BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Radio Wha Waho was the name of a light-entertainment series set in a Maori radio station produced by TVNZ and broadcast weekly on Channel Two on Friday evenings starting on 15 October 1993. 

The directors of AKO Ltd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the first four programmes in the series misused the Maori language and invited viewers to laugh at rather than with the Maori characters.  As a result, the series had had a negative impact on Maori business and, they argued, should be withdrawn.

While acknowledging two language errors which it described as minor, TVNZ said the scripts were re-worked by members of its Maori Department to ensure that the programmes dealt sensitively with Maori humour and were not denigratory.  It maintained that the broadcasts did not breach the standards.  Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, the complainants referred their complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programmes complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).  As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing. TVNZ's comedy series Radio Wha Waho was set in a struggling Maori radio station in a rural environment – in a woolshed.  The staff of the station were all Maori ranging in age from late teens to 30s and their language was mainly informal – colloquial and contemporary English with the casual interspersions of Maori words and phrases.

The directors of AKO Ltd complained to TVNZ about the first four programmes. 

Expressing their belief that the series promoted "the disruption and erosion of Maori language and culture", they expressed their dissatisfaction with the low standard of comprehension and pronunciation of the Maori language.  They were also concerned about the use of toilet humour.  In their view, TVNZ neglected its responsibility to promote Maori aspirations positively.  Rather, viewers were invited to laugh at rather than with the characters who, for the most part, showed minimal business skills.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G2, G4 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.  They require broadcasters:

G2   To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

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 is likely to encourage denigration of or discrimination against any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation 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
ii)     the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or
iii)    in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

Arguing that some of the complainants' concerns amounted to a critique of the series rather than a formal complaint about alleged breaches of the broadcasting standards, TVNZ reported that the series had sought to portray the distinctive Maori humour of the 1990s.  It acknowledged two small language errors but responded that equivalent mistakes usually occurred in comedies in English and did not amount to a breach of the standards.  TVNZ emphasised that the scripts had been carefully evaluated by its Maori Department – a Department it described as sensitive to the needs of Maoridom and proud of its record - to allow Maori to enjoy some laughter at their own expense.

When they referred their complaint to the Authority, the directors of AKO Ltd explained that their concern was not a critique of the series but a complaint about the prolific misuse of Te Reo Maori and, in addition, the impact of the racist series on Maori business.  They also challenged TVNZ's competence to prepare a series which was lingually accurate and culturally sensitive and, later, challenged TVNZ's ability to assess a complaint about the series other than monoculturally.

In its comments to the Authority on these matters, TVNZ extolled the commitment to Maori culture and language in its Maori Department.  It denied that the series was racist and it quoted its Maori Department's view that the series' intention was always "as Maori, to laugh at ourselves and laugh with the actors and directors who make the episodes a reality".

In its final comment to the Authority, the AKO directors responded:

From comments made to us by non-Maori, we as a Maori business, endeavouring to maintain the highest of professional standards, were made well aware of the impact this programme had in relation to perceptions of Maori in business.  It was not the humour that struck a chord, but rather the depiction of Maori in business as being at the least bumbling, disorganised and accepting of less than the best.

Finally, we would state that it is not possible to separate or compartmentalise the various aspects which we raise in the complaint.  The impact on Maori business cannot be separated from the associated values of Tikanga Maori and the use of Te Reo Maori.  For a Maori business these are all intrinsic values each interdependent.

To denigrate in any way one of these values, culture, language or business excellence, immediately affects the whole.

The Authority has recorded the substance of the complaint and TVNZ's response in some detail in order to show the range of matters on which the parties disagreed.  Because of the disagreements between the complainants and TVNZ on some cultural and language matters, the Authority co-opted two persons to help it deal not only with the complaint generally but also to help it assess the specific Maori issues raised.  Furthermore, as some of the complaint involved a critique of the series itself, the Authority reluctantly, in view of its statutory function, has decided that it is necessary to include some passing comments of an editorial nature in the decision.

Taking TVNZ's comments into account, the Authority initially assessed the complaint on the basis that the main purpose of the series was to portray the current Maori sense of humour.  The series was set in a struggling rural Maori radio station although the problems encountered were presumably not intended to be typical of Maori radio stations generally.  

