BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item discussing the results of a 1News Verian political poll. The item included analysis and commentary on the poll from 1News’ Political Editor, which the complainants considered was either ‘biased’, unbalanced, inaccurate or unfair to the coalition government. The Authority found no breach of the nominated standards: the item included significant relevant perspectives; the statements complained about were comment, analysis, or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply; and the item did not give rise to any unfairness to the politicians or parties featured.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  A segment on 1News, broadcast on 29 April 2024 on TVNZ 1, reported on the results of the latest 1News Verian political poll. It was approximately 11 and a half minutes in length and was introduced with the following in-studio discussion between the host and Political Editor Maiki Sherman:

Host:               We begin tonight though with breaking news. A shock result tonight. The coalition government would be out of power according to the latest 1News Verian poll. Support for National, New Zealand First and ACT has dropped. New Zealand First's slide would put it out of Parliament altogether. That would mean Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori would have the majority to govern. Here's Political Editor Maiki Sherman, with the exclusive numbers. 

Sherman:       Political turbulence ahead. Buckle up. Brace for impact. National is down two points on 36. Those votes gobbled up by Labour, back in the respectable 30s for the first time in nine months. Also up too, the Green Party on 14, the Chloe Swarbrick co-leadership effect in full flight. But here comes the turbulence. ACT is continuing its freefall now on 7, down for our fourth poll in a row. And bang, New Zealand First is down and out on 4 - Winston Peters would not be in Parliament in what could be Mayday for the coalition. Rounding things off Te Pāti Māori steady on 4, maintaining one of its highest results in the 1News Verian poll. Let's swing around this way now to see how those numbers translate to seats in the House. National would have 48 seats in blue on that side. ACT gets nine, that's 57. And without New Zealand First, not enough to form a government. Looking at this side here, Labour in red would have 40 seats, the Greens 18. That's one more than National and ACT, and Te Pāti Māori with six seats is kingmaker. Time to bring up the preferred Prime Minister numbers now, and more bad news for Christopher Luxon. Down two points on 23%. Chris Hipkins up one on 16, Chlöe Swarbrick bouncing up two points to six, nudging ahead of David Seymour, who's up one on five and Winston Peters is plummeting with his party down to four. So there it is, a nightmare poll for the coalition government, which has been in power for just five months. Is the honeymoon period over?

[2]  The report, which went on to show a pre-recorded segment by Sherman, also contained the following comments from Sherman:

• ‘Coalition comfort food after a pummelling in the polls.’
• ‘But just five months in the driver’s seat, National’s hitting speed bumps, New Zealand First is booted from Parliament, and the ACT Party continues to take a licking.’
• ‘Since coming into power, the government scrapped, cut, tightened and reduced austerity in absolute overdrive.’
• ‘The coalition’s not always been a good time, with David Seymour accused of undermining the Prime Minister.’

[3]  The segment included the following comments from the coalition partners:

• Luxon:
  • ‘Polls will go up and down. We’re not that fixated on them. What we are focussed on is delivering for New Zealanders. Ultimately, they will judge us in three years’ time.’
  • ‘What New Zealanders can be reassured about is there is massive unity and single-minded purpose.’
  • ‘No disrespect but Chris Hipkins had six years in government. He left an unholy mess for our government to pick up.’
• Seymour:
  • ‘I remember year after year I used to bang away and seven was a dream. If you’re trying to tell me that it’s now a nightmare, then I’m a pretty happy guy.’
  • ‘We currently face a hangover from the last guy’s borrowing and inflation. We now have to come away and take the punchbowl from the party that’s gone on too long.’
  • ‘Some people would say that [Luxon’s] undermining me or I’m undermining him. And actually I don’t listen to either of those people.’
  • ‘We are dangerously united from the point of view of our opponents.’
• Peters:
  • Sherman conveyed that Peters ‘notoriously hates political polls’ and had indicated to her that he ‘doesn’t give a rat’s derrière about the results.’

