INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
File No: 2000/0316
Complaint No: 11678
Investigation No: 838
Licensee Queensland Television Limited
Station QTQ-9
Type of Service Commercial Television Name of Program A Current Affair Date/s of Broadcast 7 February 2000 Date of Complaint 7 April 2000 Name of Complainant Ms Ruth Harris
Relevant Codes Clause 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.7 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice.
Clause 7.12 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice.
Issues Accuracy in a current affairs report. Complaint handling.
Decision Date
The Australian Broadcasting Authority determined that the licensee of QTQ-9,
Queensland Television Ltd, did not breach subclauses 4.3.1, 4.3.2 or 4.3.7 of the Code in its broadcast of ‘A Current Affair’ on 7 February 2000 but breached the clause 7.12 of the Code by not advising the complainant that the matter could be referred to the Australian Broadcasting Authority if dissatisfied with the licensee’s response.
-INVESTIGATION REPORT
THE COMPLAINT
On 7 April 2000, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (the ABA) received a letter from a complainant in Queensland, which was forwarded to the ABA by the Federation of Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) at the complainant’s request. The
complainant alleged that an item on the program ‘A Current Affair’, broadcast by commercial television station QTQ-9 on 7 February 2000, was inaccurate. The complainant wrote to the Executive Producer of ‘A Current Affair’ on 3 March 2000 and was dissatisfied with the response she received. Queensland Television Limited is the licensee of QTQ-9.
RELEVANT CODE OF PRACTICE
The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the Code) provides: News and Current Affairs Programs
4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:
4.3.1. must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;
…
4.3.2 must not present material in a manner that creates public panic; …
4.3.7 should avoid unfairly identifying a single person or business when
commenting on the behaviour of a group of persons in businesses. Time Limits on Responses to Code Complaints
7.12. In all cases, a licensee’s substantive reply will also advise the complainant that he or she may refer the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Authority if not satisfied with the licensee’s response.
ASSESSMENT
On 17 May 2000, the Nine Network provided the ABA, on behalf of QTQ-9, with a response to the issues raised by the complainant. The ABA examined the episode of ‘A
Current Affair’ broadcast on 7 February 2000 (see transcript at Attachment A) as well as an up-date on the original story, broadcast on 10 February 2000 (see transcript at Attachment B). Channel Nine stated in the up-date program that ‘after the story went to air on Monday night ‘A Current Affair’ officers around Australia received more than 500 calls from people with more horror stories about their dealings with FAI Home Security’.
News and Current Affairs
Subclause 4.3.1 – Accuracy and Fairness
The complainant stated that for the following reasons the Code had been breached: 1. The program showed a Security System that was over six years old. They made no
mention of the fact that there had been massive improvements in technology since this particular system was first introduced; they also failed to mention that the newer systems are fully back-to-base monitored systems.
The ABA believes it is not relevant that the system demonstrated in the program was six years old. Many people would have bought and still be using that system and they would need to be alerted should protection from that system be brought into question. In any event, Mike Munro states at the end of the program that a new model of FAI Home Security does offer a back-to-base back-up (see transcript Attachment A). 2. They gave expert opinion from Mr Keith Jessop regarding the system. They failed
to mention that this same expert wrote another letter to them stating that his original assessment was incorrect and since studying the newer more regularly used systems, he rates them exceptionally highly.
The up-date program covered this point (see transcript at Attachment B). Mike Munro states in the program ‘Now since we last spoke to Mr Jessop he’d had a sudden change of heart. After being contacted by FAI Home Security and inspecting their
manufacturing plant, he says in this fax he was wrong in giving the alarm such a low rating. Instead of his original two out of ten rating he now gives it seven or eight out of ten. Naturally we tried to ask Mr Jessop for an interview so he could give us the
reasons for this surprising about face, he declined’. The ABA was provided with a copy of Mr Jessop’s letter, which was dated 7 February 2000, the same date as the original story. This letter corroborated Nine’s version of events with respect to this aspect of the complaint.
3. They showed how a system can easily be taken apart. They presented this system laying (sic) flat on its back on a bench. The actual system is installed upright on a wall and is securely attached to that wall. They failed to mention this. They also failed to mention that should anyone try and remove the system from the wall the alarm, if switched on, will be activated.
Nine in its submission agreed ‘that if the alarm functioned properly, it would be activated if a thief attempted to remove it from the wall while it was switched on. However, as stated by Mr Roger Bush, formerly in charge of complaints handling at FAI, many complaints were received from customers who were robbed not only of their personal possessions, but the actual alarm unit as well, despite the fact that it was switched on when the break-in occurred’.
The ABA is of the view that in demonstrating how easy it is to pull the alarm apart it was reasonable to do this on the table. A burglar familiar with the FAI system and intent on disabling it would quite easily be able to access it on the wall. The program investigated whether the FAI home security alarm was sufficiently safe and reliable to provide the kind of security it was designed for.
4. They stated that the company has had an “avalanche” of complaints about misrepresentation of the system. They were unable to provide more than two of these complainants. Made no effort to provide reports from satisfied customers. Nine submitted that ‘the evidence of the class action lodged against FAI by a large group of dissatisfied customers and an investigation by the Consumer Institute of New Zealand, render it neither necessary nor relevant to the issue at hand to include
interviews with people who are satisfied with the performance of their home security system’.
