BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards relating to an interview on Breakfast about Government plans to reverse a ban on live exports. The complainant argued live export footage used in the segment contributed to a lack of balance, was misleading and would lead viewers to believe it depicted New Zealand cattle in distress. The balance standard was not breached given the interview was signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, the audience could be expected to be aware of other viewpoints from other media, and the host had challenged the interviewee and referenced Government policy. The Authority found viewers were unlikely to assume the footage depicted New Zealand cattle and, in any event, if it had misled viewers on that point, it was not materially misleading because it would not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  Reversing the ban on live animal exports is a feature of the National Party’s coalition agreements with New Zealand First² and the ACT Party.³ A segment on Breakfast broadcast on 6 May 2024 covered opposition to the policy, including a petition to retain the ban which had garnered over 35,000 signatures at the time of reporting.⁴ The segment was introduced as follows:

Daniel Faitaua: More than 35,000 people have so far signed a petition calling on the Government not to repeal laws banning live cattle exports. The coalition signalled it wants to reintroduce the practice by next year. Labour banned live cattle exports in 2023 following a month-long investigation by TVNZ’s Sunday programme into conditions at sea. Reversing the ban while quote ‘ensuring high standards of animal welfare’ is part of National’s coalition agreement with ACT. Just a warning, we may show some images in this interview that some viewers might find distressing. For more, we’re joined by Debra Ashton from animal rights group SAFE.

[2]  Faitaua asked Ashton about welfare concerns for animals aboard live export ships. During Ashton’s comments, brief clips were shown of animals on a live export vessel, who appeared to be covered in waste and dirt. Ashton outlined some of the concerns for welfare:

Ashton: Some of the New Zealand farmers consider that putting animals on board ships and exposing them to the risks of live export are far too high. The animals are being crammed on board the ships. They’re forced to live in their own waste. They’re exposed to rough seas, unfamiliar sounds, extreme heat conditions. Sometimes it’s a recognition of the fact that, you know, that’s a step too far for animals and even more so when those animals are arriving at their destination that they’re treated in and raised and slaughtered in ways that would be seen as illegal in this country.

[3]  The host and Ashton then discussed the Government’s statements about animal welfare, and potential economic benefits of reinstating live exports:

Faitaua: The Government, though, Debra, is saying it wants the gold standard for animal welfare on live exports. That’s got to be promising.

Ashton: Look, we don’t believe that any of those risks can be mitigated. There’s a long history of animal welfare disasters at sea. This year already we’ve seen three horrific disasters for animals. The first one in January, where Australian animals were sent through the conflict zone on their way to Israel. The ship had to turn around. It was a heatwave in Australia... And that put the animals at sea for a very, very long time. And the second and most horrific images that we saw were animals that went from Brazil. The ship had to stop at Cape Town... SPCA officers got on board that ship and captured the most horrific images of dead, dying and diseased animals who were caked in their own waste. I mean, it was the worst of the worst and interesting to note that that particular ship is, is a purpose-built ship and one that the industry are saying would be part of a gold standard.

Faitaua: Do you know what this gold standard is? I know I’m putting you on the spot here, but do we have any idea what the Government is talking about in terms of gold standards? What could, what can we see?

Ashton: No, we don’t, you know, and we’d be really interested to see what they are putting forward. We’ve been in consultation with the Ministry for Primary Industries over improvements to, to live export.

…

Faitaua: But live exports are expected to bring in $310 million in the year before the ban, and many in New Zealand are doing it tough. We’ve heard that the Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard has said it will enable farmers to diversify and have somewhere to sell excess stock. I mean, there’s an argument there that with what you’re doing, it’s banning and penalising farmers.

Ashton: I think there’s a lack of transparency actually around where these animals are coming from. There has been a lot of talk about these animals being surplus stock, but we know that actually exporters are going and talking to farmers and asking them whether or not they would like to raise on their farms, you know, a particular breed that is more suited to feed lots, you know, for overseas countries… If we’re talking about the income for farmers, of course, you know, that’s, that’s really important for farmers as well. But here, here we are putting profit ahead of animal welfare. And when it comes to our international reputation, I don’t think that’s gonna help us longer term.

Faitaua: I know you touched on this just briefly, but you talk about improvements on the ship for their gold standard to be met. What exactly are you talking about in terms of improvements? Is it space? Is it, what exactly are you looking at?

