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 about an interview with a delegate of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. The complainant alleged that the interview was unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate as the host was rude, offensive, underprepared and did not allow her to read from a prepared statement. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard as, among other reasons, the interviewee was a delegate from a large union, who can be expected to handle robust questioning. The other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  During a segment of Morning Report on 30 September 2022, the host, Guyon Espiner, interviewed Rachel Thorn, nurse and delegate from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation | Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa (NZNO) about nurses asking for better pay for overtime shifts. The segment was introduced as follows:

The Nurses' Organisation is calling on its 35,000 members who work in hospitals to turn down requests to work extra shifts next week because of a dispute about how they are paid for them. Chief executive Paul Goulter says nurses are still propping up the health system even though winter is over. Whangārei emergency nurse and union delegate Rachel Thorn is with us now.

[2]  The interviewee then had the following exchanges with the host:

Espiner:                   Why don't you accept that this was a one off, a special payment for winter and that that's over now?

Thorn:                      … this issue is not a winter issue. It's something that's been going on for a long time in many parts of the country. And so the idea that short staffing is a winter problem or a COVID problem is just… not correct. 

Espiner:                   Yeah. Okay. But if we if we focus specifically on how you are paid for those shifts, you got an extra hundred dollars for working those shifts right under this agreement. And you accepted at the time that that was a temporary payment for winter, right?

Thorn:                      We didn't really because… 

Espiner:                   That was the deal. I mean, that was the deal that everyone did. Right. So I'm just wondering. 

Thorn:                      …we didn't actually have a deal because the organisation didn't ever negotiate a deal. They just presented us with this with this offer. Well, it wasn't even [an offer], they presented us with this fait accompli, which was here's your hundred dollars per shift extra for your extra shifts above your contract.

Espiner:                   But that was what was accepted. And the money was taken and people were willing to work those shifts. 

Thorn:                      So people were already well, actually already doing those shifts. They've been doing this for a long time. And they were willing to take the extra money because that was all that was being offered. Honestly, it's impossible to keep the department safe unless we do that extra work. And it really has become extraordinary work, not just extra hours. 

Espiner:                   So are you arguing that you should be paid that extra payment still ongoing? 

Thorn:                      Well, in Whangārei ED we've been asking for overtime for hours above our contracted hours for the last few months. And that's why we originally stood down from our contracted hours, because in Whangārei and some other areas around New Zealand, we're not actually getting overtime or equivalent rates that other areas are getting. So some areas, some areas over winter have been getting double time. Some of those have occasionally got triple time. Some are getting overtime rates for the extra hours above the contracted FTE, which are being demanded by the organisation to keep it safe. And on top of that they were getting the winter payment rates. In Whangārei we were merely getting the winter payment rate which was $100 for an extra shift, which I know may sound to some people, like a lot of extra money. It's actually in comparison to the negotiated winter payment care package that was given to the doctors, which was given much earlier than the nurses and was looking at sort of about eight times, you know, relatively, what they were offering to the nurses. 

                                                …

Espiner:                   …there's been some discussion about whether [turning down extra shifts is] a strike or whether that's actually…

Thorn:                      Definitely not a strike. It's absolutely not a strike.

…

Thorn:                      And I would like to just if you're happy for me to I'd like to just read you because… 

Espiner:                   We’re not going to get there. And no we've had enough today. Thank you for that, Rachel.

The complaint

[3]  Michael Robinson complained that the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following key reasons:

• ‘The interviewer was rude, to a point [of being] offensive’.
• The interviewer ignored the NZNO representative’s concerns about winter payments for nurses.
• The interviewer was underprepared for the interview, tried to compare proposed action by nurses to strikes, and said that nurses should accept the payments despite them being inequitable.
• ‘Rachel was rudely cut off at the end when the interviewer decided he had had enough and wasn’t interested after he couldn’t bait the interviewee.’
• ‘It was unprofessional, unbalanced biased and rude’.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Radio New Zealand Ltd did not uphold Robinson’s complaint for the following key reasons:

• ‘Rachel Thorn is an NZNO delegate and was speaking on behalf of union members. She is an able media performer and was not fazed by any of the questions being asked of her.’
• ‘Ms Thorn had agreed to be interviewed on Morning Report, RNZ’s flagship morning news programme.’
• ‘Mr Espiner asked open-ended questions, allowed ample time for considered responses and was clearly listening to and evaluating those responses.’
• ‘The exchange was polite and courteous throughout.’
• ‘At the end of the allotted time for this interview, Ms Thorn proposed to read from some sort of scripted statement, which Mr Espiner would not allow.’
• ‘News interviews on RNZ follow a question-and-answer/discussion pattern and prepared speeches or reading from notes both fall outside what is commonly accepted as an interview.’