The ABA has no reason to doubt that FAI has not had a large number of complaints or that the statement made in the program was accurate.
5. Mr Bush who was the supposed complaints Manager is actually a manager with another opposition company.
The program clearly stated that Roger Bush was in charge of handling complaints about the alarm in Australia and New Zealand. The ABA has no evidence which contradicts any of the statements made by Roger Bush in the program and no reason to doubt his credentials or past experience with FAI Home Security.
6. There is currently one person being sued by FAI in New Zealand and FAI are considering suing another person for illegally using FAI marketing material. The program indicated that it was in fact the other way around and that Roger Simpson Marvin and Jack Jensen are suing FAI.
Roger Simpson Marvin clearly states in the program that FAI are suing him. Nine submitted that ‘several former dustributors of the alarm in New Zealand who walked out in disgust have since formed their own security alarm company which exports alarms to Australia and are being sued by Brad Cooper for damages in the New Zealand High Court’. Brad Cooper is the Chief Executive of FAI Home Security. 7. They advised that a class action was being taken against FAI. They failed to
mention that this class action had been struck out and that FAI was awarded costs against Maurice Blackburn Solicitors.
The ABA contacted Maurice Blackburn Cashman, solicitors handling the class action against FAI Home Security who confirmed that the class action was continuing. FAI had made numerous attempts to have the class action struck out without success. Therefore, at the time of the broadcast, ‘A Current Affair’ was correct in speaking about the on-going class action.
For the above reasons, the ABA is satisfied that the licensee of QTQ-9 did not breach subclause 4.3.1 of the Code regarding accuracy and fairness.
Subclause 4.3.2 – Must not present material in a manner that creates public panic
The complainant stated:
This program may not have created massive public panic, but I am sure, that other users of the system, like myself, have now had doubt placed in their minds about the ability of their security system to prevent burglaries or home invasions. I did not pay a lot of money for security only to have someone create this sort of fear in me.
Nine, ‘denies that the program was presented in a way which could create panic, nor did the program seek to endanger viewers’ home security. On the contrary, the aim of the program was to warn consumers about a defective alarm product so that they can make better informed decisions about their home security’.
The ABA accepts Nine’s submission and is of the view that the progam raised an issue of wide social importance to the community. The ABA believes that a current affairs investigation which draws public attention to the reliability of home security installed in many homes and the methods used by the company selling that system is a matter of public interest. The program allowed experts, past employees of FAI Home Security as well as consumers with valid complaints to speak for themselves. The information was presented in a serious and considered manner and was not sensationalised in any way. For the above reason, the ABA is satisfied that the licensee of QTQ-9 did not breach subclause 4.3.2 of the Code.
Subclause 4.3.7 – Should avoid unfairly identifying a single person or business when commenting on the behaviour of a group of persons or businesses
The complainant stated:
The program clearly identified a single person, Brad Cooper, and the business FAI in an unfair and false light.
The Code, under subclause 4.3.7, is specifically intended to prevent innocent persons or businesses being ‘tarred with the same brush’. It is not intended to prevent
individual persons or businesses being investigated on matters of public interest. In the program broadcast on 7 February 2000 and the follow-up program broadcast on 10 February 2000, the presenter, Mike Munro invited Brad Cooper to appear on the program to present his side of the story.
The program was not commenting on the behaviour of a group of persons or businesses. It was specifically about Brad Cooper and FAI Home Security and therefore it was not unfair to name them.
For the above reasons, the ABA is satisfied that the licensee of QTQ-9 did not breach subclause 4.3.7 of the Code.
Time Limits on Responses to Code Complaints
Subclause 7.12 – Advise Complainant they may refer the matter to the ABA if not satisfied with licensee’s response
The complainant wrote to FACTS, with a copy to the Executive Producer of ‘A Current Affair’, on 25 February 2000. The Executive Producer provided a substantive response to the complainant on 3 March 2000, but omitted to inform the complainant that they could refer the matter to the ABA if dissatisfied with that response. Consequently, the licensee breached subclause 7.12 of the Code.
SUMMARY
The ABA is satisfied that the licensee of QTQ-9 did not breach subclauses 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.7 of the Code by broadcasting the relevant item on ‘A Current Affair’. The licensee, however, breached subclause 7.12 of the Code by not informing the complainant that the matter could be referred to the Australian Broadcasting Authority if dissatisfied with its response.
ACTION TAKEN
On 10 October 2000 Nine responded on behalf of QTQ to the ABA’s preliminary breach finding regarding complaints handling by stating that Nine have conducted a Code of Practice training seminar for department heads and executive producers at TCN9. A Second seminar will be run at TCN9 in the near future which the executive producer of ‘A Current Affair’ will attend as well as a training seminar at QTQ to be held at the end of October.
DECISION
I, Andree Wright, Director Policy and Content Regulation Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, determine for the above reasons that the licensee of QTQ-9, Queensland Television Ltd:
• did not breach subclauses 4.3.1, 4.3.2 or 4.3.7 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice in its broadcast of ‘A Current Affair’ on 7 February 2000;
• breached the clause 7.12 of the Community Television Industry Code of Practice by not advising the complainant that the matter could be referred to the Australian Broadcasting Authority if dissatisfied with the licensee’s response..
Andree Wright dated this day of October 2000
