BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness.

The broadcast

[1]  The 19 August 2024 broadcast of 1News included an item about the 2024 Koroneihana, a celebration of the late Māori King Tūheitia’s coronation. The segment discussed racial tensions arising from coalition government policies, and opened by saying the ‘underlying message from iwi leaders’ at the Koroneihana was that the government is ‘taking race relations backwards. A 1News Verian poll (2024 Poll) was included in the item, which asked respondents, ‘Do you think the government’s policies are increasing/decreasing/[making] no real difference [to] racial tensions’.

The complaint

[2]  Geoff Neal complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because:

• The 2024 Poll question was loaded and leading. Racial tensions are ‘of course’ increasing. ‘The social/racial division caused by the previous Labour government’ cannot be resolved without open discussion and debate, which raises racial tensions in the short term. It was therefore an ‘incredibly biased and misleading question, and TVNZ/Verian knew that when they designed it’.  
• The item failed to address:
  • 1News Verian poll from July 2023 (2023 Poll): The 2023 Poll asked, ‘Do you believe race relations are getting worse or better or staying the same in New Zealand’, and 47% of respondents believed race relations were worsening. In the 2024 Poll, 46% of respondents said the coalition government’s policies were increasing racial tensions. Therefore, when comparing the 2023 and 2024 Polls, race relations have improved.
  • Balancing data from the 2024 Poll: 10% of respondents in the 2024 Poll said the coalition government’s policies were decreasing racial tensions, and 37% said their policies are making no real difference. Combined, these figures total 47%, which is greater than the 46% of respondents who believed the government’s policies are increasing racial tensions.
• The broadcast, which opened with the ‘false’ statement ‘A Government that’s taking race relations backwards’, was politically biased against the coalition government. Twelve comments were made against the Treaty Principles Bill and only one was made in favour. Relevant statements mentioned by the complainant included (but were not limited to):
  • ‘A damning report by the Waitangi Tribunal…’: However, research by the Human Rights Commission found that only one third of New Zealanders trust the Waitangi Tribunal to provide accurate information on the Treaty/Te Tiriti. This should have been mentioned in the story.
  • ‘…ACT’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill would effectively rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi’: This is ‘disinformation’ that was not corrected by TVNZ.
  • ‘It is abundantly clear now to everyone that there is widespread Māori opposition to a number of government policies. Not just the proposed Treaty Principles Bill…’: Omitting the divergent views of Māori and effectively claiming ‘all Māori believe the same things’ falsely represents the views of a whole demographic, amounting to a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard.
  • Government’s policies described as:
    (i)  ‘divisive’: ‘To the contrary, most Kiwis support these policies…they are seen as more unifying than divisive by the average Kiwi.’
    (ii)  ‘detrimental to race relations’: However, the poll was about racial tensions today rather than race relations and ‘It is possible for racial TENSIONS to increase while simultaneously improving the prospects of better race RELATIONS.’
• The broadcast was unfair to the ACT Party and David Seymour (who brought forward the Bill).

The broadcaster’s response

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

Discrimination & Denigration

• The item comprised factual information and comment, analysis, or opinion. The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material constituting a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis, or opinion.  Also, no material in the item expressed a high level of condemnation of any section of the community.

Balance

• The coalition government’s policies regarding Māori, and the extent to which these policies may be impacting racial division in Aotearoa New Zealand, is a controversial issue of public importance to which the balance standard applies.
• The complainant listed statements made during the broadcast, and categorised and tallied them as being ‘for’ or ‘against’ the Treaty Principles Bill. However, balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch.  The balance standard does not require broadcasts to present equal amounts of support ‘for’ and ‘against’ any given matter. Instead, a broadcaster must sufficiently present significant viewpoints, which occurred in the item.
• Further, the Treaty Principles Bill ‘was only referred to by the Māori Affairs Correspondent and Political Editor when providing context and analysis, and by Christopher Luxon and Shane Jones when clarifying their parties’ stance’. Many of the comments the complainant suggested were ‘against’ the Bill were merely general statements about the coalition government and its policies pertaining to Māori.
• The Treaty Principles Bill was not ‘discussed’ in the broadcast, and the broadcast did not purport to provide detailed analysis of the Bill. Regardless, the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints on the Bill from other media coverage, including viewpoints in support of it.
• While TVNZ did not agree the item displayed bias against the government, they noted the balance standard does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias.