[4]  It also included comments from the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori:

• Hipkins:
  • ‘Our supporters and our MPs are out working very, very hard and I think they’ll be encouraged by this. But we all know that we’ve got a lot of work to do.’
  • ‘I think this should be a real wake up call to [the coalition]. The direction that they are taking the country in is not the direction that New Zealanders were looking for when they voted for change at the last election.’
• Swarbrick:
  • ‘Based on the sentiment that I’ve heard out there from New Zealanders, they are frankly fed up with the lack of respect that this government shows for people and the planet.’
• Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Co-Leader of Te Pāti Māori):
  • ‘I think [the government] is tanking because it’s got some mates on it that are just dragging it backwards into the 1800s, which nobody wants to be a part of.’
  • ‘I’m not surprised at all. We don’t want to go backwards and accelerate, you know, the climate crisis for a quick buck. We don’t want to see, you know, the wealth distributed to the rich and not look after those who are struggling.’

[5]  Vox-pops shown during the item included the following comments in response to the question ‘How do you think the government’s going?’:

• Vox-pop 1: ‘I don’t think it’s going very well at all, actually. I just think that there’s too much, well, probably in-house bickering going on and decision-making is a bit too slow.’
• Vox-pop 2: ‘Not happy with fast tracking legislation.’
• Vox-pop 3: ‘Bit average.’

[6]  The item also included the following further exchanges between the host and Sherman in the studio:

Host:               As we know Maiki, polls are a snapshot in time. How big a deal are these poll numbers?

Sherman:       Well, look, I've said this once already today, but this poll will absolutely rock the entire Parliament. You will have MPs from political parties across the spectrum sending ‘OMG what’s up’ messages to their caucus group chats right this very minute. And the reason is that this is largely unprecedented - to have a new coalition government just five months into power, essentially polled out of power, is almost unheard of. Now, I've looked back at previous 1News Verian polls in the past, and the last time a government party was voted out in a poll this soon after being elected was John Key's government of 2015 and Helen Clark's government in 2006. But the big difference there is that was third term governments. This new coalition is only just getting started. So it will certainly hurt. Now the big question is, is this buyer's remorse? Are voters sitting at home tonight thinking, ‘oh, I'm not too sure’. Seeing cuts after cuts, crackdowns after crackdowns day after day and wondering exactly what they may have signed up for.

Host:               In your report, we heard from Christopher Luxon and David Seymour. What's Winston Peters saying? 

Sherman:       I spoke to Winston Peters this morning. Now he notoriously hates political polls. In fact, he said to me this morning he doesn't give a rat's derriere about the results. And look, I think we need to remember that Winston Peters, he is the comeback king. He clawed his party back into contention, back into power at the last election. There's no reason why he cannot do that again at the next election. The problem is that is three years away. 1News polls consistently, and if the coalition cannot turn its numbers around, it will be death by a thousand cuts to its confidence. Now, speaking of confidence, the opposition parties will be celebrating tonight. 

…

Host:               A tough result overall for Christopher Luxon, his personal popularity dipping slightly as well as preferred Prime Minister. How do you expect he'll respond?

Sherman:       That's right. Well, look, Christopher Luxon is competitive by nature. He doesn't hide that fact. So despite putting on a very brave face today, you can bet that he will be absolutely gutted by these results. And you know, he's the Prime Minister, it's his coalition and it's his government's reputation on the line. As you mentioned, his personal popularity in those preferred Prime Minister rankings has also taken a hit. And that's despite his social media campaign going into overdrive. He's on Instagram, he's on TikTok. He is pushing hard in those areas. And yet he isn't getting the cut through that he is looking for and that he is intending on getting. In his defence, you know, National will argue the coalition overall has a big, difficult job ahead. They've inherited some massive challenges from the last Labour government, and that requires some tough decisions and some tough love. But even where National should be providing some reassurance, some comfort to voters, perhaps in the economic outlook, our poll shows pessimism has jumped by seven points to 26% and optimism in terms of the economic outlook has dropped three points to 36%. So the confidence there is waning and there'll be plenty of self-reflection for the coalition government tonight.

Host:               Thank you for that analysis.

