BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report breached broadcasting standards. It found the interview did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, noting that the robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill. It also found the balance standard was not breached on the basis that Tamihere was given sufficient time to express his views and, given other media coverage, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives regarding how to best increase Māori vaccination rates. It further found that Tamihere was not treated unfairly during the interview.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance and Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  On 7 October 2021, Radio New Zealand’s (RNZ) Morning Report featured an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the North Island’s Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency. The discussion was focussed on Tamihere’s views on how effective Super Saturday would be for Māori communities, and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency’s legal dispute with the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora over access to individual data on Māori who are not vaccinated.

[2]  One exchange from the seven-minute interview is as follows:

Kim Hill:         And so just for clarification for the listeners, what is it that you want from the Ministry of Health?

John Tamihere: Oh, we want direct access to the Māori NHI database so we can curate messaging to those individuals. There's about 80 per cent of our people are on that. So firstly, we identify where they are. We've only been given heat maps in the last 10 days, even though we've been asking for the last 12 months. So we've been locked out of a lot of strategic information.

Hill:                 And the reason for that, according to the Ministry of Health, is it can't share this detailed data because many of the people are not enrolled with your organization Whānau Ora, so they're not authorized to hand it over.

Tamihere:     No, no, that's not true. Well, right now, I can look you up without your consent on the NHI. You know, the fact of the matter is that Te Whānau o Waipareira and through its metric company, we run all of the e-prescriptions for the whole blinkin' country. We've vaxxed, in the first six weeks of the first lockdown, over 270,000 people in our network. Those are on our databases called the CIR. We have connected care, which connects emergency services to hospitals, to GP databases. So we - we have got the opportunity to do this, but we cannot and do not have the time to data mine it prior to Christmas. The MoH, Ministry of Health does. So to suggest there's an issue around privacy is not true.

Hill:                 No issue around privacy? Because that's the main argument that the Ministry has.

Tamihere:     Well, no, that's the argument for somebody that wants to resist us having a fair go at lifting vaccination rates.

Hill:                 Well no, no - that's what privacy is. It's a difference of opinion between people who want a fair go and people who don't want to have their door knocked on.

Tamihere:        No, no privacy is simply something in the Ministry of Health rules and regulations that they bypass because they gave my information without my consent to a private company called Home Care Medical Ltd. Now, if they're willing to give my private information across to a third party independent company, why can't I get it to do the right thing?

Hill:                 I don't know the answer to that, but I have to ask myself, do I want John Tamihere knocking on my door and telling me I haven't been vaccinated, walk this way.

The complaint

[3]  Andrew Jones complained the item breached the good taste and decency, balance and fairness standards. He submitted:

• Hill’s interview style was negative, over-aggressive, and off-point.
• The interview amounted to an attack on Tamihere.
• Tamihere was ‘never given the chance to convey proposition/point to the audience’ when it ‘could have been a constructive interview around getting to Māori communities’.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) acknowledged the complainant’s concerns but did not uphold the complaint, stating:

• Hill is recognised for her ‘incisive interviewing skill.’
• ‘Vigorous, even aggressive, questioning is a legitimate journalistic technique. It is not uncommon for interviewers to interrupt, as a question more than once or redirect an interviewee if they stray from the point or appear to avoid a question in a news and current affairs interview.’
• There is no requirement for interviews to be conducted in a friendly manner. Tamihere is an ‘able media performer’ and was treated fairly in the interview.

The standards

[5]  The good taste and decency standard¹ states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard protects audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.²

[6]  The balance standard³ states when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs, and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view. This can be in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest. The purpose of this standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to come to an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴

[7]  The fairness standard⁵ requires broadcasters to deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in any broadcast. Its purpose is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes. A consideration of what is fair will depend on the nature of the programme, the context of the programme, and the nature of the individual.⁶ 

Our Analysis

[8]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[9]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁷

Good taste and decency

[10]  While the good taste and decency standard is primarily aimed at broadcasts containing sexual material, nudity, violence or coarse language, it may also be considered in relation to broadcasts that portray or discuss material in a way that is likely to cause offence or distress.

[11]  Context is crucial in assessing a complaint under this standard.⁸ In this case, we consider the following contextual factors to be relevant:

• Morning Report has an adult target audience.
• The robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill, who is known to be a tough and incisive interviewer.  
• The subject matter of the interview, being ways of boosting COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Māori communities, carried high public interest.

