BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Items on One Network News and Tonight on 19 June 1998 reported that the Act Members of Parliament had been requested by TVNZ to provide particulars of their assets and business interests. None, the reports said, had been willing to do so. The reasons for the refusal by two Act MPs were highlighted in the items.

Mr McKay complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that it was being politically selective in failing to declare that similar information had been sought from members of other political parties. TVNZ, he continued, compounded its offence by publishing replies to its request from several Act MPs.

TVNZ responded that Act was the one political party standing out against disclosure of MPs’ assets. The only certain way to check the party’s stance, and to state the party’s objections to divulgence, was to ask each Act MP to declare their assets, it wrote. Their replies made the party’s objections to disclosure a little clearer, it added.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr McKay 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 a tape of the items complained about, and have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

One Network News and Tonight on 19 June reported that TVNZ had requested Act MPs to provide particulars of their assets and business interests, and that none had been willing to do so. The reports highlighted the reasons for refusal of two of the Act MPs.

Mr McKay complained to Television New Zealand Limited that the reports’ failure to disclose that similar information had been sought from the other parties represented in Parliament showed TVNZ to be politically selective when it should have been politically neutral. It compounded its offence, he added, by publishing the replies to its request from several of the Act MPs. He noted that there was no requirement for ordinary members to disclose such information, and he described TVNZ’s action in seeking the information only from Act members as an outrage and an abuse of the media’s position.

In its response, TVNZ pointed out that the reports were produced during the controversy surrounding Act MP Owen Jennings and his association with a group of people "apparently involved in a get-rich-quick scheme", and had also included reference to TVNZ’s earlier efforts to persuade Act MPs to disclose their assets.

TVNZ assessed the complaint in the context of standards G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which require broadcasters:

G4 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

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

The broadcaster indicated some difficulty in establishing why the complainant found its approach to the Act MPs offensive. It noted that the then-Deputy Prime Minister had called for all MPs to declare their assets, and the Prime Minister had been seen to favour the idea. The one party standing out against disclosure, TVNZ wrote, was Act. TVNZ asserted that it had acted responsibly in testing the party’s view by asking each of Act’s MPs individually to declare their assets. This enabled it to subsequently state Act’s objections to divulging such information, it added.

TVNZ stressed that it was not unfair or selective to approach the one party which strongly opposed asset disclosure to test its position. There was a public interest in doing so, it argued. It pointed to a "certain irony" that the Act party, having pushed for higher ethical standards in politics and more accountability, was the one which proved determined not to disclose the assets of its MPs.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr McKay emphasised that his objection to the reports was that TVNZ was not being politically neutral, and fair, in testing the views of only the Act MPs, and ignoring those of all other MPs who were not members of Cabinet. The TVNZ news reports, he noted, referred to the calls from the then-Deputy Prime Minister, and Prime Minister, to all MPs to declare their assets, "not just Act MPs as TVNZ was doing".

TVNZ continued to emphasise that what it called the "Jennings’ affair" coupled with the then-Deputy Prime Minister’s call to MPs, was an appropriate occasion on which to inform viewers of Act’s firm stand against disclosure of private interests. It disagreed with Mr McKay that it was unfair to approach only one party for its position on an issue. On the contrary, the broadcaster wrote, it was appropriate and in the public interest for news organisations to identify and publicise matters on which political groups were taking a stand, to enable the public to be better informed.

In its consideration of the complaint, the Authority turns first to standard G4. That standard requires a broadcaster to deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme. The Authority believes that the standard incorporates a distinction between persons and parties. In this instance, the programme focussed on a political party and the Authority considers that the standard is inapplicable. In any event, it is not convinced there was anything in the programme which was unfair to any particular person. The programme focussed on an issue of public interest and, in the Authority’s view, did so in an appropriate manner.

In turning next to standard G6, the Authority notes that the centrepiece of TVNZ’s reports was the controversy surrounding Mr Jennings and the meetings which were reported to have taken place in his parliamentary office. The controversy served to place members’ private business dealings in the public arena, and the statements made by the then-Deputy Prime Minister underlined it as a public issue by his call for disclosure of interests by all Members of Parliament. TVNZ then, the Authority notes, used the research it had previously undertaken to pursue the issue. The issue, that the Act Party was the only one standing out against disclosure of assets, was topical and was, in the Authority’s view, an appropriate subject for TVNZ’s focus.

