15 FEBRUARY
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
313

rape as a ground for abortion which was not strictly accurate.)
TV 1 and the Corporation should have acknowledged the
mistake. We do not accept that Mr Cockram’s remark
“However this seems to be the position . . .” a little earlier in
the report excuses TV 1 from correcting an error particularly
since the passage concerned opens “The Bill does tighten
significantly . . .”, which could be said to be so definite as to
nullify the earlier qualification.

The society made lengthy submissions relating to the Cor-
poration’s later statement that the report was attempting to
highlight a radical change in the criteria relating to permis-
sible abortions. We do not think that it is necessary for this
Tribunal to embark on an analysis of the legislation in this
decision. Suffice it to say, it does not appear that the changes
that occurred in the criteria were “radical” changes as claimed
by the Corporation. The radical changes in the legislation
related rather to the methods of control of the decision
making process for authorising abortions.

The issue was of some importance. Many people would
have obtained their first information about Parliament’s
decision on this key aspect of the legislation from Mr Cock-
ram’s report and their attitudes could have been moulded
accordingly. It is a matter for regret that they were not
subsequently told that the Bill and later the Act, did in fact
provide that the mother’s mental or physical health would be
considered, Television One not having put the record straight.
While the Tribunal considers that Television One should
have acknowledged the error, it would certainly accept the
Director-General’s view that to refer some months later in
detail to the content of the news item was impracticable and
would probably have caused confusion.

The Tribunal does not accept, however, that it necessarily
remains impossible even now for Television One to broadcast
a programme which might help to explain the criteria laid
down in the Act even if this involves providing some explana-
tion of any differing interpretations of the meaning of the
legislation as it now stands.

“(d) the accurate and impartial gathering and presenta-
tion of news, according to recognised standards of
objective journalism.”

The Tribunal finds that the report in the single respect
referred to was not an accurate presentation of news and
therefore upholds the complaint. However, the Tribunal
declines to find that the Corporation was guilty of failure to
present the news impartially.

Co-opted Members—

In accordance with the Act, the Tribunal co-opted Mr G. C.
Ell and Mr G. R. Wear, two persons whose qualifications
and experience were likely, in the opinion of the Tribunal,
to be of assistance to the Tribunal in dealing with the com-
plaint. They took part in the hearing and the deliberations of
the Tribunal. The decision however, in accordance with the
Act, is that of the permanent members.

Dated the 23rd day of November 1978.

B. H. SLANE, Chairman.

Decision No. 10/78
Decision of the Broadcasting Tribunal

In the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter
of a complaint by Thomas Francis Gill, pursuant to section
67 (1) (b).

WARRANT HOLDER: Broadcasting Corporation of New Zea-
land (Television One).

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

B. H. Slane (Chairman), Lionel R. Sceats (Member), Janet
C. Somerville (Member), G. C. Ell (Co-opted Member),
G. R. Wear (Co-opted Member).

Hearing: 12 October 1978.

DECISION

The complaint referred to the Tribunal by Hon. T. F. Gill,
Minister of Immigration, concerned a news item broadcast by
Television One in its 6.30 p.m. news bulletin on Monday,
12 June, 1978. The programme concerned the treatment and
prosecution of overstayers and originated from the Auckland
newsroom. It comprised a report by Carol Archie in which

she presented the views of a prominent Tongan lawyer, Mr
Clive Edwards, another Auckland lawyer, Mr Kevin Ryan,
and the executive officer to the Race Relations Conciliator,
Dr Peter Sharples.

The item was introduced by the newsreader thus:

“New Zealand immigration authorities were today
accused of being cruel and ruthless in their dealings
with Pacific Island immigrants. The claim comes from
two Auckland lawyers who represent a large proportion
of Auckland’s overstayers and other immigrants. The
lawyers say they are disturbed by the upsurge of court
appearances for Pacific Islanders on overstaying
charges and they claim humanitarian considerations
are being overlooked if the numbers in Auckland
courts increase.”

The reporter, Carol Archie, then detailed the number of
prosecutions in the Auckland Magistrate’s Court each day and
said that Mr Edwards was disturbed that many more Pacific
Islanders were being charged as illegal immigrants than other
nationalities.

The item presented the views of Mr Edwards and the other
two persons interviewed and it was claimed that husbands and
wives were being separated from each other and their
children while they were being deported when they were ill.
The claim was made that the concept of “humanitarianism”
did not exist in the Immigration Division as, regardless of
any case put up on humanitarian grounds, the department
said “no”. The manner in which Pacific Islanders were
apprehended by field officers in Auckland was described by
one of the lawyers as “very ruthless”.

Mr Gill said that the persons interviewed were “critical of
a group of public servants in the performance of their duties
as immigration officials, the combined effect of which
amounted to an unwarranted unsubstantiated and grossly
unfair attack on those public servants”.

The Minister summarised his complaint to the Tribunal as
follows:

1. Because of its strong bias the news item should not and
   need not have been transmitted without a counter-balancing
   viewpoint;

2. That no effort was made to obtain such a viewpoint from
   Immigration officials or from me, as Minister of Immigration,
   or, presumably, from anyone else before transmission of the
   news item complained of; and

3. That Television One on this occasion failed to exercise
   impartiality in the gathering and presentation of news; and
   that Television One therefore denied certain public servants
   an effective right of reply to serious allegations made against
   them.

Mr Gill first complained to the Chairman of the Broad-
casting Corporation of New Zealand by letter dated 14 June
which was treated as a formal complaint and was supple-
mented by a further letter dated 15 June. The Minister
pointed out that the two lawyers concerned handled cases for
overstayers and had received an advertisement from the pro-
gramme. The Minister pointed out that since the Act was
passed giving overstayers who had been found guilty the right
to appeal to the Minister, 52 cases had been finalised and of
those 15 had been allowed and 37 declined. He mentioned
this to counter the statement of Dr Sharples that as far as his
office was concerned, “Of late our success rate has been
nil...”.

The Minister pointed out that under the Act the Minister
had to be satisfied that “because of exceptional circumstances
of a humanitarian nature it would be unduly harsh or unjust
to deport the offender from New Zealand.” Mr Ryan had
complained on the programme that there had been no indica-
tion given as to what the Minister meant by those words.
Obviously the impression had been given that the policy was
laid down by the Minister and not by the legislation. In his
original complaint and in his statement on television he
referred to a letter from Mr Ryan which confirmed the state-
ment of grounds in an appeal to the facts that the offender
was 17 and had no work to return to in Tonga.

The Corporation dealt with the complaint on 8 August
1978 and in a letter dated 11 August set out its decision:

“In its examination of the case the board took particular
note of the requirements of section 24 (1) (d) and (e)
of the Broadcasting Act in the manner of accuracy and
balance. It was noted that the item was presented in
such a way that, if it did contain inaccuracies as you
claim, these were presented as the opinions of Messrs
Ryan, Edwards and Dansey and not of Television One;
in this respect the board felt that subsection (d) above