BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7.30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy. A follow-up item on Fair Go on 19 May reported that a large number of people had written to the Council objecting to its practice.

Mr Everitt complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the items were one-sided. The purchasers, he wrote, had agreed to the condition when they had purchased their flat.

Describing Fair Go as a consumer advocacy programme and pointing out that the item had questioned the ethics of the agreement, not its legality, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints. TVNZ noted that the Council mayor had explained the Council’s attitude on the items.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Everitt referred his complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. Given the matters raised on this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

An issue facing the owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was investigated in an item on Fair Go broadcast on 12 May. It was reported that the flats were sold to those owners by the local Authority in the 1970s for between $13,000 and $17,000, and the agreement at that time allowed the council (now the Waimakariri District Council) to buy back the properties at the original price when the owners vacated them. The item reported that the Council was now enforcing the agreement despite the properties being worth between $65,000–$75,000 today. The item questioned the ethics of the Council’s position and advised viewers who disagreed with the Council to write and tell it so. The Council's address and fax number were given.

An item broadcast on Fair Go the following week, 19 May, advised that there had been a large number of letters to the Council objecting to its policy. A number of letters had been received by Fair Go, and extracts from some which criticised the Council for its approach were read.

Mr Everitt complained to TVNZ (through the Broadcasting Standards Authority) that the item screened on 12 May was one-sided and emotional. He pointed out that the purchaser who was interviewed had entered the agreement freely. In his view the item, like many others on Fair Go, had breached the standards, Mr Everitt wrote.

In view of the issues raised, TVNZ assessed the complaint under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act, which requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual, and under standards G2 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

TVNZ began by noting the two matters which it considered most significant in relation to assessing the complaint. The first was the nature of Fair Go itself, and the second was the question of the Council’s ethics in pursuing the approach described by the flats’ owners.

In regard to the nature of the programme, TVNZ wrote:

As you will know it is one of New Zealand’s longest running television series and throughout it has unashamedly and quite openly been presented as a consumer advocate programme, a programme that goes into battle for the everyday consumer. It is there to consider gripes and complaints, to investigate them, and where the complaints are found to have some substance, to reveal them and to seek some resolution. The issue here involved elderly people who felt they were being treated unfairly by a council which was making substantial profits from the sale of their properties without apparently ploughing the money back into extra pensioner accommodation. In keeping with its brief, now well established, Fair Go set out to get answers to the concerns of the pensioners.

As for the issue dealt with, TVNZ emphasised that the item was not about the legality of the sale. It dealt with the ethics involved, it said, in the Council’s not using its discretion to offer a higher price, as had been done elsewhere in similar circumstances, and in not using the windfall profits generated from the sales to improve the lot of its present day pensioners. It stated:

It is our view that the issue was a legitimate one, and worthy of inclusion in a consumer advocate programme such as Fair Go.

Turning to the standards cited, TVNZ did not consider that standard G2 was relevant in the circumstances. Neither did it consider that the item raised a question of privacy.

As for the requirements of standard G6, TVNZ maintained that the Council's position had been strongly put by the present mayor, adding:

In the context of a consumer advocacy programme, it is our view that the interview with the mayor coupled with the meticulous detail concerning the original arrangements meant that standard G6 was not infringed.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

When he referred his complaints to the Authority, Mr Everitt repeated his opinion that the programmes were biased, and replied to the points made by TVNZ.

First, he said he considered that Fair Go was not a consumer advocacy programme, but only "masqueraded" as such. Instead, he wrote, it was "judge, jury and executioner", engineering results and manipulating public sympathy to achieve the results it desired. While the complainants might be elderly now, he observed that they were not when they purchased their homes about 25 years ago. He argued:

No mention was made during the programme that if Fair Go is successful in its quest, these people will have effectively had free living for twenty five years at the expense of the area ratepayers who had ratings exacted in order [that] the council might embark upon the project.

In Mr Everitt’s opinion, the standard of journalism in the item breached good taste and decency, and the negative portrayal of the mayor was an invasion of her public and private standing.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ acknowledged Mr Everitt’s views about Fair Go but reiterated that it was a successful consumer advocacy programme. TVNZ acknowledged that the flat owners had been much younger when they had bought the properties, but observed – contrary to the complainant’s view - they would not have complained about the resale condition at that time as "nobody in the mid-seventies anticipated the extent of property inflation which would occur in the period between then and now".

Pointing out that its view was shared by many others, as was apparent from the subsequent letters to the Council, TVNZ said that Mr Everitt’s point about free living for 25 years was obscure and irrelevant.

TVNZ concluded:

As Fair Go has reported, since these items have been broadcast, the Kaiapoi Community Board has changed its mind on the issue and once the new motion is ratified by the full council, the pensioners will be able to sell their properties at market rates. Fair Go’s advocacy on behalf of the pensioners seems to have resulted in what we view as a much more just outcome than was contemplated.

In his final comment, Mr Everitt challenged TVNZ’s description of the item. He said:

I applaud any attempt to champion the cause of righteousness, if it is pursued in a fair and just manner. That, to my mind, is a fair go. I believe [in] the instance I am concerned with, that cause was not served as set out in the code of conduct set out in the Broadcasting Act … .

Referring to the high level of awareness of the rate of inflation in the early seventies, Mr Everitt maintained that Fair Go had used vigour and skill to support its argument, but had inadequately addressed the options available to the unit owners. The result, he stated, was an item which was presented "in a biased manner".

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority notes at the outset that the philosophical basis of Fair Go is to champion the point of view of the consumer. To that extent it is explicitly one-sided, and most viewers are aware of this. Nevertheless, the programme is still required to comply with broadcasting standards, and its content must be measured against those standards.

The essence of Mr Everitt’s complaint was that the particular programme was biased. He claimed that no effort was made to provide the other side of the story (i.e. actual benefits for these occupants under the historical arrangements), and that the Mayor was dealt with unfairly. The Authority concludes that the complaint raises issues of bias and impartiality which must be tested against standard G6.

The Authority accepts that the issue was a controversial one, at least locally. Under standard G6, the broadcaster is thus required to show balance, impartiality and fairness. The Mayor was, the Authority records, the senior spokesperson for the Council whose policy was under question, and it is satisfied that she was given a full opportunity to put the case from the Council’s perspective. In this way the opportunity for balance was provided. If the Mayor was not persuasive in her arguments or failed to make the most of the opportunity then this was not the fault of the broadcaster. In fact, the Authority’s impression is that the Mayor gave a good account of herself and was forceful in her responses to the presenter. Overall, the Authority is satisfied that the requirements of standard G6 were complied with.

Mr Everitt also raised the broadcast’s non-compliance with standard G2 (good taste and decency) and the matter of the Mayor’s privacy. The Authority considers that neither standard is relevant nor applicable to the circumstances dealt with in the broadcast.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
16 September 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1. Mr Everitt’s Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd (through the
   Broadcasting Standards Authority) – dated (incorrectly) 9 May 1999

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Complaint – 22 June 1999

3. Mr Everitt’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 6 July 1999

4. TVNZ’s Report to the Authority – 15 July 1999

5. Mr Everitt’s Final Comment – received 26 July 1999