The Authority first questioned whether there was "one" current Maori sense of humour as TVNZ suggested and, with the support of the thoughtful observations from the co-opted members, it considered that the scripts used in the series were not particularly successful in promoting any sense of humour which allowed viewers either to laugh at or with the characters portrayed.  Taking into account that the series was designed to be viewed by all New Zealanders - not just Maori, the Authority decided that the main broadcasting standards issue was whether the series made use of stereotypes which encouraged denigration of or discrimination against Maori by the wider community.  

As for the aspect of the complaint assessed by TVNZ under standard G4, the Authority observed that the standard refers to "any person".  Thus the standard appears not to be designed to deal with alleged unfairness towards a section of the community.  Accordingly, the Authority decided that the complainants' concern about fairness to the Maori people was an issue which should be considered under standard G13 as this provision is concerned with insults, abuse and slights directed at sections of the community.

With the co-opted members' advice on language, taste and decency matters, the Authority then examined the standard G2 complaint that the series breached currently accepted standards of good taste and decency in context. The complainants alleged that the standard was breached because of the poor quality of language used. While noting that the level of Maori used was relatively basic, the Authority considered that it was not atypical of what is used by younger Maori who are developing their Maori language skills but for whom Maori is not their first language. In the context of the amicable and casual relationships between the characters portrayed, the Authority concluded that, although  some aspects of the language used would not have met traditional standards and expectations, there was sufficient compliance with the expected norms so as not to breach the standard.

In addition, the words "tutae" and "mimi", the members of the Authority were advised, were not "toilet humour" and were often used by Maori because they were less offensive than their English equivalents.

In approaching the central issue raised in the complaint under standard G13, the Authority began by acknowledging that Radio Wha Waho was a comedy series set in a Maori radio station located in a woolshed on a farm. It did not purport to be a documentary on Maori business practice generally or the operation of Maori radio stations in particular. It did not profess to be a true-to-life situation and, although it may have failed to achieve its expressed intent to portray a Maori sense of humour, the theme of the series did not denigrate or discriminate against Maori.

In view of the specific matters raised, the Authority next examined the series to ascertain the messages which it contained. It did so in order to assess whether the series, broadcast for viewers of all cultures, contained negative stereotypes which would result in the encouragement of denigration of or discrimination against Maori.

One approach to the standard G13 requirement, accepted by some members of the Authority, was that such a detailed examination was not necessary. They argued that because of the poor quality of the series any negative stereotypes it contained would have been dismissed by viewers as being of no relevance to Maori in real life situations.  Accordingly, the series could not be seen as influencing viewers' attitudes to actual Maori radio stations – let alone attitudes to Maori business.

Another approach considered that the use of negative and out-dated stereotypes could, nevertheless, be influential in confirming existing discriminatory and denigratory attitudes. Pursuant to this approach, some members accepted that the series used certain negative stereotypes which might encourage the denigration of Maori and, consequently, breach standard G13. The most obvious of these was the casual approach to time held by some of the characters. Other negative stereotypes included the uninterested approaches to work responsibilities displayed by some employees, the casual attitude to dress and, generally, the portrayal of an apparently bucolic rural atmosphere where a bumbling approach was sufficient.

Before reaching a firm conclusion on the matter raised by standard G13, the Authority observed that it has accepted in previous decisions that denigration is a level of abuse which involves a "blackening" of the reputation of the group focussed on. It also noted that it might not be necessary to decide that matter - whether the stereotypes included in Radio Wha Waho breached the standard – if one of the exceptions in standard G13 applied. The possibly applicable exception on this occasion is the third one which states that the requirement to avoid encouraging the denigration or discrimination of a community group is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material:-

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

On the basis that the context was legitimate in that it did not breach any other nominated standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice and that the series was intended to be humorous, the Authority decided that this exception was relevant and applicable.

Accordingly, it concluded, the broadcast had not breached standard G13.

As noted above, the series did not breach standard G4 because the Authority subsumed the complainants' concerns considered by TVNZ under standard G4 in standard G13.