Ashton: Well, these are some of the ideas that have been put forward to us that, you know, potentially animals could have more space on board those ships. They could potentially increase the stock handlers on board those ships. At the moment they have one vet on board those ships to look after thousands of animals and it would take a heck load of vets to be on board a shipment of thousands of animals. I just don’t think it can be done.

[4]  The segment concluded as follows:

Faitaua: Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard is responsible for reintroducing the trade. He wasn’t available to join Breakfast this morning and didn’t provide a statement. The Government has previously said, as you heard it once, a gold standard for animal welfare on live exports.

The complaint

[5]  Gavin Forrest complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the following basis:

• It ‘seems likely that the footage had been provided by SAFE… [and] appears to be the same as the footage SAFE previously had on their website and was taken down after questions were asked regarding the ships and the dates of the footage’.
• ‘The clear implication [of the footage] was that it related to New Zealand animals.’
• ‘It seems highly [unlikely] that the footage of distressed cattle were New Zealand cattle or were recent.’
• ‘Breakfast TV has deliberately or carelessly sought to misrepresent the truth and influence viewers in a biased manner.’

[6]  On referral to the Authority, Forrest provided detailed submissions raising further arguments. These included the following which are listed under the standard we consider most relevant to each point:

Balance

• ‘TVNZ provided prime coverage to an organisation [SAFE] that must be considered at the extreme end of the debate.’
• The programme did not present a balance of views and solely consisted of the interview with Ashton, and with the Associate Minister being unavailable TVNZ ‘made no mention of attempts to contact anyone else – not the regulator (MPI), farming organisations or firms involved in the export of live cattle’.
• The programme did not address:
  
  (a)  the significance of primary sector exports within New Zealand’s international trade profile or the many barriers already faced by the sector
  (b)  the significantly higher returns associated with live cattle exports in comparison to alternative uses.
• ‘It is important to NZ’s vital trade of primary sector produce that the same level of rigour is applied to decisions to ban, or not to ban, the export of live cattle from New Zealand. That is all decisions need be science and evidence based - not fundamentally driven by emotion or misinformation.’
• New Zealand shipments of live animals ‘have largely met international animal welfare standards, are amongst the highest in the world and have been steadily improving’.

Accuracy

• Ashton made the following incorrect statements, which were not challenged by the host:
  
  (a)  animals were ‘crammed on these ships and forced to live in their own waste’
  (b)  ‘the majority of New Zealanders are opposed to live cattle exports’
  (c)  ‘farmers were now speaking out against live exports’.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  TVNZ did not uphold Forrest’s complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• ‘[W]ithin the Programme’s narrow and clearly defined scope, an interview with Debra Ashton alone, in her capacity as SAFE Chief Executive, discussing her views on this matter, viewers would not reasonably have expected to have been presented with a range of alternative perspectives’.
• Forrest’s original complaint ‘does not identify a particular viewpoint that [they] believe should have been represented, and the Committee disagrees that views in opposition to those articulated by Debra Ashton are required to be shared in this context’.
• ‘The issue at hand has been extensively reported on and discussed in surrounding media, and viewers would be aware [that] many alternative views exist in relation to it… The coalition government’s plans in regard to these matters is established within the discussion’.

Accuracy

• The footage from the live export ship had been used in a previous 1News bulletin and corresponding online article. ‘Viewers would readily recognise this footage from this recent reporting and the wide range of surrounding media coverage’.
• TVNZ ‘disagrees that viewers were left with the impression that the footage depicted recent, New Zealand-based cattle. It is established in the discussion that live cattle exports were banned under the previous government. This ban came into effect in April 2023, approximately 10 months prior to the events depicted in this footage and 13 months prior to this interview’.
• The footage used in the broadcast originates from NSPCA (South Africa), and in any case ‘the source of this footage is a technicality, and is not material to viewers’ understanding of this interview’.