The complaint

[7]  Christopher Chapel complained that the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. His concerns under each of the standards are set out below:

Accuracy

• The poll results were given ‘almost binding quality’ in the way they were presented, despite the fact that a poll presents a snapshot of public opinion at a given time, and the next general election would be held at the end of 2026.
• Statements by Sherman of particular concern included:
  • “Here comes the turbulence. ACT is continuing its freefall, now on 7%, down for our fourth poll in a row.” Chapel stated ‘ACT got 8.6% of votes in the 2023 general election, so a fall to 7%, even in the real world, could not be rightly described as a freefall.’
  • “Winton Peters is plummeting with his party down to 4%. So there it is, a nightmare poll for the coalition government which has been in power for just 5 months.” Chapel considered it was inaccurate to describe the coalition partners as being in serious trouble when none of them had expressed concern over the results.
  • “Just five months in the driver’s seat, National is hitting speed bumps, New Zealand First is booted from Parliament, and the ACT Party continues to take a licking.” Chapel considered this statement may have misled some viewers to believe NZ First had been ejected from Parliament. Further, it was inaccurate to suggest the coalition government were in trouble when they ‘have not been shaken from their resolve to fix the country’s many problems.’
  • “This poll will absolutely rock the entire Parliament…this is largely unprecedented – to have a new coalition government just five months into power, essentially polled out of power, is almost unheard of.” It was inaccurate to suggest the coalition government had been ‘polled out of power,’ and may have misled some viewers to think that they actually were.
  • “If the coalition can’t turn its numbers around, it will be death by a thousand cuts to its confidence.” This was inaccurate as the poll was merely a snapshot in time.

Fairness

• The portrayal of the poll results as almost definitive was unfair to, and biased against, the coalition government partners.
• The item portrayed ‘Mr Peters and ACT as losers on the strength of one Verian poll,’ which would have left viewers with an unfairly negative impression of them.
• Sherman’s bias against the coalition partners ‘was seen clearly in the excited, dramatic portrayal of the snapshot political poll. She was clearly delighted at the negative result for the Coalition.’
• ‘Throughout the report, there was an emphasis on the weaknesses and faults of the Coalition partners while praising the parties and personalities of Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori.’

[8]  Russell Garbutt complained that the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards. His key concerns were:

• It was misleading for the item to portray the poll results as ‘breaking news’ when the results of the poll were known well in advance of the news bulletin. Usually, an item of ‘breaking news’ concerns a developing situation of high importance eg a serious weather event. This item, which concerned a political poll and lasted ‘close on 15 minutes’, did not warrant such treatment and ‘lacked perspective.’
• 1News has ‘shown by their decisions in ranking and treatment of this story that they are biased and have demonstrated a clear lack of balance.’ They have ‘determined to be only supportive or sympathetic to the policies of the Labour Party, the Greens and the Māori Party.’
• The story ‘was designed to portray that the recently elected Government was about to disintegrate and that the country [was] now not in support of the policies that most people voted for.’ 
• If the polls showed support for the coalition government then the story would be placed further down the bulletin.
• The Political Editor’s comments were ‘full over the top opinion, hyperbole and sensationalism,’ masquerading as news eg that the poll would “absolutely rock the entire Parliament”.
• The story could have been told with much more objectivity, noting ‘margins of error and the timing of the poll and any potentially contributory issues’.
• Vox pops shown were all negative towards the coalition government.
• A poll by the Taxpayer’s Union which was published soon after the item aired indicated that all three coalition partners would remain in Parliament.

[9]  Lyall Hopcroft complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards. He also sought to raise the fairness standard as being breached in his complaint referral to us. His key concerns were:

• The report concerned a ‘highly dubious political poll’ which was made into the leading story.
• The report was inaccurate ‘as other polls done at the same time came out with totally different results.’
• [On referral] Sherman’s reporting ‘was unfair and totally biased towards the left side of politics.’

