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 a segment on Newshub regarding the Invercargill Licensing Trust Group (ILT) was inaccurate. The item reported on the ILT’s history, purpose and its funding of community projects and ventures. The Authority found that the segment was unlikely to significantly misinform or mislead viewers regarding the ILT. The Authority also found that none of the issues raised by the complainant amounted to a material inaccuracy for the purposes of the accuracy standard.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A segment on Newshub reported on the 75th anniversary of the Invercargill Licensing Trust Group (ILT), a community-owned trust (comprising the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Invercargill Licensing Trust Foundation) that operates off-license bottle stores in Invercargill alongside bars, restaurants and hotels. The item reported on the ILT’s history, purpose and its funding of community projects and ventures.

[2]  The segment was broadcast on 21 September 2019 on Three. As part of our consideration of this complaint, we have watched a recording of the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

The complaint

[3]  Amanda Nally submitted the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Ms Nally submitted that the broadcast contained the following inaccuracies:

• ‘That the Invercargill Licensing Trust and the Invercargill Licensing Trust Foundation have given back $180m in donations in funds from the profit on the sale of alcohol.’ However, Ms Nally noted that all of the money given away by the Invercargill Licensing Trust Foundation is from the proceeds of gaming machines which is a significant amount of the total gifted by the two bodies (ie $5 million in 2019).
• ‘That the ILT monopoly in Invercargill is restricted to off-license premises.’ Ms Nally considered this incorrect because the ILT trading monopoly actually covers all hotels, taverns and off-premises liquor licensing.
• ‘That the ILT makes its profits from hotels and off-licenses in Invercargill.’ However, the ILT ‘has substantial shareholders outside of the city, as well as owning motels in Invercargill it also has motels in Dunedin and Christchurch, a liquor distribution business in Queenstown and hold shares in DB Breweries' Timaru plant.’

[4]  Ms Nally also raised the fairness standard in her referral to the Authority. However, pursuant to section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, as this standard was not raised in her original complaint to MediaWorks, we are unable to consider it.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  MediaWorks did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The total value of grants and donations distributed to the community by ILT's various branches and iterations is 182,094,447 since inception in 1944.  Ms Nally is correct that this figure includes both the ILT and ILT Foundation (previously separated as the ILT Charitable Trust and ILT Sports Foundation).  This was noted by a spokesperson for the ILT in the soundbite following the line including the "more than 180 million dollars" reference...’
• The reporter confirmed at the time with the ILT’s spokesperson that it is ‘common media convention to report total figures from all operations, rather than breaking each branch down.’ Anyone ‘who understands the various commercial activities a licensing trust is involved in’ would not find this misleading or confusing.
• Ms Nally is correct that the ILT has exclusive rights in its district around the sale of liquor in off-licenses. ‘However private individuals/companies are still able to open non-off-license "hotels" in Invercargill (Ibis and Quest are two current operational examples), and there is nothing preventing people from owning a bar or nightclub in the city (although traditionally most have been operated by the ILT).’
• Ms Nally is correct that the ILT has financial interests outside the Invercargill region. Along with its numerous accommodation providers (hotels and motels), liquor outlets, bars and restaurants in the Invercargill area, the ILT also owns one motel in Dunedin, another in Christchurch, a liquor supply business in Queenstown and holds a 28.3% share in DB South Island Brewery. However the fact that a small proportion of the ILT's annual revenue is earned via ventures based outside Invercargill does not make the broadcast misleading.
• In addition, the broadcast did not specify that ‘all profits’ came from Invercargill, nor did it specifically mention the ILT's various motels, liquor outlets, or catering & conference business. The statement ‘profits come from running the city’s bottle stores, along with its major hotels and bars’ was phrased that way ‘purely for the sake of simplicity and brevity, as is common practice in broadcast scripts.’