Scope of complaint

[8]  With regard to the further arguments introduced by the complainant on referral, TVNZ argued:

• Most of the content raised by the complainant is ‘outside the scope of the matters raised in the original complaint, amounting largely to his personal views regarding the wider “live cattle export debate” and preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion.’
• ‘Mr Forrest’s original complaint is concerned specifically with the nature and source of the footage used as a graphical overlay’.
• Mr Forrest’s accuracy allegations in relation to the following statements of SAFE’s Chief Executive, in particular, were identified as ‘new allegations’ absent from his original complaint:
  
  (a)  ‘the majority of New Zealander’s are opposed to live cattle exports’
  (b)  ‘farmers were now speaking out against live exports’.

Jurisdiction – Scope of complaint

[9]  Forrest’s original complaint was focused on the impact of the relevant footage in contributing to a lack of balance and misleading the public about the consequences of resuming live cattle exports. The reasons given, in the original complaint, for the alleged breach of the balance and accuracy standards were:

Breakfast TV when covering proposals to resume live cattle exports showed disturbing pictures of stressed and very dirty cattle. In a prelude to footage, the announcer warned viewers that they might find the images disturbing…There was no statement as to who had provided the footage or the location(s) of the footage but the clear implication was that it related to New Zealand animals. It seems likely that the footage had been provided by SAFE that is not just [opposed to] the live animal exports but opposed the farming [of] animals…I liken this to doing a story about NZ government residential housing and showing footage of [appalling] rental properties that were several years old and in another country. It seems highly UNLIKELY that the footage of distressed cattle were New Zealand cattle or were recent. If the footage was, as I suspect, not of a New Zealand shipment then Breakfast TV has deliberately or carelessly sought to misrepresent the truth and influence viewers in a biased manner.

[10]  The Authority has previously allowed complainants to raise new arguments on referral, where the arguments are ‘more detailed arguments in respect of the standards that have already been raised’⁵. In an analogous case addressing the raising of new standards on referral, the High Court has found:⁶

…it is permissible [for the Authority] to fill gaps… or cross boundaries between Code standards… but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint.

[11]  We consider Forrest’s further arguments under the balance standard (at paragraph [6]) can be reasonably interpreted as relevant to his original balance complaint for the following reasons:

• Forrest’s complaint alleges the footage contributes to a lack of balance.
• The comments on referral elaborate on this by discussing the viewpoints included in the broadcast (SAFE’s) and identifying viewpoints missing from the broadcast which:
  
  (a)  relate to the ‘controversial issue of public importance’ identified in the complaint (the proposal to resume live cattle exports); and
  (b)  may have offset the impact of the footage.
• The comments can be seen as responding to TVNZ’s decision (which also addressed the impact of viewpoints included within, and outside, the broadcast).

[12]  However, we do not consider Forrest’s new arguments under the accuracy standard (at paragraph [6]) can be reasonably interpreted as falling within the wording of the original complaint. The original complaint is focused on the impact of the footage (‘If the footage was, as I suspect, not of a New Zealand shipment then Breakfast TV has deliberately or carelessly sought to misrepresent the truth and influence viewers in a biased manner.’). It cannot be reasonably interpreted as suggesting any specific statements of Ashton were incorrect, and the overall impact of perspectives which have not been included is addressed under the balance complaint.

[13]  Accordingly, in reaching our decision on the balance complaint, we have taken account of the balance related arguments outlined at paragraph [6] but have disregarded the additional accuracy arguments.

The standards

[14]  The balance standard⁷ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁸ The standard only applies to news, current affairs, and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁹

[15]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹⁰ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹¹ 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.

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 when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.¹²

Balance

[18]  Several criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs, and factual programmes which discuss a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.¹³

[19]  An issue of public importance is something that would have significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public.¹⁴ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion, or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁵

[20]  This broadcast discussed the Government’s plans to reverse the ban on live exports. Noting the broadcast discusses serious concerns about animal welfare and the high number of signatures on the petition opposing the reversal, we are satisfied this constitutes a controversial issue of public importance as contemplated by the standard. Accordingly, the balance standard applies.

[21]  The next question is whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view. No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance.¹⁶ A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.¹⁷

[22]  We do not consider the balance standard was breached, considering the following factors:¹⁸

• The programme did not purport to be a balanced examination of the issue but was focused on public support for continuing the ban and animal welfare concerns associated with live export.
• The programme introduction clearly signalled this focus and indicated the audience would be hearing Debra Ashton’s perspective as the Chief Executive of SAFE. In this context, reasonable listeners would not have expected to hear another view countering Ashton’s opinions.
• The balance standard does not require the presentation of other viewpoints where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’.¹⁹ In this case, the broadcaster has provided a range of other coverage on the live export ban, as have other media outlets.²⁰
• The existence of alternative viewpoints was also signalled by Faitua’s challenges of Ashton’s comments, including references to the Government policy of ‘gold standards’ for animal welfare and asking Ashton whether SAFE was advocating for ‘banning and penalising farmers’.

