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 that a 1News item on tax cuts in the Government’s 2024 Budget breached the balance and fairness standards by portraying the tax cuts negatively, thereby misrepresenting the views of New Zealanders. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives on the Budget were presented, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views, and the standard does not apply to concerns of bias. It also found the broadcast consistent with the level of robust scrutiny and political analysis that could reasonably be expected of politicians, so the fairness standard was not breached.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item during the 30 May 2024 broadcast of 1News addressed the Government’s 2024 Budget, including its provision for tax cuts.

[2]  The segment included the following relevant comments:

Political Editor Maiki Sherman: …Tax cuts are something tangible that almost every household will receive. And yes, time will tell if they add to inflation, and the Reserve Bank will certainly be keeping an eye on that. But in the meantime, the National Party can chalk this one up as a win. They campaigned at the election on tax cuts. They were hounded for months over whether or not they were the right idea. Nicola Willis and her Government were forced to hold their nerve and hold the line on tax cuts. And today was D-Day. Delivery day. [Cut to footage of protest] Outside Parliament, they arrived in their thousands. Critical of the Government. Inside the Beehive, as the Budget books were presented, nothing could rain on the Finance Minister’s parade.

Minister of Finance Nicola Willis: We had the choice to break our promise to New Zealanders, and we chose not to do that.

Sherman:                   Today was all about tax cuts. For the [interviewee] whānau of Hastings, their excitement -

Interviewee 1:            Oh stink, it's only 80 bucks a fortnight.

Sherman:                   quickly dissipated.

Interviewee 2:            So $40 a week. Yeah. We might be able to get an extra pack of toilet rolls and maybe a couple of loaves of bread.

Sherman:                   This pensioner's tax cut - even less.

Interviewee 3:            An extra two cups of coffee down at the local cafe. Basically, you know, that's how insignificant it really is.

Sherman:                   [Cut to Sherman questioning Willis] How can you be confident your tax cuts will make a meaningful difference?

Willis:                          Because I’ve knocked on the doors of New Zealanders who've told me their struggles. The people have said that, you know, $20 a fortnight is the difference between them paying their bills or being in overdraft.

Sherman:                   [Voiceover] For this working solo mum and her two-year-old son, it’s an extra $90 a fortnight.  

Interviewee 4:            $90, I feel like it's really good. It helps a lot. It will help me.

Sherman:                   But again, more support would be welcome.  

Interviewee 4:            I've got to get my son's clothes every month ‘cause he's just growing like crazy, which I don't mind to do, but $90 is not a lot.

Sherman:                   Experts today divided.

Expert 1:                     My personal view is it's a populist play as opposed to the right economic call at this juncture of the cycle.

Expert 2:                     Adjustments to thresholds are long overdue. It is frankly ridiculous that 14 years have been allowed to pass.

Sherman:                   Labour argues it'll make things worse.

Labour Party Leader Chris Hipkins: This is a government that is fuelling inflation through tax cuts, rather than helping to get inflation back down.

Willis:                          Mr Speaker, tax relief in this Budget puts $3.7 billion a year back into the pockets of New Zealanders.

Sherman:                   Nicola Willis announced today a surplus by 2027. [Cut to Sherman questioning Willis] How ambitious is that? And will you get there?

Willis:                          We will get there. We are determined to get there. What we also note is that it's only possible with more disciplined spending.

…

Sherman:                   This Hawke's Bay mum, one of nearly 5000 to have lost their jobs. For her, this Budget means little.

Interviewee 5:            No, not me or anybody else really. You know, I'm not sure that everybody has considered the, you know, medium to long term, effects.

…

Business Correspondent Katie Bradford: Yeah, no doubt the opposition parties will be busy, but how will the coalition - how's the Government feeling today?

Sherman:                   I think from a government perspective, it could be argued that they largely had no other choice. We have all seen the economic outlook. It is grim. It is getting worse day by day. And so, look, the coalition, they campaigned on reining in government spending, on tightening that belt inch by inch. That is certainly what they've done today. Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon, they promised heading into this Budget that they would make some bold calls. And we've certainly seen that.

                        …

ACT Party Leader David Seymour: Well there's actually no funding cuts for any race of people.