Standard G6 requires broadcasters to show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters and questions of a controversial nature. The issue was already a matter of public interest and the Authority appreciates that TVNZ believed that it had an obligation to put it to the test. The Authority does not consider that standard G6 required the broadcaster to seek the views of other parliamentarians, as they were irrelevant to the thrust of the reports. Accordingly, it finds no breach.

In the Authority’s view, any potential issues of unfairness were dealt with by the opportunity given to the leader of the Act Party, and others questioned, to respond to the matters which had been raised.

In the circumstances, the Authority declines to uphold any breach of standards G4 or G6.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 October 1998

Leslie J McKay’s Complaints to Television New Zealand Limited – 19 June 1998

Mr McKay of Riverton complained to Television New Zealand Limited about the broadcast on TV One on 19 June 1998 on One Network News and Tonight of TVNZ’s request to the eight Act Members of Parliament to declare their assets and business interests. He wrote:

As the items did not disclose that similar information had been sought from members of the other parties represented in Parliament TVNZ was shown to be politically selective when under the Broadcasting Act it should be politically neutral.

Worse, Mr McKay wrote, TVNZ compounded the offence by publishing the replies to its request from several of the Act MPs.

Because there was presently no requirement for ordinary members of parliament to disclose such information, he contended, TVNZ’s action in seeking the information from the Act MPs only was an outrage, and an abuse of its position in the "body politic" and under the Broadcasting Act. He sought a public apology.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaints – 21 July 1998

TVNZ considered the complaints under standards G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It noted that the items were produced during the controversy surrounding Act MP, Owen Jennings, and his "association with a group of people apparently involved in a get-rich-quick scheme". The items, it continued, referred to the broadcaster’s earlier efforts to persuade Act MPs to disclose their assets. TVNZ wrote that it "had some difficulty in establishing why you found TVNZ’s approach to the Act MPs offensive".

Noting that the items echoed the call from the then-Deputy Prime Minister for all MPs to declare their assets and that the Prime Minister also favoured the idea, TVNZ stressed that Act was the one political party standing out against disclosure, throughout the debate over assets. It asked:

Was it not then responsible of TVNZ – some weeks before this issue came into prominence – to itself test that party’s view by asking its MPs to declare their assets? TVNZ’s news service could, with much more authority, state the party’s objections to divulging such information when it had, through its own diligence, acquired that information from each MP.

It is not politically selective to check the standing of a party on a specific issue, and on this issue the only certain way of establishing the truth was to ask each of the Act MPs if they would declare their assets.

Stressing that MPs from other parties had criticised the Act position, TVNZ emphasised that the aim in seeking the information was not to discover the assets held by the MPs but to see whether, as a group, they held a common philosophical objection to disclosing such information. They did, the broadcaster continued, and the reasons for the policy became a little clearer in the extracts from the members’ replies which were used in the news items.

Viewers expected journalists to ask difficult questions in the public interest, TVNZ wrote, and there was nothing unfair or selective about approaching the one party which stood out strongly against asset disclosure to test its position. It was ironic, it went on, that the party which had consistently pushed for higher ethical standards, and more accountability in politics, was the one determined not to disclose the assets of its own members.

The broadcaster wrote that it had found no unfairness in its reports, for the questions asked of the MPs had been legitimate, and their replies and Act’s position had been fairly summarised in the items. It continued that it also had found no imbalance in the story, which had reflected the wishes of the Prime Minister and then-Deputy Prime Minister to see disclosure introduced, and the responses from the one party which stood out against disclosure.

It declined to uphold the complaints.

Mr McKay’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 5 August 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr McKay referred his complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

He reiterated that his objection to the news items was that, in testing the views of only the Act members and ignoring those of all other party MPs, the broadcaster was being politically selective when it should have been politically neutral, and fair, in dealing with political matters.

He objected to TVNZ misinterpreting his description of its actions as "offensive and politically selective" when he had written that its actions were "politically selective when it should have been politically neutral". In then questioning what he had found offensive about its report, TVNZ, he wrote, had misinterpreted his complaint, and had failed to examine it against his claim that the broadcaster’s actions were politically selective.

Mr McKay emphasised that TVNZ’s news items had reported that the then-Deputy Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, had called on all MPs to declare their assets, he wrote, "not just the ACT MPs as TVNZ was doing. A big difference !".