The Authority was disappointed that one of the few Maori programmes screened on television drew on negative stereotypes for most of its humour. In view of the relatively small number of programmes with a Maori theme broadcast on television, the Authority is aware of the high expectations that apply to the few which are screened. If there were more Maori programmes shown, especially during prime time, those of questionable quality would suffer the same fate of other programmes of similar standards – the channel would be changed. Until that option exists, however, there may well be comprehensive and thoughtful complaints about programmes which adopt a Maori theme, similar to the present one, which expect not only full compliance with broadcasting standards but also a high level of technical and creative skills and the advancement of Maori aspirations.

As one of the co-opted members reported to the Authority:

I think the real issue [with this complaint] is one of investment, which relates to the number, diversity, and quality of programmes with Maori content. There are sofew opportunities for programmes to explore the range of Maori interests – dramatic, comedic, satirical, tragic – in a contemporary way, that whatever is made has to bear the weight of Maori expectation. No one programme or one series of programmes is capable of achieving this.

 

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

Co-opted members

Professor Hirini Mead, Ngati Awa, formerly Professor in the Maori Studies Department at Victoria University, and Ms Hekia Parata, Ngati Porou and Ngai Tahu, formerly General Manager – Policy at Te Puni Kokiri were co-opted as persons whose qualifications and experience were likely to be of assistance to the Authority. They took part in the deliberations of the Authority but the decision is that of the permanent members.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
18 April 1994

Appendix

AKO Limited's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited

In a lengthy letter dated 10 November 1993, Te Aoterangi McGarvey, Rangimarie

McGarvey and Robert Somerville, directors of AKO Ltd, complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about the first four episodes of Radio Wha Waho and they sought its

immediate withdrawal.

They began by expressing their love for and commitment to Maori culture and their belief

that Maori language should not suffer but noted:

We firmly believe that Radio Wha Waho promotes the disruption and erosion of

Maori language and culture.

The distortion of language, they continued, occurred as the cast's language command,

comprehension and pronunciation was not of a high standard. They also objected to the

use of toilet humour. Moreover, the possible translation of the programme's title as "Radio

Far Out" was another example of language misuse.

Maintaining that TVNZ's responsibility was to promote Maori aspirations positively, they

complained that the programmes invited viewers to laugh at rather than with the Maori

characters. Furthermore, the characters showed minimal business skills and the

programmes thus reinforced the problems which afflicted Maori businesses generally and

radio stations in particular.

They distinguished the programmes from those which had featured the late Billy T James

as he had allowed viewers to laugh with him rather than at him.

Criticising some of the characters portrayed in the series, they requested that TVNZ display

a commitment to the partnership principles contained in the Treaty of Waitangi. They

concluded by providing some examples of where Te Reo Maori had been used

inappropriately.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

TVNZ advised AKO Ltd of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 13

December 1993 when it reported that the complaint about the first four episodes of Radio

Wha Waho had been considered under standards G2, G4 and G13 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice.

Describing the programmes as a "light-entertainment" series which sought to reflect

distinctive Maori humour in the 1990s, TVNZ pointed out that some aspects of the

complaint amounted to a critique of the programmes rather than matters of broadcasting

standards.

It acknowledged two small language errors which, it believed, were insufficient to justify

upholding the complaint as comedies in English also contained lapses in grammar and

syntax which were accepted in context. It added:

The [complaints] committee recognises your genuine concern that Maori language

be used properly, but believes this might best be achieved through the interest in

language and culture generated in such gentle and unaffected comedy as "Radio

Wha Waho".

As for the complaint that the series denigrated Maori language, tikanga and the people,

TVNZ said that the scripts, although written by a Pakeha, were significantly reworked by

its Maori Department's staff. It reported:

The department avers that it was the intention of the series to provide an

opportunity for Maori to enjoy some laughter at their own expense - and to share

that laughter with the wider New Zealand community. The community agreed

that it could find nothing denigratory in the programmes but saw it rather as an

opportunity for the actors to reflect the humour so characteristic of a lot of Maori

groups today.

The committee believes that the Maori Programmes Department has always been

sensitive to the needs of Maoridom in terms of language and has a proud record in

this area.

