Cullen's office scores partial victory in complaint about 20/20

Aspects of a complaint made by Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen's office over a TV3 item on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA).

Laura Cronin, a senior policy advisor in Dr Cullen's office, complained that the segment, on TV3's 20/20 programme on May 9 last year, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair.

Ms Cronin complained that the programme contained "significant errors of fact" in the following statements:

* "The Court of Appeal eventually said yes, Marlborough iwi did indeed have ownership by way of native title";

* "Much of New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, except that in private ownership, was theirs (Maori) by right of native title";

* "That reaction, of course, is the Government's drafting of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill which proposes to take the bulk of existing native title off Maori and put into Crown ownership".

Ms Cronin maintained that none of these statements was true and that the programme had not presented all sides of the argument fairly.

She argued that because the programme was presented as a Maori perspective, it would be entirely rational to assume that there was almost no support in Maoridom for the government's foreshore and seabed policy.

This was contrary to the most comprehensive survey of Maori opinion, which showed that Maori were evenly split in support for and against the government's proposals.

In reply, TV3 cited examples of opportunities where viewers had heard the Government's views on the subject but "few seemed aware of the standpoint of those taking part in the hikoi".

The producers intended to redress that imbalance with the 20/20 item.

The broadcaster disputed the comments were inaccurate in the context in which they appeared.

The commentary was "clearly analysis and comment" on the likely effect of the Bill and had "an adequate basis".

The programme sought to examine the motivation of the protesters who had brought the hikoi to Parliament, not to portray the viewpoint of all Maori, CanWest said.

The authority found that the statement it made about the Court of Appeal was inaccurate "and went to the heart of the programme", and that the second statement complained about was incorrect and a "misrepresentation" of the court's decision.

It found that the essence of the third statement complained about was accurate.

A fourth complaint about the reporter's assertion that "the proposed legislation would strip iwi of their right to go to the Maori Land Court and seek clarification of the nature and extent of any native title they may have had" was not upheld.

The BSA "strongly disagreed" with CanWest's apparent position that government ministers should not complain about programmes that were critical of government policy.

"Government ministers are as entitled as any other person to complain about broadcasts they consider to have breached the required standards."

CanWest was ordered to broadcast within a month a summary of the authority's findings and an explanation of why the complaints were upheld.

- NZPA