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 concerning an item on 1News reporting on cuts to the public sector. The complainant considered the broadcast’s claim that public sector spending cuts were to help pay for the government’s tax cuts was inaccurate, unbalanced and was unfair to Minister of Finance Nicola Willis, as it fully attributed public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts. The Authority found no breach of the accuracy standard, noting the broadcast did not fully attribute public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts. It further found in a news story about the impact of the cuts, the broadcaster was not required to include reference to other reasons for better management of government funds, as well as other financial measures that would also help pay for tax cuts, as the complainant had submitted. The balance and fairness standards either did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  A news report concerning cuts to the public sector by the Government was broadcast on 30 January 2024 on 1News. The item on was introduced:

Host:            Plans to cut spending in the public service are going further than National originally proposed, with fears they’ll go beyond the backroom. The Labour-aligned Council of Trade Unions is worried what it will mean for frontline jobs.

[2]  The report included the following relevant comments:

Vox-pop 1:  [Speaking about a family member losing their job in previous government cuts] It was destabilising and it was a job of some prestige and it was just really sad.  

…

Vox-pop 2:  I helped deal with the cuts then when I was in the Foreign Ministry. So I feel for them. Public servants are hardworking, loyal people.  

Reporter:     Now Wellington’s bracing for another cycle of cuts, but they’re deeper and wider than National advertised. To help pay for its tax cuts, the party said in August it would slash funding to 24 agencies by 6.5%. Now its 39 agencies and about a dozen of them need to find savings of 7.5%.

Council of Trade Unions economist: Members are concerned that that's going to mean fewer public services when they need to have it, poorer quality public services when they need them. And that should worry everyone who uses public services.  

Reporter:     National promised to only target to backroom jobs and protect frontline services. But what is a frontline service? 

Minister of Finance Nicola Willis: We haven't gone through the exercise of defining that for all 39 agencies. Instead, we've asked chief executives to exercise their judgement in putting forward proposals. 

                     …

Reporter:     Do you accept that there will be effects for frontline services? 

Willis:          No. Our Government's goal is to improve the delivery of frontline public services.  

The complaint

[3]  Geoff Neal complained that the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. His concerns were as follows:

Accuracy

• By stating that public service funding cuts would ‘help pay for [National’s] tax cuts,’ “the story falsely 100% attributes/correlates public sector expense reductions to tax cuts for citizens.”
• There are multiple reasons for the government needing better financial management, not just to pay for tax cuts.
• The primary reasons include:
  • Massive increases to government debt
  • Increased taxes and increased spending through printing money
  • New Zealand’s poor current account
  • Inflation
  • Four consecutive quarters of recession on the basis of per capita GDP
• ‘To meet the standards of ACCURACY and BALANCE, the story needed to include all benefits for our country’ and discuss ‘other methods of fiscal discipline’ and new revenue measures by the government that would also help pay for tax cuts.
• The complainant described the remedies he sought, which included ‘corrections/edits made to the story link above and any other TVNZ content which incorrectly attributes financial responsibility to tax cuts’

Fairness

• ‘Misrepresenting the full story (all cost savings and all new revenue to pay for all positive outcomes for NZ) is also UNFAIR on Nicola Willis.’

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction to accept complaint

[4]  In making his initial complaint to TVNZ, Neal stated:

Your article here [link inserted] is good, but your YouTube video [link inserted] has the politically biased misinformation line added "to pay for National's promised tax cuts."

[5]  The YouTube link was to a video of the 1News item of 30 January 2024.

[6]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not consider the initial complaint was a formal complaint about a broadcast. This was because the complaint included a link to a YouTube video of the broadcast, and quoted a line from the YouTube video description: ‘to pay for tax cuts’.

