24 OCTOBER THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 4653

Decision No. 16/85
Com. 5/85

Before the Broadcasting Tribunal

In the matter of the Broadcasting Act 1976, and in the matter of
a complaint by ANTHONY JON SIMPSON of Wellington, writer:

Warrant Holder: Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand
(Television One):

Chairman: B. H. Slane.
Members: A. E. Wilson and R. Boyd-Bell.

RULING ON JURISDICTION

Mr Simpson complained that on 1 June as part of a scheduled
sporting item on “Sport on One”, Television One broadcast live
coverage of the first rugby test between New Zealand and England.
Mr Simpson complained that the broadcast was not in accordance
with section 24 (1). The relevant portions of section 24 read:

“24. Responsibility of corporation for programme standards—

(1) The corporation shall be responsible for maintaining, in its
programmes and their presentation, standards which will be
generally acceptable in the community, and in particular
it shall have regard to—

(a) The provision of a range of programmes which will
cater in a balanced way for the varied interests of different
sections of the community:

(b) The need to ensure that a New Zealand identity is
developed and maintained in programmes:

(c) The observance of standards of good taste and
decency:

(d) The accurate and impartial gathering and presentation
of news, according to recognised standards of objective
journalism:

(e) The principle that when controversial issues of public
importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made to
present significant points of view either in the same
programme or in other programmes within the period of
current interest:

(f) The maintenance of law and order:

(g) The privacy of the individual”.

Mr Simpson complained that the broadcast was in breach of
section 24 (1) (a).

“It seems to me that taken in conjunction with the total amount of
time devoted in your broadcast to rugby football and others
of the same ilk retelling the activities of the same sport fails
to meet the criteria of range, balance and variety. I say this
because it is the responsibility of the corporation to reflect in its programmes the leisure interests of the community
(which includes sport) and that rugby is taking up far too great a
proportion of the programming. This means conversely the
exclusion of other activities which might as validly feature but
which are rarely seen or heard in your programmes if at all.”

He then quoted some figures to support his argument and pointed
out that “killing, which emerged as being as popular as rugby, has
never been featured as far as I am aware.” He then dealt with other
sports and their coverage.

Section 95a governs formal complaints about the corporation’s

programmes.

95a. Formal complaints about corporations’ programmes:

(1) It shall be the duty of the Broadcasting Corporation—

(a) To receive and consider formal complaints about any
programme broadcast by the corporation where the
complaint constitutes, in respect of that programme, an
allegation that the corporation has failed to comply—

(i) With the obligation (imposed by section 24 (1) of this
Act) to maintain in its programmes and their
presentation, standards which will be generally
acceptable in the community:

(ii) With the obligation (imposed by section 24 (1) (c) of
this Act) to have regard to the observance of
standards of good taste and decency:

(iii) With the obligation (imposed by section 24 (1) (d) of
this Act) to have regard to the accurate and
impartial gathering and presentation of news,
according to recognised standards of objective
journalism:

(iv) With the obligation (imposed by section 24 (1) (e) of
this Act) to have regard to the principle that
when controversial issues of public importance
are discussed, reasonable efforts are made to
present significant points of view either in the
same programme or in other programmes within the period of
current interest:

(v) With the obligation (imposed by section 24 (1) (f) of
this Act) to have regard to the maintenance of
law and order:

(vi) With the obligation imposed by section 24 (2) of this
Act in respect of the broadcasting in
cinematograph films:

(b) To establish procedures for investigating any
complaint under paragraph (a) of this subsection and any
complaint under section 950 (1) (b) of this Act.

(2) Every complaint under subsection (1) (a) of this section shall
be lodged in writing with the secretary.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies in respect
of—

(a) An alleged failure to comply with the obligation
imposed by paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph
(g) of section 24 (1) of this Act; or

(b) A complaint to which section 950 (1) (b) of this Act
applies.

Subsection (3) of section 95a clearly states that an alleged failure
to comply with section 24 (1) (a) of the Act is excluded from the
formal complaints procedure. Mr Simpson accepted the
corporation’s response to that effect. But he noted that under
95b (1) (a) (i) he was entitled to complain about an alleged failure
to comply with the obligation to maintain in its programmes and
their presentation, standards which will be generally acceptable in
the community. Mr Simpson argued that those standards required
balance and variety in what was broadcast.

He referred the complaint back to the corporation which did not
uphold it.

The corporation noted that 1 031 000 viewers aged 5 and over
or nearly a third of the population watched the game about which
he complained. It also said an analysis of coverage given to all
sports events in 1984–85 showed that rugby coverage amounted to
6.06 percent of the output which was not considered excessive or
unacceptable. His complaint was not upheld. Mr Simpson claimed
that the response was not a proper one, writing again to the
corporation stating:

“My complaint did not deal with the appropriateness of carrying
rugby football items per se. It dealt with the relative coverage
of that sporting activity in comparison of the coverage of other
activities both sporting and more generally in the field of leisure.
It was in relation to these that it was remarked that the coverage
of rugby football was disproportionate, i.e. excessive in that
sense rather than as an isolated phenomenon.”

The corporation would not again reconsider the complaint and
suggested Mr Simpson exercise his right to refer the complaint to
the Broadcasting Tribunal.

On 9 September 1985 Mr Simpson filed a formal complaint with
the Tribunal. However Mr Simpson made no further attempt to
articulate his complaint, merely referring the Tribunal to the
correspondence—an unsatisfactory approach—and the Tribunal has
first to decide whether or not it has any jurisdiction to deal with
the complaint.

Section 24 (1) sets out the responsibility of the corporation
generally to maintain standards which will be acceptable in the
community. It then requires the corporation in particular to have
regard to the matters listed (a) to (g).

Part XIA provides a code for complaints. Section 95A sets out
some principles which include:

Broadcasting attracts complaints.

Warrant holders have a responsibility to deal with them and must
establish a proper procedure to do so.

An independent complaints procedure must also be available.

Complaints based merely on a complainant’s preferences are not,
in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure.

Section 95n sets out the corporation’s obligations in relation to
formal complaints. It must receive and consider formal complaints
about any programme broadcast by the corporation where the
complaint constitutes an allegation that the corporation has failed
to comply with the obligation imposed by section 24 (1) of the Act
to maintain in its programmes and their presentation the standards
which will be generally acceptable in the community. This is a
general obligation.