Willis:                          This is a Budget that delivers for Māori. It delivers for all New Zealanders.

The complaint

[3]  Geoff Neal complained the broadcast breached the balance and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

Balance

• ‘The Coalition's tax cuts are portrayed in a very negative manner, especially through very negative voter comments that were edited in. This is in stark contrast to how lesser tax reductions were portrayed so positively when introduced by the 2020-23 Labour Government.’ This difference can be seen in a video on X.¹
• Coverage of the Te Pāti Māori protests contributed to the ‘very negative manner’ of portrayal. They also ‘used 2 early cuts to the Te [Pāti Māori] budget protests, which were held before budget details were even released or known!’
• Polls suggest ‘Kiwis overwhelmingly support greater spending restraint from Government (<30% of GDP), wanted tax cuts and wanted even greater tax cuts…This research even shows an equal number of Te [Pāti Māori] voters supporting the budget as opposing it, which is in complete contrast to the negative narrative…portrayed’.²
• The story was ‘a gross misrepresentation of what Kiwis want and how Kiwis feel…’

Fairness

• ‘This is very politically biased/unbalanced reporting, and, therefore, also unfair on the Coalition Government, and Nicola Willis in particular.’
• ‘Only accurate and balanced stories can be fair on the individuals at the centre of those stories.’

Accuracy (raised on referral to the Authority)

• ‘Because of how biased the citizen comments were that were sought out to attack the Coalition, and how the Te [Pāti Māori] protests were shown early, twice, despite half of their voters supporting the budget, the coverage did not accurately reflect the views of the people.’

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The 2024 Budget and Te Pāti Māori protest were controversial issues of public importance. However, a range of significant perspectives were presented as ‘Nicola Willis, as Finance Minister was asked about a range of issues concerning the Budget in the reporting, and that David Seymour and Nicola Willis provided comment about issues raised by the Te [Pāti] Māori protest.’
• ‘In any case, the issues in question have been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.’
• TVNZ did not agree the segment was biased, and in any case, the standard does not apply to concerns of bias.

Fairness

• The threshold for finding unfairness to politicians is higher than for people unfamiliar with the media.
• ‘During the reporting government representatives including Nicola Willis and David Seymour were heard giving their, and the government's position on the budget and the effects of policy changes…’

Jurisdiction

[5]  Neal did not raise the accuracy standard in his initial complaint to the broadcaster. Under ‘The reasons I’m complaining about this programme are…:’ he stated:

The Coalition’s tax cuts are portrayed in a very negative manner, especially through very negative voter comments that were edited in.

This is in stark contrast to how lesser tax reductions were portrayed so positively when introduced by the 2020-2023 Labour Government.

The best comparison of this is this video compilation [Includes link to a video on X]

This is very politically biased/unbalanced reporting, and, therefore, also unfair on the Coalition Government, and Nicola Willis in particular.

[Includes two links to the 1News episode]

Feel free to escalate this straight to the BSA if you like, since you automatically reject all formal complaints.

Thank you for providing this complaints process to help pull TVNZ back towards balanced, accurate, and fair journalism again.

[6]  The issues the complainant identified were not accuracy issues and he did not include ‘accuracy’ in his answer to ‘The Standards/Principles that I believe were breached are as follows..’. He did sign off with ‘Thank you for providing this complaints process to help pull TVNZ back towards balanced, accurate, and fair journalism again’ [emphasis added]. However, this mention cannot introduce a substantive accuracy issue where one has not been identified.

[7]  TVNZ, potentially out of an abundance of caution, did address the accuracy standard in its decision but noted the complainant ‘had not made an allegation that any material point of fact [was] inaccurate in the item’.

[8]  In limited circumstances, 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.³ However, we do not consider the accuracy standard is reasonably necessary to properly consider a complaint based on ‘negative’, unbalanced, or biased reporting.

The standards

[9]  The balance standard⁴ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁵ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁶

[10]  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

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

[12]  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.⁹

[13]  The public interest in broadcasters examining the actions of the Government meant the broadcast contained valuable expression, and we have not found a corresponding level of harm to justify restricting this.