[7]  After referral to the Authority, TVNZ submitted that this complaint was outside the Authority’s jurisdiction as YouTube videos are not ‘broadcasts’ under the Broadcasting Act 1989:

• ‘YouTube is a separate entity and has control over the 1News story separately from TVNZ’s interests.’
• ‘The YouTube App is not a broadcasting receiving apparatus.’
• ‘YouTube videos play OnDemand of the consumer.’
• ‘Footage on YouTube may be different from that which is broadcast.’
• ‘There is no regulatory gap in regard to the material mentioned in the complaint.’ Online content is subject to complaints to the Media Council.

[8]  The Authority has previously taken the approach that no matter where a complainant saw or heard a programme, if their complaint meets the requirements for a formal complaint under the broadcasting standards regime it is considered as such.¹ In this instance we considered Neal made a formal complaint that extended to the 30 January 2024 1News broadcast (ie it wasn’t limited to wording of the YouTube video description), as:

• The TVNZ complaints form was completed with details of the original 1News broadcast.
• The issue complained about (ie a suggestion that the purpose of government expenditure cuts was ‘to pay for tax cuts’) was discussed in the broadcast.
• The remedy Neal sought in the original complaint related to ‘any TVNZ content’ which incorrectly attributed ‘financial responsibility’ to ‘tax cuts’. This makes it clear he took issue with all instances where the relevant reasoning was used, rather than just with the YouTube video description.

[9]  We therefore accept jurisdiction to consider this complaint.

Scope of complaint

[10]  The complainant also raised the balance standard on referral to the Authority. This standard was not explicitly raised in his initial complaint to the broadcaster, though issues of lack of balance were referred to in his comments. The Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied in the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.²

[11]  The balance standard can be implied in the wording of the initial complaint. As the complainant has expressly commented on how he believes the broadcast lacked balance, we accept the balance standard was sufficiently raised and we are able to consider it in our decision.

The broadcaster’s response

[12]  TVNZ assessed the initial complaint under the Media Council Principle of Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. However, after the Authority accepted jurisdiction over the complaint TVNZ provided the following comments under the broadcasting standards regime (emphasis added by TVNZ throughout):

Accuracy

• ‘The National Party’s brochure National’s Back Pocket Boost³ says
  Tax Relief Funded Responsibly
  Our tax plan does not require borrowing and will reduce pressure on inflation. 
  It has been designed to be self-funding, so that National can guarantee tax reduction for working people, even if Labour leaves the government books in a mess as is predicted. 
  Income relief for the squeezed middle will be funded by sensible reprioritisations of government spending and carefully targeted new revenue measures.’
• ‘And in December Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was quoted as saying:⁴
  But the pressure is on for the government to provide detail on how it will deliver promised tax cuts as the country's economy slows.
  Willis told Morning Report that while savings have already been found and public service agencies have been directed to cut costs, the government was "still working through the exact details" for the funding of tax cuts.
  “We have been given good estimates by Treasury which gives us confidence that the quantum of costs means that we can meet that cost through the savings, new reprioritisations and new revenue measures that we have committed to.”’
• ‘The National coalition government has been clear that tax cuts will be afforded by costs cuts to government agencies.’

Balance

• ‘TVNZ does not agree that the statement that (to) help pay for its tax cuts the Party said in August it would slash funding to 24 agencies by 6.5%. Now it’s 39 agencies and about a dozen of them need to find savings of 7.5% is controversial, it is a simple statement of fact. In any case significant viewpoints on this issue were included in the 1News report including from’ two ‘vox-pops’, a Council of Trade Unions economist and Minister of Finance Nicola Willis.

Fairness

• ‘Mr Neal has not specified which person or organisation was treated unfairly in the broadcast, however if it was to be considered that he thought the government was treated unfairly TVNZ notes that the statement by the Reporter is accurate, and the Finance Minister was able to provide the government’s position on the issue in the report.’
• ‘BSA guidance states the threshold for finding a fairness breach in relation to politicians and public figures is higher than for someone unfamiliar with media.’

The standards

[13]  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.