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaints for the following reasons:

Balance

• It did not agree that the discussion about the results of the 1News Verian poll was a controversial issue of public importance for the purpose of the standard. ‘However, we understand that the discussion concerning the political landscape for the different Parties given the results of the poll may be considered such an issue and accordingly significant viewpoints are heard from relevant perspectives in the report, including from National leader Christopher Luxon, ACT Leader David Seymour and New Zealand First Leader, Winston Peters, as well as Chlöe Swarbrick for the Greens, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for Te Pāti Māori, members of the public and the Political Editor and Senior Political Reporter.’
• ‘It is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented. [TVNZ] finds that this has occurred in the news report as discussed.’
• ‘We also note that the issues in question continued to be discussed widely in surrounding media coverage in the days following the poll so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware, or become aware, of alternative viewpoints that existed.’
• It did not agree that the Political Editor’s tone was inappropriate, noting the results of the poll were unexpected, and it was rare to have a new coalition government failing to maintain a majority in a poll so early in their term.
• Other media outlets ‘described the results of the poll with words such as “coalition crumble”, “potentially disastrous”, “surprising”, “unusual” and “shocking”.’
• ‘It’s the role of the Political Editor to provide analysis, context and insights, above and beyond presenting the numbers.’ There is ‘an expectation that there is robust political commentary from reporters in this role, which can at times include strong or provocative language. Sherman’s description of the various political parties and their leadership was consistent with this expectation.’
• ‘The factors likely playing a role in this result such as the economic environment were outlined in detail in the rest of the report. The poll was also clearly described as “a snapshot in time” by Simon Dallow.’
• It did not agree the broadcast was biased, but in any event noted the standard does not require news to be presented impartially or without bias, so long as it complies with the limits of the standard.
• The amount of time spent discussing the issue was an editorial decision which is not regulated by the formal complaints regime.

Accuracy

• ‘The 1News Verian poll is a well-established poll conducted by a reputable polling company (the poll was formerly known as the 1News Kantar Public poll) and has been running for more than 25 years. There is no basis for any assumption that the poll is unreliable or not compliant with the Research Associations New Zealand Political Polling Code. [TVNZ] does not agree that the way the poll results were represented in the 1News store was misleading.’
• ‘The way we report the polling data including the people who don’t respond to questions and the margin of error is included in our reporting online and published on Verian’s site alongside the full poll. We do mention these numbers when editorially significant – for example in the lead up to last year’s election when 12 percent of people were considered undecided/undeclared less than three months out from the election.’
• ‘It is a consistent and established feature of the 1News Verian poll reporting, going back many years, that the potential number of seats in Parliament are discussed based on the polling results. [TVNZ] does not agree that it is misleading that the polling reporting talked about the possible seats for the coalition government and opposition parties.’
• ‘There was no claim in the 1News report that it was voting time or that the results of the poll would be translated to actual seats in government… Polling is a routine tool used by all media to gauge the public opinion of political parties, and viewers understand the parameters of polls taken outside of the election years.’
• The Political Reporter was providing her opinion as part of the report. The requirement for factual accuracy under the standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.
• ‘In any case we note that the report is clear to explain that polls are a snapshot in time and that this issue is being reported on as it is unusual.’ The Political Reporter explained ‘To have a new coalition government just five months into power essentially polled out of power is almost unheard of,’ and that the last time something similar occurred was during the third-term governments of John Key (2015) and Helen Clark (2006).
• Regarding the vox pops shown, TVNZ advised ‘The comments which are shown reflected the individual’s genuine opinion and the tone of the comments which were recorded on that day… we ensure the responses we collect are a balanced and fair representation of the people spoken to.’
• The framing of the poll results as ‘breaking news’ was an editorial decision which is not regulated by the formal complaints regime.

Fairness

• It did not agree the report was unfair to the coalition government, noting BSA guidance that ‘it is well established there is a high threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to politicians. They are frequently capable interviewees, experienced in handling aggressive or inflammatory questioning or other coverage that may be considered unfair for an ordinary person. This recognises political commentary and analysis by journalists is an important feature of freedom of expression and life in a democratic society.’
• In this case, ‘the discussion focussed solely on the results of the poll and how this may play out for the coalition partners and opposition parties. Representatives of the coalition government parties were asked their opinion on the poll results, and this was included in the discussion.’
• Again, it did not agree the tone of the item was unfair or inappropriate, noting the results of the poll were unexpected, and it was rare to have a new coalition government failing to maintain a majority in a poll so early in their term.
• ‘The factors likely playing a role in this result such as the economic environment were outlined in detail in the rest of the report. The poll was also clearly described as “a snapshot in time” by Simon Dallow.’

Jurisdiction

Did Hopcroft sufficiently allege a breach of the fairness standard?

