BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Light-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7.30–8.00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998.

The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology.

Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint 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 watched the items complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Real Estate Institute complained to TVNZ about items broadcast on Fair Go on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Institute described the items which dealt with a young fictional couple buying their first home as satirical skits. The items portrayed the couple's dealings with the real estate agent who sold them the house, and Fair Go presenter Raewyn Rasche provided a commentary. The Institute stated:

This narrative contained comments which clearly questioned the integrity of the real estate industry. It painted real estate agents as unscrupulous and driven by their own commission, which is unreasonable and totally unfair. It also implied that real estate agents are completely dishonest - that they would mislead prospective buyers, concealing issues which would obviously be of concern - which is baseless and a serious slur on the industry.

Moreover, the Institute continued, the items ignored an agent's fiduciary duty to purchasers, and pointed out that even unconditional contracts allowed ten days for the purchaser’s solicitor to establish that everything was in order.

Complaining that the item breached standard G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, the Institute in summary expressed outrage at the way the industry was depicted. It sought a broadcast apology.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G4 and G13 of the Code. They require broadcasters:

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

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i) factual or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

Describing the items as light-hearted scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls house buyers faced if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ objected to the comment that they were satire. They were designed, it wrote, to inform, not to ridicule. TVNZ acknowledged that the agent portrayed was an exaggerated stereotype but, it added, so were the problems which afflicted the house. TVNZ argued that the complainant should have seen the items in the following way:

We would have thought that the Real Estate Institute would see as valuable the reminder given by the programme of the role of real estate agents in the sale of property. The item emphasised properly and accurately that the agent is working for the vendor, and not the buyer. Although we are sure many real estate agents do warn potential buyers of problems, we think it fair that a consumer programme such as Fair Go should place it on record that an agent, whose role is to get the best price for the vendor, has no obligation to point out defects when dealing with potential buyers.

It added:

This is no criticism of real estate agents. It is simply important consumer information for house buyers, information which we suggest may not be as widely known among the viewing public as perhaps it should be. As the items indicated, it is information which relates directly to what is probably the biggest purchase in a first-time home buyer’s life.

TVNZ maintained that the items, which approached the issue from the perspective of a consumer were accurate, and that they did not imply that agents would mislead buyers. Pointing out that the items contained a simple cautionary message, and denying that they displayed ignorance of the law, TVNZ said that they provided basic educational material. TVNZ did not accept that real estate agents were treated unfairly, or were represented as inherently inferior, and declined to uphold the complaint.

When the complaint was referred to the Authority, the Institute repeated its opinion that the items had clearly questioned the integrity of the real estate industry. Agents, it reiterated, were painted as unscrupulous and dishonest. That was the obvious conclusion, the Institute continued, as the item implied that the agent portrayed knew at least some of the problems with the house bought by the couple but failed to inform them of these matters. The Institute commented:

As TVNZ points out, real estate agents are under no obligation to do so unless asked specific questions, but for an agent to withhold such information, especially of this magnitude, and then tell the buyers "Good luck, you'll need it", quite clearly questions the integrity of the real estate industry. The aim of the items may have been to alert viewers of the need to inquire as to the condition of properties they wish to buy, but this material also gives the public every reason to distrust real estate agents.

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ did not accept that lighthearted skits, used to convey important information, could be taken as depicting anything other than humorous stereotyping.

The Authority’s Findings

Fair Go is a long-established consumer advocacy programme and the Authority takes this fact into account in its determination of this complaint. While Fair Go must comply with the requirements in the standards for fairness and balance, the Authority accepts that it approaches issues from the point of view of the consumer. In its complaint, the Real Estate Institute alleged that the scripts giving information to potential homebuyers, which it described as satirical, were unfair and denigrated real estate agents.

The issue about withdrawing from a contract after taking legal advice, which was raised by the Institute in its complaint to TVNZ, was not mentioned when the Institute referred the complaint to the Authority. The Authority has not dealt with the issue.

The first item advised viewers that real estate agents work for the vendor, that their job is to get the best possible price, and that the higher the price, the higher the commission. The second item added that agents did not need to reveal problems about the property unless asked specific questions.

As the Authority considers this is an accurate summary of the role of an agent, it does not consider that the items were unfair.

The Institute expressed particular concern about the agent’s use of the phrase to the purchasers after signing the contract, "Good luck – you’ll need it". The Authority accepts that this phrase has the potential to be unfair. However, the Authority is not convinced that this remark provides sufficient grounds to uphold the complaint. The Authority is of the view that the rest of the behaviour depicted, although exaggerated, was not untypical. It was not unknown for agents to apply pressure on potential purchasers.

On the basis that the objective of the items was to inform prospective homebuyers of potential pitfalls, the Authority concludes that the Institute was not treated unfairly. There was nothing in the items, the Authority adds, which represented real estate agents as inherently inferior or encouraged discrimination against them.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 February 1999

Appendix

The Authority has received and read the following correspondence in the determination of this complaint

1. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd –
    23 October 1998

2. TVNZ's Response to the Institute – 6 November 1998

3. The Institute's Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
    30 November 1998

4. TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 17 December 1998

5. The Institute did not respond to the Authority’s invitation to make a final comment