[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 fairness standard¹⁰ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹¹ 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 broadcasts 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

Accuracy

[18]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.¹³

[19]  The statement in the broadcast was ‘To help pay for its tax cuts, the party said in August it would slash funding for 24 agencies…’ The complainant’s concern is that it was inaccurate for the reporter to state this when there are many reasons for cutting public spending, and tax cuts would also be funded by other measures.

[20]  We do not agree that this statement fully attributed public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts, as the complainant has argued. The statement was clear that the reductions would ‘help’ to pay for the tax cuts, indicating they were one part of the Government’s plan to fund cuts.

[21]  The National Party has been clear in official statements that cost savings through cuts to the public sector are a key part of the funding of tax cuts. As the broadcaster has highlighted in their decision, National’s Back Pocket Boost policy states ‘Income relief for the squeezed middle will be funded by sensible reprioritisations of government spending and carefully targeted new revenue measures’.¹⁴

[22]  Further, Minister of Finance Nicola Willis is quoted as saying in December ‘The mini-Budget contained seven and a half billion dollars of savings, as well as concrete actions to deliver the next range of savings that will support tax relief.’¹⁵ This directly links cost-cutting by the Government to tax relief.

[23]  In a news story about the impact of these public sector cuts, the broadcaster was not required to include a list of economic benefits from reduced government expenditure, or discuss other methods of financial management or revenue measures proposed by the Government. These elements were not material to the focus of the story.

[24]  For these reasons we find no breach of the accuracy standard.

Balance

[25]  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.’¹⁶

[26]  The complainant has alleged the programme lacked balance due to not including balancing content on issue of the economic purpose and benefits of reduced public expenditure.

[27]  We do not consider the broadcast discussed this issue. The item was short, at approximately two minutes long, and was focused on the impacts of cuts to public spending on workers and government services. This could clearly be seen in the comments made by vox-pop interviewees, the concerns raised by the Council of Trade Unions economist and the questions put to Minister of Finance Nicola Willis concerning ‘frontline services’.

[28]  On this basis the balance standard does not apply.

Fairness

[29]  The complainant considered misrepresenting the story was unfair to Nicola Willis. The fairness standard does not address whether issues/facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed,¹⁷ which is more appropriately considered under the accuracy standard in this case. As outlined under our analysis of the accuracy standard, we do not consider the story was materially inaccurate.

[30]  Further, it is well established that the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to politicians such as Nicola Willis is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media.¹⁸ Politicians and public figures hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles and behaviour is encouraged and expected.¹⁹ We do not consider that this broadcast went beyond the level of robust scrutiny and political analysis that could reasonably be expected of a senior government minister such as Willis. We also note the broadcast included comment from Willis on the concern about the impact of tax cuts on frontline services, that ‘Our Government's goal is to improve the delivery of frontline public services.’

[31]  Accordingly we do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
22 May 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Neal's initial complaint to TVNZ - 31 January 2024

2  TVNZ's decision on the complaint under Media Council principles - 14 February 2024

3  Neal's referral to the Authority - 25 February 2024

4  Neal's further correspondence with TVNZ concerning the complaint - 14-25 February 2024

5  TVNZ's submissions on jurisdiction - 19 March 2024

6  TVNZ’s comments on the complaint – 19 April 2024

¹ Prowse and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-098 at [6]-[17]; Adam & Crawford and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-067 at [5]-[9]
² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
³ National Party “National’s Back Pocket Boost” at page 4 (30 August 2024)
⁴ RNZ “Govt 'still working through' how to pay for tax cuts” Otago Daily Times (online ed, 21 December 2023)
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 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 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹² Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹³ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ National Party “National’s Back Pocket Boost” at page 4 (30 August 2024)
¹⁵ “How will the tax cuts be paid for?” RNZ (online ed, 21 December 2023)
¹⁶ Guideline 5.1
¹⁷ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁸ Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” (accessed 23 April 2024)
¹⁹ Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133 at [14]