[11]  Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider complaints under standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. A standard does not necessarily have to be raised explicitly if it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.¹

[12]  Accordingly, we considered whether the fairness standard could be reasonably implied into Hopcroft’s original complaint. We do not consider it can reasonably be implied into the wording of the original complaint, which did not raise arguments consistent with the standard. We note the other two complainants in this case raised the fairness standard as being breached and we have accordingly considered it in our decision.

The standards

[13]  The balance standard² ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁴

[14]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁵ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[15]  The fairness standard⁷ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁸ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[16]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[17]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.⁹ Political speech is recognised as having high value and high public interest, meaning a correspondingly high level of harm is necessary to justify regulatory intervention and imposing such a limit.

Balance

[18]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance,’ it must be ‘controversial,’ and it must be ‘discussed.’¹⁰

[19]  We have previously found that coverage of public opinion and polls on politicians, parties and the government is generally of public importance to New Zealanders.¹¹ While reporting and providing commentary on poll results is not ‘controversial’ in and of itself,¹² we consider the length and depth of this particular broadcast, which included multiple perspectives on the performance of the coalition government five months into power, may have constituted a ‘discussion’ of a ‘controversial issue’.

[20]  Nevertheless, we are satisfied there was no breach of the balance standard as:

• The key question under the standard is whether the broadcaster sufficiently presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances. In this case, where the broadcast was reporting and commenting on poll results deemed to be unfavourable to the coalition government and their performance five months into power, it appropriately included comment from each of the leaders of the coalition parties – Luxon, Seymour and Peters.
• Their comments clearly conveyed that they were not worried by the poll results, that they would be continuing their focus of ‘delivering for New Zealanders’ and that ‘ultimately, [the public] will judge us in three years’ time.’
• The broadcast also included relevant perspectives on the results and performance of the government from Hipkins, Swarbrick and Ngarewa-Packer, as well as from the Political Editor and Senior Political Reporter.
• The complainants have argued the item was biased against the coalition government and sympathetic to Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. While we do not agree the item was biased, the balance standard is not directed at ‘bias’ in and of itself. It does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias. Within the limits established by the standard, broadcasters are free to promote or challenge particular ideas, philosophies or people (eg politicians).¹³
• The focus of the segment was on the results of the 1News Verian poll and the performance to date of the coalition government, in light of the fact the poll results were ‘largely unprecedented’ for a first-term government (the broadcast noted the last time the poll had yielded similar results was during the third-term governments of John Key in 2015 and Helen Clark in 2006). It featured the Political Editor’s analysis and opinion on these topics. Viewers expect robust political commentary from reporters in this role, which can at times include strong or provocative language.¹⁴ Sherman’s commentary was consistent with this expectation, and, given the focus of the report, was accordingly concentrated on the performance of the coalition government.
• We further note some of Sherman’s comments provided a defence for the coalition on the results, including:
  • ‘I think we need to remember that Winston Peters, he is the comeback King. He clawed his party back into contention, back into power at the last election. There’s no reason why he cannot do that again at the next election.’
  • ‘In [Luxon’s] defence, you know, National will argue the coalition overall has a big, difficult job ahead. They’ve inherited some massive challenges from the last Labour government, and that requires some tough decisions and some tough love.’
• The standard takes into account when audiences could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.¹⁵ Other perspectives on both the coalition government’s performance to date and this poll were readily available in further coverage from 1News and other outlets around the same time as the broadcast.¹⁶
• In relation to Garbutt’s concern that the three vox-pops shown were all negative towards the coalition government, the broadcaster has advised they were representative of the people spoken to on that day. The average viewer would understand that vox-pops from certain locations may not reflect overall national sentiment on political issues.
• Addressing Garbutt’s concerns that the length and prominent placement of the broadcast indicated the broadcaster ‘lacked perspective’ and was biased against the coalition government, the amount of time a broadcaster spends on a particular report and its placement in the bulletin are matters of editorial discretion, not of broadcasting standards.

[21]  In light of the above factors, we consider the broadcaster complied with the balance standard by ensuring competing viewpoints on the results and performance of the coalition government were presented in the broadcast.

[22]  We therefore do not uphold the complaints under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[23]  The complainants are broadly concerned that the way in which the Political Editor presented the results of the 1News Verian poll may have misled the audience to believe the coalition government had lost all support and was on the verge of being removed from Parliament.