TVNZ expressed sorrow that the complainants felt so strongly about the series but

concluded that the standards had not been breached.

AKO Ltd's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, in a letter dated 7 January 1994 Mr McGarvey on the

company's behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In a separate letter to TVNZ with a copy to the Authority, Mr McGarvey maintained that

TVNZ had incorrectly interpreted the basis of the complaint which he said, was primarily

concerned about the impact of the racist series on Maori businesses. It had not been a

"critique" of the programme and the use of that term, he argued, downgraded the validity

of the complaint. TVNZ's Maori Department, it continued, had not been totally honest

with the Complaints Committee as the programme's misuse of the Maori language was

"prolific". The letter also challenged the competence of the people who had made

alterations to the script, observing that only one member had language and cultural

expertise.

The letter stated:

You claim that the Maori language was not misused. This claim is insultingly

racist. Especially, when we of AKO, who are Maori language and cultural

specialists, have already identified for you examples of misuse and abuse.

It is clear to us that your Committee does not have the Maori cultural and

linguistic expertise to make decisions that affect Maori. The effect of this lack of

expertise is your Committee is only capable of making monocultural and

monolingual decisions. Not good enough!

For all of the reasons stated in our complaint plus the monocultural rationale

prevailing in your Committee's determination and response, we make the

observation and claim that TVNZ Ltd practices institutional racism.

After giving a definition of institutional racism from the Race Relations Conciliator's office,

the letter concluded by asking a number of questions of TVNZ.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its

letter is dated 10 January 1994 and TVNZ's reply, 17 January.

TVNZ expressed disappointment that the Complaints Committee had been accused of

lacking in linguistic and cultural expertise. It continued:

Mr McGarvey seems not to realise that the aims and objectives which he espouses

for the preservation and fostering of Maori language and culture are shared by the

Maori Department of Television New Zealand Limited and, indeed, by the company

itself.

"Radio Wha Waho" was entirely the initiative of the Maori Programmes

Department. Scripts were written by a staff member, and worked on by a

departmental committee. Some of the core actors came from the department, and

the executive producer, producer and directors were all departmental staff.

After providing a brief account of experience and qualifications of the four members of the

departmental committee, TVNZ commented:

With respect to Mr McGarvey we believe that none of the people mentioned above

lack anything in their dedication to Maori culture and language.

The Complaints Committee, which included another producer from the Maori

Department, had taken advice from one of the departmental members noted and, TVNZ

concluded:

We hold the view that "Radio Wha Waho" was a worthwhile experiment in light

entertainment from the Maori Programmes area. It was not racist. To quote the

Maori Programmes Department, the intention of the series was always "as Maori,

to laugh at ourselves and laugh with the actors and directors who made the

episodes a reality".

AKO Ltd's Final Comment to the Authority

When asked to comment briefly on TVNZ's response, in a letter dated 4 February 1994 Mr

Somerville on behalf of the directors made a number of points.

First, as the complaint was made by the company, he regretted TVNZ's personalising the

complaint around Mr McGarvey.

Secondly, he argued that TVNZ had not addressed the substantive issues raised. As

explained in the original complaint, he continued, the impact of the series on Maori

business had been the basis of the complaint but that matter had not been considered by

TVNZ.

Thirdly, the complaint had not challenged the dedication of TVNZ's Maori Department but

dedication did not equate with expertise. Only one departmental member, he observed,

had language and cultural expertise.

Fourthly, because the programme was screened on national television, he objected to the

comment that it was designed for Maori to laugh at themselves.

He concluded:

From comments made to us by non-Maori, we as a Maori business, endeavouring

to maintain the highest of professional standards, were made well aware of the

impact this programme had in relation to perceptions of Maori in Business. It was

not the humour that struck a chord, but rather the depiction of Maori in business

as being at the least bumbling, disorganised and accepting of less than the best.

Finally we would state that it is not possible to separate or compartmentalise the

various aspects which we raise in the complaint. The impact on Maori Business

cannot be separated from the associated values of Tikanga Maori and the use of Te

Reo Maori. For a Maori Business these are all intrinsic values each interdependent.

To denigrate in any way one of these values, culture, language or business

excellence, immediately affects the whole.