BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The actions of an exasperated unpaid creditor in digging up a carpark his company had

laid some months previously, was shown in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One

at 7.00pm on 2 June 1997.

Mr Hansen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item,

by supporting the illegal actions of the creditor, failed to show respect for the law.

Explaining that the event would have taken place regardless of the presence of

television cameras, and that the aggrieved creditor had been asked to explain his

actions, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. The complaint, it said, confused

TVNZ's role as the messenger with that of the message.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Hansen 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). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

"The Pot-Hole People" in Christchurch decided to take direct steps when the

company was unable to recover the cost of asphalting a car parking area. Its action

was to dig up the asphalt. This activity, and the reasons for it, were shown in an item

on Holmes. The item also included pictures of the upset tenant of the building which

used the car park, a visit by the Police while the asphalt was being dug up, and the

efforts by TVNZ to speak to the owner of the car parking area who had not paid the

account. Support for the creditor's direct action, it was reported, was given by the

Contractors Federation.

Explaining that he was formerly the Official Assignee in Christchurch, Mr Hansen

complained that the item had intimated support for the creditor's action. As the "law

of the jungle" would prevail if such actions on the part of unpaid creditors became

widespread, Mr Hansen considered that the item failed to maintain law and order.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G5 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters:

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

Pointing out that the action would have taken place regardless of the presence of

cameras, TVNZ said it had challenged the contractor, and questioned the fairness of

his actions in respect of the innocent tenant. The item had shown the visit by the

Police who had left without making an arrest. Suggesting that the complaint confused

the message with the messenger, TVNZ maintained that the item neither showed any

disrespect for the principles of law, nor encouraged creditors to take the law into their

own hands.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Hansen maintained that the item

supported the notion that unsecured creditors were morally entitled to take the law

into their own hands. Furthermore, he wrote, TVNZ failed to understand the law in

this area which was designed to ensure fairness to all creditors.

The Authority notes that the item made it clear that the action taken by the company

in digging up the asphalt was at least of questionable legality. It is of the view that the

item was presented as a cautionary tale to debtors. By showing the effect of the

action on the tenant, and by attempting to obtain the debtor's point of view, the

Authority considers that the item did not advance just one side of the dispute. Taking

these matters into account, the Authority concludes that TVNZ did not show

disrespect for the principles of law.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
14 August 1997

Appendix

Mr Hansen's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 3 June 1997

Ivan Hansen of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an

item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7.00pm on 2 June 1997. The item showed

the action of a Christchurch company called the "The Pot-Hole People" which,

because it had been unable to recover the cost of asphalting a car parking area, had dug

up the asphalting.

Pointing out that he had retired from the position of Official Assignee (Special Duties)

with the then Department of Justice six years previously, Mr Hansen said remedies

were available to creditors and no one was entitled to take the law into their own

hands. However, the item had showed a creditor acting illegally, and had intimated

support for the creditor's action.

Mr Hansen said his work as Official Assignee involved considerable effort to dissuade

creditors from taking their own remedies and to ensure that such action was seen as

illegal. However:

Viewers of the "Holmes" programme on the evening of 2 June could quite well

assume that if it is alright for a contractor to dig up a car park because he hasn't

been paid for making it, it would equally be acceptable for a builder to chop

down a house which he hasn't been paid for, or for a mechanic to smash up a car

because he hasn't been able to recover the cost of repairs to it. If such actions

on the part of unpaid creditors were to become widespread, the "law of the

jungle" would soon prevail.

Accordingly, the item failed to maintain law and order in that it actively encouraged

aggrieved creditors to adopt illegal practices when they were unable to recover debts

by lawful means.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 20 June 1997

Assessing the complaint under standard G5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ said the item told the story of a person who dug up a parking area,

which his company had put down some months previously, because he had not been

paid.

TVNZ did not disagree that the contractor had been acting illegally but questioned

whether the complaint confused the message with the messenger. The events covered

in the item, as with many events in the news, reported illegal behaviour but, TVNZ

insisted, the coverage as such did not show disrespect for the law.

TVNZ maintained that the item had not encouraged the contractor. The item had been

filmed as a result of a tip-off and, it maintained, the events would have proceeded with

or without the presence of cameras. The reporter challenged the contractor,

questioned the fairness of his actions in respect to the innocent tenant, and the police

were called but left without making an arrest. TVNZ wrote:

In our view this was a news item of public interest. In your letter your appear

to take the view that nobody, in particular unpaid unsecured creditors, should be

allowed to take such action. It is the role and duty of news organisations to

show that there can be another side to a story, and by highlighting the activities

of people who challenge legal authority, news media reports have at times led to

unsatisfactory laws being changed.

Noting that the contractor spelt out the dilemma he was facing, TVNZ argued:

We do not believe "Holmes" showed any lack of respect for the principles of

law. It made it clear that what the contractor was doing could be an arrestable

offence, but it also posed the unspoken question of whether the law in cases of

this nature is fair and reasonable.

Most certainly the item did not "actively encourage" aggrieved creditors to take

the law into their own hands.

Mr Hansen's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 30 June 1997

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

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

Arguing that TVNZ's response reinforced his complaint, Mr Hansen said it showed

that TVNZ supported the notion that unsecured creditors were morally entitled to

take the law into her own hands. TVNZ's suggestion that the current law might be

unfair, he continued, disclosed a complete lack of understanding of the area where the

law was designed to ensure an equitable distribution of available assets among all

creditors. The approach advanced on the item, he said, encouraged a "dog eat dog"

attitude.

The item, he concluded, was unacceptable.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 7 July 1997

TVNZ advised the Authority that it did not want to comment further.