[24]  The first question under the accuracy standard is whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment, or opinion, rather than statements of fact.¹⁷ News analysis interprets news, offers criticism, provides possible reasons, and predicts consequences.¹⁸ An opinion is someone’s view; it is contestable, and others may hold a different view.¹⁹

[25]  Chapel and Garbutt identified particular comments by the Political Editor describing the poll results as being of concern:

• ‘ACT is continuing its freefall’
• ‘A nightmare poll for the coalition government which has been in power for just five months’
• ‘Just five months in the driver’s seat, National is hitting speed bumps, New Zealand First is booted from Parliament, and the ACT Party continues to take a licking.’
• ‘This poll will absolutely rock the entire Parliament…this is largely unprecedented – to have a new coalition government just five months into power, essentially polled out of power, is almost unheard of.’
• ‘If the coalition can’t turn its numbers around, it will be death by a thousand cuts to its confidence.’

[26]  While we acknowledge these statements were strong and provocative, they clearly formed part of Sherman’s political analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Her comments were typical of the type of analysis viewers expect from political editors and reporters, and we consider they would have been readily distinguishable as such to the average viewer.²⁰ The comments were also reflective of her personal style, to which she is entitled. Diversity in presentation and approach is a positive feature which contributes to a programme’s reach and relevance amongst different audiences.

[27]  The public understands that poll results are based on surveys of a sample of the population at a particular point in time, and are a rough tool for gauging public opinion.²¹ We note the host specifically stated ‘polls are a snapshot in time.’ Further, the Political Editor provided the exact percentage results for each of the coalition parties, enabling the audience to form their own opinions on the gravity or otherwise of the results. 

[28]  In these circumstances, we do not consider the audience would have been misled to interpret the poll results as definitive or that one or all of the coalition parties would be imminently removed from Parliament as a result.

[29]  Addressing other concerns raised by the complainants under this standard:

• Garbutt considered it was misleading for the item to portray the poll results as ‘breaking news’ when this was not warranted, and gave the poll more weight than it deserved. The classification of a story as ‘breaking news’ is at the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and is not a matter that can be addressed under the broadcasting standards. We do note however the broadcaster’s advice that the results were ‘largely unprecedented’ for a first-term coalition government.
• Garbutt argued the story could have been told more objectively, noting ‘margins of error and the timing of the poll and any potentially contributory issues’. Viewers generally do not expect broadcasters to report on the statistical possibilities or limitations that underpin their survey methods and projections.²² As above, viewers understand that polls are a rough tool for gauging public opinion, based on a sample population and are not definitive. The broadcaster advised it does mention these numbers when statistically significant, and noted the margin of error was included in their online reporting and on Verian’s website.
• Hopcroft considered the report was inaccurate ‘as other polls done at the same time came out with totally different results.’ Garbutt pointed to a poll by the Taxpayer’s Union indicating that all three coalition partners would remain in Parliament.²³ We do not consider the report was misleading in light of other polls taken around the same time. The item was clear it was reporting on the results of the 1News Verian poll. The public understands poll results are based on surveys of a sample of the population and different polls can yield different results.

[30]  For these reasons, we do not uphold the complaints under the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[31]  The complainants have alleged the broadcast was unfair to the coalition government through its overly negative, inaccurate and ‘biased’ presentation of the poll results.

[32]  A consideration of what is fair takes into account factors including:

• the nature of the content
• the nature of the individual or organisation allegedly treated unfairly
• whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individual or organisation
• the public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech.²⁴

[33]  If a person or organisation referred to or portrayed in a broadcast might be adversely affected, that person or organisation should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before the broadcast.²⁵

[34]  It is well established there is a high threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to politicians, as reflected in our guidance on Complaints that are Unlikely to Succeed.²⁶ Politicians and public figures hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles and behaviour is encouraged and expected. They are frequently capable interviewees, experienced in handling aggressive or inflammatory questioning or other coverage that may be considered unfair for an ordinary person.²⁷

[35]  Taking into account the following factors, we do not consider this report overstepped the boundary causing unfairness to the coalition partners:

• The broadcast included several comments from each of the coalition parties in response to the poll results which made it clear they were not worried, that they would be continuing their focus of ‘delivering for New Zealanders’ and that ‘ultimately, [the public] will judge us in three years’ time.’ Seymour noted ‘we currently face a hangover from the last guy’s borrowing and inflation,’ and Luxon that ‘[Hipkins] left an unholy mess for our government to pick up,’ indicating their views that this may be a contributing factor to the results.
• There was high public interest in this report, recognising that political commentary and analysis by journalists is an important feature of freedom of expression and life in a democratic society.
• The Political Editor noted the reason the results were interesting/of note was that they were ‘largely unprecedented’ for a first-term government. In these circumstances, we do not consider it was unfair for the broadcaster to have focussed on this angle.
• As noted above, the report stated that the poll results represented ‘a snapshot in time’, and the audience would have understood Sherman’s commentary was her own political analysis of the results as is expected in her role as Political Editor. 
• The decisions of the Authority issued over time provide guidance to broadcasters and complainants about what is acceptable under the broadcasting standards. We have consistently not upheld complaints about fairness to politicians or political parties when being discussed in the media and this is reflected in our published guidance on Complaints that are Unlikely to Succeed.²⁸
• The standard does not address whether issues/facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed, which are matters for the accuracy or balance standards.²⁹ To the extent the complainants’ concerns relate to these matters, they have been dealt with under the relevant standards above.

[36]  Accordingly, we do not consider this broadcast went beyond the level of robust scrutiny and political analysis that can reasonably be expected of political parties and their leaders, or gave rise to any unfairness.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
2 September 2024    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

Chapel

1  Christopher Chapel’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 3 May 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 24 May 2024

3  Chapel’s referral to the Authority – 24 May 2024

4  TVNZ confirming no further comment – 7 June 2024

Garbutt

5  Russell Garbutt’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 30 April 2024

6  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 24 May 2024

7  Garbutt’s referral to the Authority – 28 May 2024

8  TVNZ confirming no further comment – 7 June 2024

Hopcroft

9  Lyall Hopcroft’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 30 April 2024

10  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 24 May 2024

11  Hopcroft’s referral to the Authority – 7 June 2024

12  TVNZ confirming no further comment – 31 July 2024

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Guideline 5.1
⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ Dobson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2022-118, at [16]
¹² Stamilla and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-107 at [14]
¹³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁴ Woods and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2015-062
¹⁵ Guideline 5.4
¹⁶ See for example: Bryce Edwards “Christopher Luxon’s show of strength is perfect for our angry era – Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup” NZ Herald (online ed, 25 April 2024); Anna Murray “Govt’s quarterly report card: Is the coalition meeting its KPIs?” 1News (online ed, 16 May 2024); “Latest poll: Coalition parties drop in latest 1News Verian poll – Labour, Greens. Te Pāti Māori edge ahead, NZ First out of Parliament” NZ Herald (online ed, 29 April 2024); “Coalition parties drop in shock poll result” RNZ (online ed, 30 April 2024); 1News Reporters “Poll: Coalition Govt ‘absolutely united’ despite shaky result – Luxon” 1News (online ed, 30 April 2024); 1News Reporters “A ‘litany of chaos’ or ‘silliness’: MPs react to poll slump” 1News (online ed, 30 April 2024); Bryce Edwards “Political Roundup: Discontent and gloom dominate NZ’s political mood” NZ Herald (online ed, 1 May 2024);
¹⁷ Guideline 6.1
¹⁸ Shepard and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2020-157 at [12] and [13]
¹⁹ See Buchanan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-087 at [10]
²⁰ For a similar finding, see Woods and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No 2015-062 at para [12]
²¹ For a similar finding, see Watson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-151 at para [12]
²² For a similar finding, see Watson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-151 at para [12]
²³ While Garbutt did not identify the particular poll, the Taxpayers’ Union – Curia Poll for May 2024 can be found here: Taxpayers’ Union “Taxpayers’ Union – Curia Poll May 2024” (10 May 2024)
²⁴ Guideline 8.1
²⁵ Guideline 8.4
²⁶ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed”
²⁷ Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133 at [13]
²⁸ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed”
²⁹ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20