[23]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Accuracy

[24]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme are not considered material.²¹

[25]  The harm that the complainant is concerned about is that the footage of live exports used in the broadcast misleads viewers to believe it shows New Zealand animals and practices. In their view, the impact of this footage is that viewers would develop a negative view of live exports based on incorrect and misleading information.

[26]  The first question for the Authority is whether the item was misleading. To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.²²  

[27]  The broadcaster has confirmed to the Authority the footage used was obtained from NSPCA (South Africa) and not SAFE and does not show New Zealand cattle. In considering whether viewers would nevertheless be led to believe it depicted New Zealand cattle, we note:

• The footage clearly shows the names of the two ships featured in the clips as ‘Al-Mawashi’ and ‘Al-Kuwait’.
• Ashton’s comments following the footage were not directed at New Zealand incidents. They related to two specific stories, one involving Australian animals and one involving animals from Brazil held in a ship docked in South Africa.

[28]  In the circumstances, we consider viewers were unlikely to assume the footage showed New Zealand animals.

[29]  In any event, if it had misled viewers on that point, we do not consider it would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the programme because:

• The footage was a visual background for the interview and Ashton’s comments on welfare concerns, which also included multiple different videos of cattle on farms.²³
• The footage complained about was shown for only 29 seconds, out of a 7:08 minute report.
• The segment was not about New Zealand industry practices prior to the ban or any specific incidents of harm to New Zealand animals in live export ships. No reference was made to any New Zealand industry incidents.

[30]  In this context, even if the footage created an inaccurate impression, it was not materially misleading. Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
14 October 2024

Appendix

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

1  Gavin Forrest’s formal complaint – 06 May 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 04 June 2024

3  Forrest’s referral to the Authority – 18 June 2024

4  TVNZ’s further submissions – 18 July 2024

5  Forrest’s further submissions – 24 July 2024

¹ Aroha Beck declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Coalition Agreement between New Zealand National Party and New Zealand First Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet | Te Tari O Te Pirimia Me Te Komiti Matua (online ed, 24 November 2023) at page 7
³ Coalition Agreement between New Zealand National Party and ACT New Zealand Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet | Te Tari O Te Pirimia Me Te Komiti Matua (online ed, 24 November 2023) at page 6
⁴ Petition of John Hellstrom: Do not reverse the ban on the live export of farmed animals by sea New Zealand Parliament | Pāremata Aotearoa
⁵ See New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2005-112 at [85-87], AP and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-153 at [9-10], and Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [18]
⁶ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁷ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁹ Guideline 5.1
¹⁰ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹² Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹³ Guideline 5.1
¹⁴ Guideline 5.1
¹⁵ Guideline 5.1
¹⁶ Guideline 5.3
¹⁷ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁸ Guideline 5.4
¹⁹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁰ 1News Reporters “The case for and against resuming exporting livestock by sea” 1News (online ed, 27 July 2024), 1News Reporters “Live exports: What NZ’s already sending overseas – and the changes to come” 1News (online ed, 30 June 2024), 1News Reporters “Govt promises transparency around return of live animal exports” 1News (online ed, 28 June 2024), 1News Reporters “Live animal exports: Govt says it wants ‘gold standard’ of care” 1News (online ed, 19 May 2024), Julia Gabel “Live animal exports: Public consultation on reversing ban to start in coming months” New Zealand Herald (online ed, 27 June 2024), Annette Scott “Live exports back in play, lobby group says” Farmers Weekly (online ed, 20 June 2024), Otago Daily Times Reporters “Govt hopes live animal exports will resume next year” Otago Daily Times (online ed, 01 May 2024), Newshub Reporters “Government says live exports will commence once welfare standards strengthened” Newshub (online ed, 27 June 2024)
²¹ Guideline 6.2
²² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
²³ See Fenemor and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-080 at [14] and Peddie and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-054 at [11] for similar findings