The relevant standard

[6]  The accuracy standard (Standard 9) states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. The objective of this standard is to protect audiences from being significantly misinformed.¹

Our findings

[7]  The right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information, is the starting point in our consideration of complaints. Equally important is our consideration of the level of actual or potential harm that may be caused by the broadcast. We may only interfere and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[8]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.²

[9]  Audiences may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme; and/or by being misled by the programme.³ Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.⁴

[10]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁵

[11]  The complainant identified three alleged inaccuracies in the broadcast, listed above in paragraph [3]. We find they were not materially inaccurate or misleading for the purposes of this standard, for reasons we expand on below.

Over the last 75 years, the Invercargill Licensing Trust has handed out more than 180 million dollars to the community in funds from the profit on the sale of alcohol

[12]  The complainant stated that the broadcast did not reference the fact that all of the money given away by the ILT Foundation, and therefore a significant amount of the total sum referenced in the broadcast, is from the proceeds of gambling machines.

[13]  Based on ILT’s 2019 Annual Report, it appears funds provided to the community from ILT Foundation, are likely to constitute a significant portion of total funds donated by the group.  The report refers to the group having returned $8.4 million to the community in the 2019 financial year with ‘over $5 million’ funds returned to the community by the ILT Foundation (ie approximately 60% of total returned funds in this financial year).⁶

[14]  However, having listened to the segment, we do not consider it states or implies that the $180m donated had all derived from the sale of alcohol. Early in the segment the reporter states that ‘Over the last 75 years, the Invercargill Licensing Trust has handed out more than 180 million dollars to the community...’ (with no indication of the source of that funding). After a brief segment discussing some of the ILT’s beneficiaries, the reporter states ‘profits come from running the city’s bottle stores, along with its major hotels and bars.’ While this statement may imply alcohol sales account for a significant portion of ILT’s revenue, the reference to profits which come from running ‘hotels and bars’ is capable of much broader interpretation.  

[15]  Therefore, we do not find the broadcast was inaccurate or misleading by omission because it did not explicitly mention profits from gaming machines constituting a significant component of the $180 million donated. Viewers were likely to understand that the ILT’s activities, including the operating of ‘major hotels and bars’, would create revenue streams that went beyond alcohol sales.

ILT still holds a monopoly over off-licence sales in the city

[16]  The complainant submitted this statement was inaccurate by omission as ‘the ILT trading monopoly actually covers all hotels, taverns and off-premises liquor licensing.’  

[17]  Again we find this was not inaccurate or likely to mislead. The statement related specifically to off-licence sales, which was a large focus of the broadcast. The broadcast did not purport to examine the extent of ILT’s monopoly.

[18]  Therefore we find the reporter’s statement that ‘ILT still holds a monopoly over off-licence sales in the city’ was not inaccurate or misleading by omission.

Profits come from running the city's bottle stores along with its major hotels and bars

[19]  Finally, Ms Nally submitted the broadcast was inaccurate as it omitted to mention the financial interests the ILT has outside of Invercargill in Christchurch, South Canterbury and Dunedin.

[20]  We do not consider the omission of information about revenue received from financial interests the ILT has outside Invercargill led to the broadcast being materially inaccurate or misleading. The broadcast was a straightforward news segment informing viewers about the broad history of the ILT, its 75th anniversary and its role in financially supporting community projects in Invercargill. We do not consider the ILT’s involvement in businesses outside of Invercargill to be material to the broadcast. Therefore, the omission of information about these interests was unlikely to significantly misinform viewers.

[21]  Therefore we do not uphold the complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair
7 April 2020

Appendix

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

1  Amanda Nally’s complaint to MediaWorks – 14 October 2019

2  MediaWorks’ response – 11 November 2019

3  Ms Nally’s referral to the BSA – 5 December 2019

4  MediaWorks’ confirmation of no further comments – 28 January 2020

¹ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
² As above, page 19
³ As above
⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
⁵ Guideline 9b
⁶ Invercargill Licensing Trust Group, Annual Report 2019 ILT & ILT Foundation (28 August 2019) at 3 and 5