Balance

[14]  We consider the merits of the 2024 Budget (including the proposed tax cuts) was a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applies. We also consider that significant perspectives on the Budget were presented. The segment included comments from Minister of Finance Nicola Willis and ACT Party Leader and Minister of Regulation David Seymour. The host recognised the Government had no other choice given the ‘grim’ economic outlook and the coalition campaigned on ‘reigning in government spending’. Members of the public, experts, and other politicians supporting or criticising the Government’s policies were also featured. Balance is not achieved with a ‘stopwatch’.¹⁰

[15]  The complainant did not identify alternative viewpoints on the Budget which he considered were missing. He focused on the tax cuts being portrayed in a ‘biased’ or ‘negative’ manner and that not being representative of what Kiwis want and feel. These arguments are not relevant under the balance standard. Such political analysis is not required, or intended, to ‘represent what Kiwis want and feel’, even if members of the public are used to represent certain points.  

[16]  While we do not consider the programme was biased, we also note the standard does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias, given the many available media sources from which today’s audiences can source their news and information.¹¹ Its focus is on ensuring competing viewpoints about significant issues are available (including in other media) so audiences can arrive at informed opinions. The standard expressly recognises that individual broadcasts are not experienced in a vacuum:

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage. [emphasis added]

[17]  In this case, the Budget was covered by multiple other media outlets, including those with an arguably more ‘positive’ spin on the Government’s approach.¹² Accordingly, in addition to the different perspectives presented in the broadcast, viewers can reasonably be expected to be aware of other views.

[18]  We have now had a number of opportunities to explain the operation of the balance standard to the complainant.¹³ If, as suggested in his original complaint, he wishes to use the complaints process to help ‘pull TVNZ back towards balanced, accurate and fair journalism again’, we encourage the complainant to read our decisions on his complaints, and the guidance available on our website, to better understand the purpose and function of the broadcasting standards regime. 

[19]  The complainant’s ongoing submission of similar complaints is approaching vexatiousness and represents an unreasonable burden on the resources of affected broadcasters and the Authority. On this basis, the Authority may consider declining to determine future complaints of this nature under section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Fairness

[20]  The complainant considered biased reporting of the story was unfair to Nicola Willis and the coalition Government. The fairness standard does not address whether issues/facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed.¹⁴

[21]  It is well established that the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to political parties or politicians such as Willis is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media.¹⁵ Politicians hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles, and behaviour is encouraged and expected.¹⁶ We do not consider this broadcast went beyond the level of robust scrutiny and political analysis reasonably expected of such people. We also note the broadcast included comment from Willis as well as David Seymour, another member of the coalition Government.

[22]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard.

[23]  As with the balance standard, we have had several previous opportunities to explain the operation of the fairness standard to the complainant.¹⁷ We again recommend the complainant consider these decisions and relevant guidance before submitting further complaints of this nature.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
25 September 2024  

Appendix

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

1  Geoff Neal's formal complaint to TVNZ - 5 June 2024

2  TVNZ's decision on the complaint - 4 July 2024

3  Neal's referral to the Authority - 5 July 2024

4  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 10 July 2024

¹ Ani O’Brien “Just saw this video on TikTok and I’d love TV1 to explain how the framing of these stories is so different” X (1 June 2024)
² “Poll reveals unexpected support for tax cuts and spending restraint” Centrist (online ed, 4 June 2024)
³ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Guideline 5.1
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 Neal and Discovery NZ Ltd & Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2024-016/017 at [29]
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² Craig McCulloch “National unveils Budget 2024, keeps tax cut promises” RNZ (online ed, 30 May 2024); Thomas Coughlan and Adam Pearse “Budget 2024: Snap poll reveals voters’ views on Budget as Parliament rushes through tax cuts bill” New Zealand Herald (online ed, 1 June 2024); “Moving tax brackets will 'lower the burden' on middle income Kiwis” Newstalk ZB (online ed, 30 May 2024); “Nicola Willis "did well with what she had" in 2024 Budget - Steven Joyce” Newstalk ZB (online ed, 31 May 2024)
¹³ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-023 at [17]; Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [19]; Neal and Discovery NZ Ltd & Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2024-016/017 at [29]
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁵ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>
¹⁶ Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133 at [14]
¹⁷ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-014 at [29]-[30]; Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-023 at [17]; Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [27]