BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The manager of the Chatham Islands Millennium Project was interviewed by Kim Hill on the programme Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 28 January 1999 at 9.45am. At the conclusion of the interview, he was asked to explain whether his previous conviction for fraud had been an impediment in this role.

Mr P F Smith, Mayor of the Chatham Islands Council, complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the interviewer had acted unprofessionally in raising that issue. The Council sought a ruling from the Authority to censure the broadcaster, he wrote.

In its response, RNZ argued that as a significant amount of public money had been granted to the Chatham Islands Millennium Project, it was considered reasonable to raise the matter of the Project Manager’s background. RNZ noted that he was given three opportunities to respond to the question relating to his conviction for fraud and, in its view, the matter raised was relevant to his ability to manage public funds for the project.

Dissatisfied with that decision, the Mayor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item and have read the correspondence which is summarised in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Manager of the Chatham Islands Millennium Project was interviewed by the presenter of Nine to Noon on National Radio on 28 January 1999 at 9.45am about plans for the Millennium event in the Chathams. At the conclusion of the interview, he was asked whether, having been found guilty of fraud when he worked for a government department, it was possible to put that matter behind him in his present role. In response, he replied that the matter of his conviction had never been an issue for the Islanders.

Mr Smith, Mayor of the Chatham Islands, complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd (through the Broadcasting Standards Authority) that the broadcast was unfair to the Chatham Islands Millennium Project Manager. The concluding minutes of the interview he described as sensationalism and, he wrote, the interviewer’s "calculated personal comments as to the current status of [the manager’s] integrity were outrageous." Mr Smith pointed out that the manager had served his sentence for fraud and should therefore be given the opportunity to participate fully in society.. Mr Smith also noted that the funding for the millennium project would be managed by a Community Trust and would be independently audited. He asked that the interviewer be censured for her remarks.

In its response, RNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards R5 and R11 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

R11  To respect the privacy of the individual.

The interview, RNZ noted, consisted of a discussion of the relative merits of the Chathams’ claim to be the site of the first dawn of the new millennium, and the issue of funding such an event. It was revealed that over $1 million had been sought, and approximately one third of that had been granted, to host events on the Chathams. In RNZ’s view, given that a significant amount of money had been granted to the project, it was reasonable to raise the matter of the Project Manager’s previous conviction for fraud. The matter was put to him, RNZ noted, in the form of questions relating to whether his conviction had had an influence on his career. The Project Manager replied that it had never been an issue for the Islanders.

RNZ argued that it was in the public interest to clarify the Project Manager’s conviction for fraud and suggested that there was a direct relationship between the nature of that offending and the expenditure of public money. It noted that the exact nature of his offending had not been revealed, and that the questions raised were consistent with the tone in the rest of the interview. Furthermore, as he was given several opportunities to reply to the questions, RNZ concluded he had been treated fairly.

In the course of its investigation, RNZ advised that it had also considered the matter of privacy, even though it had not been raised directly in the complaint. On the basis of the public interest in this matter, RNZ concluded that the Project Manager’s possible rights to privacy were outweighed by the public’s right to know about his past conviction. In considering this it also advised that it had applied an objective test and concluded that a reasonable person would not have been offended by the facts revealed. It declined to uphold the complaint.

After Mr Smith referred the matter to the Authority, RNZ was asked for further comment. First, it noted, Mr Smith had not identified the reasons why he had referred the matter to the Authority. However, it said, it understood his complaint related not so much to privacy as to dealing fairly with the Project Manager.

RNZ reiterated its key points, noting: the Project Manager had not indicated that his past should not be probed on air; the interviewer had given warning that questions regarding his past were going to be canvassed; the question regarding his past was put to him three times, thus giving him an adequate opportunity to respond; and that there was a close association between the allocation of significant funds to the project and the nature of the Project Manager’s past offending.

RNZ rejected the complainant’s criticism that the interview became sensationalist, and that the interviewer had acted unprofessionally.

In his final comment, Mr Smith repeated his view that it was unprofessional for the interviewer to have focused on the Project Manager’s past in the context of an informative interview about an exciting and positive event being planned for the Islands which "would bring national attention to this magnificent occasion". He reiterated that the Project Manager’s past history was known to the Council before he had been appointed, and it was known that he had repaid his debt to society for his previous offence. Mr Smith concluded by noting that the Project Manager was in the employment of the Chatham Islands community and acting on its behalf when he was interviewed.

The Authority’s Findings

An interview, concerned with the millennium project in the Chatham Islands, became personalised towards its conclusion when the interviewer referred to the Project Manager’s past conviction for fraud. The complainant asserts that this line of questioning was unfair to the interviewee because it was irrelevant to the matter being discussed.

The question for the Authority is whether it was fair to raise the matter of the man’s past offending in the context of a discussion about his management of a millennium project.

In the Authority’s view, the issue of fairness arises first by the unexpectedness of the line of questioning, and secondly by the matter being raised at the conclusion of the interview, apparently giving the interviewee little time or opportunity to respond. It is also apparent that the interviewee was not warned prior to his appearance on the programme that this issue would be canvassed. Against this however, is the fact that the Project Manager’s offending was a high profile matter at the time when it occurred, and was still a matter of public record. Accordingly, it does not consider that the offending had diminished in significance with the passage of time. This is particularly so, the Authority considers, as the Project Manager had a public role managing the millennium project and was in a position of responsibility for a significant amount of public money.

On balance, the Authority concludes that although there was a potential for unfairness both in the question and the manner in which it was put, there was also a public interest in disclosing facts about the interviewee’s past, notwithstanding the passage of time which had elapsed since his offending had occurred. Its view is that if a person in the interviewee’s position accepts a public role with a high profile, it is not unreasonable to expect that his past would be scrutinised. In agreeing to be interviewed about the millennium project, the Authority considers that the interviewee could well have expected to field questions which probed into his past. The nature of his offending was such that in the Authority’s view it would always be relevant where he was in a position of responsibility for public funds. The Authority concludes that no breach of the standard occurred.

The Authority acknowledges RNZ’s response relating to privacy. Its view is that the complaint was focused on fairness and considers that the complainant’s concerns are more appropriately dealt with under that head.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
1 July 1999

Appendix

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

The Mayor of the Chatham Islands District Council’s Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd –
3 February 1999

RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 March 1999

The Mayor’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received 29 March 1999

RNZ’s Response to the Authority – 3 May 1999

The Mayor’s Final Comment – 17 May 1999