Racism complaint rejected in Press Council decision

Press, 29 December 1986, Page 14

Racism complaint rejected in Press Council decision

PA Wellington The Press Council, in an adjudication released last week, has rejected a complaint by Mr Dirk Hudig, of Eastbourne, Wellington, against the New Zealand Press Association. The adjudication is: In August, 1985, NZPA distributed to its member newspapers a report of remarks allegedly made by Miss Atareta Poananga, who was then in Melbourne. Miss Poananga is well known for her stand in support of changes in social and political attitudes and legislation in so far as they affect the Maori people. Her advocacy has, on occasions, aroused critical comment and resentment among other sections of the nation because of its somewhat anti-pakeha basis and the way in which it has been expressed. The NZPA report from Melbourne quoted her as showing similar attitudes and advocating steps • which would certainly be - opposed by most New Zealand. The Race Relations Act

says it shall be unlawful Zealanders. The report was published in New Zealand daily newspapers and Miss Poananga’s views were later discussed in television programmes. Mr Hudig complained to the Race Relations Conciliator about Miss Poananga’s comments and about a television programme in which they were featured. He also questioned the action of NZPA in circulating a report of what she had said. In the absence overseas of the then Race Relations Conciliator, Mr Hiwi Tauroa, the complaints were determined by his deputy, Judge • K. H. Mason. In a decision issued on October 22, 1985, he said the conciliator had been asked to determine whether Miss Poananga’s comments were unlawful, and, as a necessary consequence, whether NZPA acted unlawfully in issuing its report of those comments for publication in New for any person to use in a public place words “likely to excite hostility or ill will against, or bring into .contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origin of that group.” The act also says it is unlawful to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting. Judge Mason found that he had no. jurisdiction to deal with Miss Poananga as her remarks were made in Melbourne and not in a public place in New Zealand. So far as the Press Association was con-

cerned, he found that it had carried the Melbourne report as a matter of public interest and he accepted that it had no intention of inciting racial disharmony. He said that although Mr Hudig’s complaint “had substance,” he was not prepared to take any action on it against the Press Association, Judge Mason summed up his attitude to the various complaints thus: “One indicator of a racially tolerant society is that its members are able to give and receive robust comment on matters which ultimately will enable us to live comfortably with one another. So long as those comments are made sensibly and sensitively they can only be for the benefit of us all.” The Press Council supports what Judge Mason said. Mr Hudig was told by the Race Relations Conciliator’s office that if he disagreed with Judge Mason’s opinion he could if he wished take proceedings before the Equal Opportunities Tribunal. In October, 1986, after he had had further, correspondence on the matter with the Race Relations Conciliator’s office, involving considerable delay, Mr Hudig complained to the Press Council, asking it to see “that the Press Association and the papers who published this news item should be reprimanded for breaching the Race Relations Act, 1971.”

The Press Council rejects Mr ' Hudig’s complaint. The issue he raised was primarily one for the Race Relations Conciliator. It endorses his deci-

sion given to Mr Hudig this year. The council believes there are inherent difficulties in interpretation of the act, but for its part the council would not intentionally read the act in a way which would restrict the freedom of the press to inform the people on all matters of public interest. That freedom is essential in a democratic society such as New Zealand and its exercise must

be promoted whenever it is not plainly contrary to law. In the particular instance before it, it could not possibly be said that the Press Association had acted otherwise than in good faith and in discharge of its proper function. The Race Relations Conciliator bias seen no reason to take action, and the Press Council has reached the same conclusion.