The standards

[5]  The fairness standard¹ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.² It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[6]  The balance standard³ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁵

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁶ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

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 up 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 demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁸

[10]  We consider the complainant’s concerns are best addressed under the fairness standard, which requires broadcasters to deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast. However, we have briefly addressed the accuracy and balance standards below at [16].

Fairness

[11]  A consideration of what is fair, and the threshold for finding unfairness to an individual or organisation may take into account factors such as:⁹

• the nature of the programme and content
• the nature of the individual (eg the threshold for finding unfairness will be higher for a public figure, politician or organisation familiar with dealing with the media, as opposed to an ordinary person with little or no media experience)
• whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individual or organisation
• whether any critical comments were aimed at the participant in their business or professional life, or their personal life
• the public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech
• the vulnerability of the individual.

[12]  In this case, we note in particular:

• Morning Report is a news programme featuring coverage of local and world events.¹⁰
• The topic of fair pay and burnout for nurses concerns issues of public funds, employment conditions and the standard of healthcare in Aotearoa New Zealand. On this basis there is significant public interest in this topic.
• Thorn is a representative of one of the largest professional associations and trade unions in Aotearoa New Zealand.¹¹ She has interacted with news outlets on multiple occasions.¹² She can be expected to be more comfortable and familiar with the media than a regular layperson and able to handle a challenging interview.
• In our view, Thorn handled the interview well and the segment was unlikely to leave listeners with a negative impression of her or NZNO.
• Espiner’s questions were directed at the policies and actions proposed by NZNO, not at Thorn personally.

[13]  We acknowledge that some listeners may have found Espiner’s approach rude. However in this case, we do not consider that it went beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with a union delegate such as Thorn. Thorn did not appear to be offended or upset by any questions asked of her.

[14]  In addition, as outlined in paragraph [2], Thorn was given reasonable opportunities to respond to the questions posed, and able to convey her views on the key points of challenge. Regarding the complainant’s concern that she was not allowed to read her pre-prepared statement, this was a legitimate editorial decision by the broadcaster that does not raise issues under the fairness standard.

[15]  For the above reasons, we have identified no harm at a threshold meriting any restriction of the right to freedom of expression. Accordingly we do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard.

The remaining standards

[16]  Balance: The balance standard requires broadcasters to present significant viewpoints when controversial issues of public importance are discussed during news or current affairs programmes.¹³ While we accept that nurse’s pay and working conditions, the issue discussed in this broadcast, may constitute a controversial issue of public importance, the complainant’s concerns relate more to the host’s treatment of Thorn than to the omission of any specific perspectives on that issue. In addition, as outlined above, we consider Thorn was given reasonable opportunities to convey her perspectives. On this basis we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy: The complainant has not identified any programme content as inaccurate or misleading. On this basis the accuracy standard is not applicable to their concerns. We do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
20 December 2022    

Appendix

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

1  Michael Robinson’s formal complaint to RNZ - 30 September 2022

2  RNZ’s decision on the complaint - 11 October 2022

3  Robinson’s referral to the Authority - 11 October 2022

4  RNZ confirming no further comments - 11 November 2022

¹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁵ Guideline 5.1
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁹ Guideline 8.1
¹⁰ "Morning Report" Radio New Zealand <www.rnz.co.nz>
¹¹ “NZNO Membership” New Zealand Nurses Organisation | Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa  <nzno.org.nz>
¹² See for example: “Whangārei Nursing Staff Demand Better Winter Incentives” Scoop (online ed, 29 July 2022); Grady Connell “Whangārei nurses getting raw deal for extra shifts” Today FM (online ed, 29 July 2022); “Christchurch ED at capacity; Nurses warned plan to turn down extra shifts likely illegal” Otago Daily Times (online ed, 29 September 2022)
¹³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand