BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

In her tribute on the death of Princess Diana, the Leader of the Labour Party (Ms

Helen Clark) referred to her as the mother of the future King of New Zealand. The

comment was reported on One Network News broadcast between 6.00–7.00pm on 31

August 1997.

The controversy involving Judge Beattie's refusal to resign after being acquitted of

dishonesty was dealt with in items on One Network News on 2 and 3 September 1997.

Both items included comment from a number of politicians and lawyers.

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

was unbalanced. In view of the movement toward a republic in New Zealand, in Mr

Terry's opinion it would be unlikely that Prince William would be King of New

Zealand. The items on Judge Beattie, whom Mr Terry described as an inspirational

figure, did not include comments from the Governor General or the general public.

Maintaining that each item was balanced, and suggesting that the complaints were

vexatious, TVNZ declined to uphold them.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Robert Terry complained to TVNZ about items on One Network News on 31 August,

and 2 and 3 September 1997. He considered that each item was unbalanced. The

item on 31 August included a tribute to Princess Diana from the Leader of the Labour

Party (Hon Helen Clarke MP) in which she referred to her as the mother of the future

King of New Zealand. It was unbalanced, claimed Mr Terry, as it did not

acknowledge that New Zealand would become a republic in the next century.

The items on 2 and 3 September referred to the debate concerning the future role of

District Court Judge Beattie, who had been acquitted on charges involving dishonesty,

and declined to resign. Expressing admiration for the Judge, Mr Terry considered that

the views of the Governor General and the public, respectively, were omitted from the

items.

TVNZ assessed each complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters:

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

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

It maintained that each item was an accurate report of the events referred to. When

Mr Terry referred the complaints to the Authority, TVNZ argued that they should be

dismissed as vexatious.

When ruling on a complaint from Mr Terry that a news item on the Department of

Courts' campaign to recover unpaid fines was unbalanced (No:1997-087, 10 July

1997), the Authority observed that that complaint bordered on the vexatious. It

arrived at that conclusion on the basis that Mr Terry neither identified the reasons why

he believed the item was unbalanced, nor the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the

broadcaster's decision.

In that decision, the Authority reminded Mr Terry of its power to award costs against

a complainant when it decided that a complaint was vexatious or trivial.

Having considered the current complaints, the Authority agrees with TVNZ that each

item was a complete story in itself, and it does not accept that there is a sound basis

for any of the complaints which alleged imbalance. Again, Mr Terry neither advised

the Authority why he was dissatisfied with TVNZ's decisions, nor his reasons for

referring the complaints to the Authority.

In the Authority's opinion, each item was not in the least unbalanced as Mr Terry

claimed, and the issue he raised on each occasion was peripheral to the matter dealt

with by the item.

For the reasons above, the Authority declines to determine the above three

complaints, under s.11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, on the grounds that each

of them is frivolous, vexatious or trivial.

When the Authority reached this tentative ruling initially, it wrote to Mr Terry and

asked for his comment on the possible imposition of costs against him.

In his reply, Mr Terry persisted in his view that each complaint was justified. He

wrote:

Helen Clark's statement that Lady Diana was the mother of our future king is

both Trivial and Bullshit.

Even Buckingham Palace has advised that the Queen of England will not retire

from office.

Aotearoa NZ will become a republic next century.

The head of state will be elected by the people.

Ask Jim Bolger the Prime Minister.

Item No 2

On Judge Beattie even the Auckland Law Society can not make up its mind on

Judge Beattie's case.

Mr Terry also referred to the Bill of Rights Act and his right to speak out on

controversial issues.

The Authority does not challenge in any way Mr Terry's right to express an opinion.

However, it does not believe that the broadcasting complaints process is the

appropriate way for him to express his views. It is also concerned to see that the

complaints process is not abused. There is cost and inconvenience to other parties

when this occurs.

In the Authority's opinion, Mr Terry's approach amounts to the misuse of the

complaints process, and, in view of the earlier warning to Mr Terry, the Authority

considers that an order for costs is appropriate.

Order

Pursuant to s.16(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Mr

Robert Terry of Reefton to pay costs to Television New Zealand Ltd in the total

sum of $300 in respect of these three complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 December 1997

Appendix I

Mr Terry's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 9 September 1997

Robert Terry of Reefton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on

One Network News, broadcast between 6.00–7.00pm on 31 August 1997.

The item included Ms Helen Clark's response, as the Leader of the Labour Party, to

the death of Princess Diana, in which she described her as the mother of New

Zealand's future king. Contending that New Zealand would become a republic in the

21st century in view of the current Prime Minister's stated preferences, Mr Terry said

the item was biased as:

New Zealand cannot continue to be ruled by a constitutional monarchy twelve

thousand miles away on the other side of the planet while America runs our

economic system.

Further, the item was biased when it reported an opinion poll which suggested that

Maori voters were shifting their allegiances back to the Labour Party.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 September 1997

Assessing the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ considered that there was nothing controversial in Ms Clark's factual

observation.

As for the various parts of the opinion poll referred to in the item, TVNZ was unable

to detect any element of imbalance.

It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Mr Terry's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 22 September 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Terry referred the complaint to the

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

He argued that TVNZ should have displayed balance by pointing out that, in view of

the recent constitutional movement, it was unlikely that Prince William would

become King of New Zealand.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 30 October 1997

Enclosing copies of the correspondence it had received from Mr Terry in regard to the

three complaints, TVNZ contended that each one merited the description "vexatious".

Further Correspondence

After the Authority had initially considered the complaints, on 27 November 1997 it

wrote to Mr Terry. It recalled that in an earlier decision on a complaint from Mr

Terry (No:1997-087), when it had declined to determine the complaint, the power to

award costs against a complainant was referred to.

On the basis that it was inclined to decline to determine the current complaints on the

basis they were trivial and vexatious in view of the peripheral matters referred to, the

Authority sought Mr Terry's comments as to whether costs should be awarded against

him on this occasion.

Mr Terry's Response to the Authority – 4 December 1997

Mr Terry denied that the complaints were either vexatious or trivial. He wrote:

Helen Clark's statement that Lady Diana was the mother of our future king is

both Trivial and Bullshit.

Even Buckingham Palace has advised that the Queen of England will not retire

from office.

Aotearoa NZ will become a republic next century.

The head of state will be elected by the people.

Ask Jim Bolger the Prime Minister.

 

Item No 2

On Judge Beattie even the Auckland law society can not make up its mind on

Judge Beattie's case.

Moreover, in his opinion, Mr Terry considered that he had the right, under the Bill of

Rights Act, to speak out on controversial issues.

Appendix II

Mr Terry's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 3 September 1997

Robert Terry of Reefton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item

broadcast on One Network News between 6.00–7.00pm on 2 September, which

referred to Judge Beattie of the District Court.

Describing Judge Beattie as an inspiration to budding legal attorneys, Mr Terry

contended that TVNZ should look at the British colonial justice system as the cause of

society's current problems. Further, the comments from politicians on the issue had

to be challenged in order to show balance.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 12 September 1997

Assessing the complaint under standard G6 of Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ said it had some difficulty in understanding the reference to "budding

legal attorneys". It considered that the item was a fair and accurate account of the

day's developments in the controversy about Judge Beattie. Expressing the opinion

that the complaint was both vexatious and trivial, TVNZ declined to uphold it.

Mr Terry's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 September 1997

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

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(10(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

On the basis that he would have regarded it as his statutory duty to comment should

he be elected president of New Zealand, Mr Terry contended that the Governor-

General, as former judge of the Court of Appeal, could be expected to comment.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority – 3 October 1997

Enclosing copies of the correspondence it had received from Mr Terry in regard to the

three complaints, TVNZ contended that each one merited the description "vexatious".

Further Correspondence

See Appendix I

Appendix III

Mr Terry's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 4 September 1997

Robert Terry of Reefton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item

broadcast on One Network News, between 6.00–7.00pm on 3 September 1997.

The item referred to Judge Beattie and, Mr Terry contended, the reporting was biased

in favour of the Crown. The comments reported were made by lawyers and, Mr Terry

stated, there should be some input from the general public.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 12 September 1997

Assessing the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ said that the item reported the developments in the controversy

surrounding Judge Beattie. TVNZ did not accept that the item lacked balanced

because it did not include comment from the public.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Terry's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 September 1997

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

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(10(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority – 3 October 1997

Enclosing copies of the correspondence it had received from Mr Terry in regard to the

three complaints, TVNZ contended that each one merited the description "vexatious".

Further Correspondence

See Appendix I