It is also of the view that the standard G6

requirement for fairness encompasses the matters which the complainant group

considered should have been dealt with under standard G5.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
15 May 1997

Appendix

Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development's Complaint to Television New

Zealand Ltd - 12 March 1997

The Director of the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development (Mr J M Stevenson)

complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on One Network News

broadcast between 6.00 - 7.00pm that evening. The item reported the Coalition

Government's plan to require the unemployed to work in order to qualify for the

unemployment benefit.

Mr Stevenson stated that the item had not reported that such a scheme would be in

breach of the Forced Labour Convention 1930 which had been ratified by the New

Zealand Government. As such conventions amounted to international law, Mr

Stevenson considered that the item breached standard G5 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. Further, as the omission prevented the unemployed from

challenging the plan on this ground, it was biased and in breach of standard G6.

Referring to the requirement to achieve balance over a period of time, Mr Stevenson

referred to the Centre's press release of 13.2.97 which had been sent to TVNZ, in

Auckland and Wellington, on 5 and 6 March respectively. It had drawn attention to

the New Zealand Government's breach of international law when it refused the

unemployment benefit to the unemployed in Nelson who refused to carry out Task

Force Green work locally.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 24 March 1997

Assessing the complaints under the nominated standards, TVNZ advised that the item

broadcast on 12 March was a report on the progress of the proposed scheme by

which unemployed people might be asked to work in order to receive the unemployed

benefit.

TVNZ maintained that the complaint was without foundation as it was based on an

incorrect premise because:

... the Forced Labour Convention does not carry the implication that a "work for

the unemployment benefit" scheme constitutes forced labour.

In support of this statement, it cited an extract from the Department of Labour's

summary of the Forced Labour Convention which reads:

A requirement that unemployed people be directed to work in order to qualify

for unemployment benefit has been held by the ILO's Committee of Experts not

to be forced labour.

Accordingly, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

The Centre's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1 April 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Stevenson on the Centre's behalf referred the

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

Act 1989.

Acknowledging the Department of Labour's approach quoted by TVNZ, Mr

Stevenson wrote:

In terms of the concept of psychological verisimilitude, the Centre found this

claim confusing and sought verification from the ILO in Geneva.

The reply from the ILO came in the form of copies of its own records with

regard to Chile, which show that the ILO has in fact held that being forced to

work against one's will in order to qualify for an unemployment benefit is forced

labour.

He enclosed copies of the material received from the ILO and drew attention to an ILO

ruling that "forced or compulsory labour" could take the form of "a loss of rights or

privileges". He also referred to another ILO comment which recorded:

... unemployed persons now must undertake work for which they have not

offered themselves voluntarily and, if they refuse to perform such work, they

lose their entitlement to benefits, a loss which constitutes a penalty within the

meaning of the Convention.

Mr Stevenson also highlighted other passages in the material received from the ILO

which, he argued, justified his interpretation and, he wrote:

The Centre therefore submits that the copies of actual ILO records of its

position on forced labour and "working for the dole", are the definitional

authority in this matter rather than is the view of a member country, ie New

Zealand, whose government is claiming that the ILO's Committee of Experts is

saying the exact opposite of that which the Committee's own records prove to

be case.

The Centre further submits that by clearly identifying the loss of the rights to

unemployment benefit in Chile as a "penalty" within the meaning of the

Convention - thus establishing that any work done in order to retain such a

benefit is forced labour - a clear precedent has therefore been set.

Pointing out that TVNZ had the material but had adopted the New Zealand

government's incorrect interpretation, Mr Stevenson maintained that the Authority

should uphold his complaint.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 9 April 1997

TVNZ began:

With respect to the Centre, we feel that Mr Stevenson's letter of referral and

accompanying documentation (none of it submitted to TVNZ with the original

complaint) takes this correspondence a considerable distance from the news item

as broadcast.

The item, it continued, updated an on-going story and included the view of the

Employment Minister. It had not been involved in assessing whether the scheme

involved "dehumanisation", and TVNZ observed:

We say it is nonsense to suggest the item failed to respect the principles of law

(G5). For all its semantics, the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development has

not produced any real facts to support its claim that "work for the dole"

schemes would be forced labour in this country. The Centre produces an

assertion from the International Labour Organisation in Geneva and its exchanges

with the government of Chile which it claims supports its opinion that such

schemes should be branded as forced labour here. We note that despite

numerous coaxings from the International Labour Organisation, the Chilean

government does not appear to agree with that view - yet they remain

convention signatories.

TVNZ maintained that the Department of Labour document provided the appropriate

definition.

On the issue of press releases, TVNZ pointed out that it was a matter of editorial

judgment whether they were used.

The Centre's Final Comment - 22 April 1997

On the basis that the Department of Labour's interpretation was the sole basis of

TVNZ's defence, Mr Stevenson on the Centre's behalf maintained that the item was

unbalanced as the material advanced had shown that the Department of Labour was

wrong.

Mr Stevenson said that there were two other concerns which he wanted to put on

record - the nature of justice and New Zealand's statue law.

In regard to the first, Mr Stevenson argued that the concept of "fairness" in standard

G6 was not confined to legal justice. It included matters of morality and equity or, in

other words, natural justice. That was the sense in which the Centre considered that

the item breached standard G6. On that basis, the Centre argued that the item should

have referred to the ILO convention on forced labour which had been ratified by New

Zealand.

On the second point, Mr Stevenson referred to some other comments from the

Department of Labour which meant that ILO conventions ratified by New Zealand

were enshrined into New Zealand law. Consequently, the Centre continued its

argument that the item breached standard G5.

Mr Stevenson accepted that the letter of referral and accompanying documentation

took the correspondence "a considerable distance" from the broadcast complained

about. He added:

This is of course the whole point of the complaint. TVNZ appears to be

unaware of the extremely serious nature of this matter. It has been said that a

civilised society is measured by the way it treats its minorities.

Questioning the morality of the government's actions, Mr Stevenson repeated the

point that the documentation provided showed that being forced to work for the dole

was, in the opinion of the ILO's Committee of Experts, forced labour. He concluded:

The Centre finds disturbing the refusal of the broadcaster to accept the fact that

copies of the Committee of Experts own records are more definitional of its

own position than is the opinion of the New Zealand government.