[12]  Hill’s direct interviewing style may not be to everyone’s taste, however, we do not consider that her manner during the interview was rude or attacking. She challenged Tamihere during the interview by raising differing views to his position and playing ‘devil’s advocate,’ but allowed Tamihere time to answer the questions posed. It is a common interview technique for interviewers to take a position and challenge the interviewee from that position.⁹

[13]  Taking into account the factors above, we do not consider the broadcast went beyond audience expectations, or threatened current norms of good taste and decency. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the good taste and decency standard.

Balance

[14]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue of ‘public importance,’ it must be ‘controversial,’ and it must be ‘discussed.’¹⁰

[15]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public.’ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹¹

[16]  The overarching issue discussed during the broadcast was ways of boosting COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Māori communities. We accept this constitutes a controversial issue of public importance. Increasing lagging vaccination rates among the Māori population is a significant and topical subject for the New Zealand public during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the negative consequences it could have for Māori health equity and outcomes. The best means of increasing these rates has been an ongoing topic of debate.¹² The balance standard therefore applies.

[17]  As noted, the purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints on significant issues are presented to enable listeners to arrive at their own informed and reasoned opinions.¹³ The complainant considered the interview was prevented from being a ‘constructive interview around getting to Māori communities’ because Hill did not give Tamihere the chance to express his views. We do not agree for the following reasons:

• Hill allowed Tamihere sufficient time to respond to questions during the interview and was not aggressive in her interviewing manner.
• Tamihere expressed his views at length on a number of topics relevant to increasing Māori vaccine uptake. These included the question of how effective the Super Saturday event would be, the Ministry of Health’s decision not to release Māori health data to Whānau Ora, and how Whānau Ora would approach unvaccinated individuals to improve vaccine rates if provided with the data.
• In any event, as noted at paragraph [16], there has been considerable media coverage around the best ways to increase Māori vaccination rates. Tamihere’s views on the issues were also covered in the media around the time.¹⁴ Accordingly, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views on this issue.

[18]  Having regard to the factors above, we are satisfied viewers would not be left misinformed by the broadcast.

[19]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Fairness

[20]  It is well established the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to public figures and politicians is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media.¹⁵ 

[21]  Public figures and politicians hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles and behaviour is encouraged and expected. They are frequently capable interviewees, experienced in handling aggressive or inflammatory questioning or other coverage that may be considered unfair for an ordinary person.

[22]  In this case, we do not consider that Hill’s questions or comments went beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Tamihere. As the current Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, Tamihere is a high profile public servant. He is also a former Member of Parliament, Government Minister, and media personality, and as such, is well versed in dealing with the media.

[23]  In addition, we consider Tamihere was given reasonable opportunity to respond to the questions posed, and audiences would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him as a result of the interview.

[24]  Accordingly we do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley MNZM
Chair
9 February 2022

Appendix

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

1  Andrew Jones’ formal complaint to RNZ – 7 October 2021

2  RNZ’s decision on complaint – 1 November 2021

3  Jones’ referral to Authority – 16 November 2021

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 16 December 2021 

¹ Standard 1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
³ Standard 8 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁵ Standard 11 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁶ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
⁷ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁸ Guideline 1a
⁹ See Garrett and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-079 at [16]
¹⁰ Guideline 8a
¹¹ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹² See: “Covid-19: Northland Māori health providers get creative to boost vaccine uptake” Stuff (online ed, 10 September 2021); “Covid 19 Delta outbreak – The 90% Project: Boosting Māori vaccination rates” NZ Herald (online ed, 7 October 2021); and “Māori Covid-19 funding approved for eight groups to boost vaccinations” RNZ (online ed, 2 November 2021); “Coronavirus: Te Pāti Māori slams ‘very white’ COVID-19 vaccine rollout, says Māori not to blame for low vaccination coverage” Newshub (online ed, 20 November 2021)
¹³ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹⁴ See: “John Tamihere: Why Māori are lagging behind in vaccinations” NZ Herald (online ed, 6 October 2021); and “John Tamihere v Ministry of Health vaccination fight goes to High Court” Stuff (online ed, 17 October 2021)
¹⁵ See, for example, Holland and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-048