Referring to TVNZ’s admission that "some weeks before the issue came into prominence [it had decided] to itself test Act’s views by asking its MPs to declare theirs", the complainant compared the broadcaster’s determination with the then-Deputy Prime Minister’s call which had occurred only during the height of the issue of disclosure. In addition, he wrote, there was no legal requirement on the broadcaster to make the decision it did. It was thus being selective, he continued, from the outset. There were other ways open to TVNZ to determine the issue, and to show impartiality and fairness in dealing with political issues, he concluded.

TVNZ had reminded him, Mr McKay wrote, that other Members of Parliament had criticised the Act position. He replied:

…they were quite entitled to do. They are not required to be and are not politically neutral, and neither should be.

He criticised TVNZ’s comments about the reply it had received from Act MP, Mr Owen Jennings, when the broadcaster wrote that the member’s reply was especially topical in stating that "the concept of public disclosure, even at Cabinet level, is flawed and unnecessary". Mr McKay wrote:

The possibility that Mr Jennings could be right [in his comments] escaped TVNZ, particularly as Cabinet Ministers do not apparently have to disclose possible conflicts of interest when attending Committee meetings and are not required to desist from speaking and/or voting in the House where and when they exist.

The complainant pointed out that part of his complaint was in regard to the disclosure by TVNZ of the Act MPs’ replies "in a way that held them up to ridicule". The broadcaster’s reference to Mr Jennings’ involvement in a "get-rich-quick-scheme", he asserted, was totally irrelevant, for the Speaker had found that the member’s actions and associations were not in breach of parliamentary privilege.

Pointing out that acting in the public interest was not a permissible defence to breaches of standards G4 and G6, Mr McKay stated that he objected to TVNZ’s inference that in approaching the one party that stood out strongly against asset disclosure, to test its position, the broadcaster was acting in the public interest.

He also criticised the "high moral ground" which TVNZ took when, having exhausted all other dubious means in its defence, he wrote, it referred to the irony implicit in Act - having been the party which had pushed for higher ethical standards - being the one which proved determined not to disclose its members’ assets. That, he wrote, was an attempt to sidetrack by turning a political issue into a moral one. He was unaware that other politicians had described assets disclosure as a moral issue, he continued.

Mr McKay concluded that his complaint, under standard G6, was not against any imbalance arising from the comments of the Prime Minister and the then-Deputy Prime Minister, on the one hand, and the responses of the Act members, on the other. It was against the broadcaster not showing the impartiality and fairness in the item which was required of it in dealing with a political matter, he stressed. Balance, he concluded, was not the issue.

TVNZ’s Comments to the Authority – 25 August 1998

Referring to Mr McKay’s description of the controversy surrounding the Act MP, Mr Jennings, as "irrelevant", TVNZ responded that his apparent involvement with people "connected with a get-rich-quick-scheme" was central to the story. It wrote that it:

…had arisen out of references to [the MP] carried in the previous evening’s edition of Assignment. The Jennings affair, coupled with a statement released by the then Treasurer…was an appropriate occasion on which to inform viewers of the firm stand Act as a party was taking against disclosure of private interests.

TVNZ concluded that it:

…disagreed strongly with Mr McKay’s apparent view that it is unfair to approach one party to clarify its position on an issue, unless all MPs are canvassed.

…[it] is appropriate and in the public interest that news organisations should identify and publicise matters on which particular political groups are taking a stand. That way the public is better informed.

Mr McKay’s Final Comment – 3 September 1998

The complainant wrote that he found it incongruent that the broadcaster, in mitigation of its breach of standards G4 and G6, was still insisting that its action was appropriate in the public interest. In reality, he wrote, the public interest would have been better served had the broadcaster shown impartiality and fairness in dealing with "this political matter" as required by standard G6.

Referring to the Act MP’s opinion that public disclosure of assets and business interests, even at Cabinet level, was flawed and unnecessary, Mr McKay emphasised that a newly-appointed minister of food and fibre had been revealed as owning two farms. He wrote:

Any conflict of interest which might arise between his private and public interests has not prevented him from being appointed minister in charge of Agriculture or from carrying out his duties and responsibilities. And neither it should as Cabinet itself determines the Department’s policies and oversees its actions.