Accuracy

• The question in the 2024 Poll was not leading or loaded. It ‘did not contain any information which “led” respondents to any particular answer’.
• The complainant’s concern with the 2024 Poll is simply an expression of what he believes would be a suitable line of polling. Polling questions are a matter of editorial discretion, and the formal broadcasting complaints regime does not relate to the design of the poll (which was not discussed in the broadcast).
• The 2024 Poll and the 2023 Poll are ‘fundamentally incomparable’. The 2024 Poll specifically related to the coalition government’s policies. In contrast, the 2023 Poll took place in the leadup to a general election and asked about race relations generally. It therefore would have been misleading to claim that race relations have improved, as the complainant suggests.
• The claim that only 46% of respondents said racial tensions were increasing, and the broadcast failed to mention that 47% believed racial tensions were increasing or staying the same, is a matter that is not capable of being resolved by the formal complaints process.¹
• Out of the 12 comments highlighted by the complainant as being ‘against’ the Treaty Principles Bill, four were clearly distinguishable as analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply.
• The Waitangi Tribunal is a reputable source of information, and it is within the editorial discretion of 1News to report on information published by the Tribunal.
• The claim that the Treaty Principles Bill ‘would effectively rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi’ is a direct quote form the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ngā Mātāpono Report on the Treaty Principles Bill. It is not disinformation.
• ‘There is widespread opposition to many of the coalition government’s policies which affect Māori, not just the Treaty Principles Bill. This was made clear through the language used by those levelling the various pieces of criticism (which was generally of a non-specific nature). The report did not state or imply in any way that “all Māori believe the same things”…’.

Fairness

• TVNZ did not agree the ACT Party was treated unfairly.
• The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to politicians and public figures is higher than for someone unfamiliar with the media.
• The item contained ‘robust criticism levelled at the ACT Party and its Treaty Principles Bill’, but there was no criticism at a level that could reasonably be described as unfair.
• The segment showed a clip of David Seymour explaining why he was absent from the Koroneihana.
• Although the broadcast included some contextual information on the Treaty Principles Bill, and representatives of the National Party and New Zealand First were shown distancing themselves from the Bill, the segment did not discuss the Bill in depth. As such, it was not unfair to ACT that more comments in support of the Bill were not included.

Outcome: Decline to determine

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

[5]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises the Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

[6]  We consider it appropriate to exercise our section 11(b) discretion in this case. The Authority has explained the operation of the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards to the complainant on numerous occasions. In our view, every argument raised by the complainant under these standards can be dismissed on one of the following grounds which have been explained in previous decisions on Mr Neal’s complaints.

Specifically:

Balance

• The standard does not require significant viewpoints to be presented in a broadcast if ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other coverage’.² 
• The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance. Balance is not achieved with a stopwatch.³
• The standard does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias.⁴

Accuracy

• The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.⁵

Fairness

• The fairness standard does not address whether issues/facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed.⁶ It addresses the treatment of people or organisations taking part of referred to in a broadcast.
• It is well established that the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to public figures and politicians is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media.⁷ 

[7]  In addition:

• While the complainant also relied on the discrimination and denigration standard, we identified nothing in the broadcast which was likely to encourage discrimination against or denigration of any relevant section of the community.
• The concerns were adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision. On referral to the Authority, the complainant did not make any further arguments or offer any explanation why the circumstances of this complaint should lead to a different outcome.⁸
• Overall, the complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference which are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a formal complaints procedure (a concept also previously explained to Mr Neal).⁹

[8]  Finally, we note the Authority’s empowering legislation allows for costs to be awarded against a complainant where the complaint is ‘one that ought not to have been made’ (a description which, in the circumstances, we consider applicable to this complaint).¹⁰ The purpose of an order of costs is ordinarily to enable recovery of a contribution to the costs reasonably incurred during the complaints process.¹¹ While TVNZ did not seek an order of costs on this occasion, we note that if the complainant continues to submit complaints of a similar nature, it may be open to the broadcaster to request reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in dealing with them.¹²

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine the complaint under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
18 December 2024

Appendix

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

1  Geoff Neal’s initial complaint to TVNZ – 13 September 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 3 October 2024

3  Neal’s referral to the Authority – 3 October 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 6 November 2024

¹ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 5(c)
² See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2024-055 at [17] and Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [19].
³ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2024-055 at [14] and Neal and Discovery NZ Ltd & Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2024-016/017 at [29]
⁴ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2024-055 at [16]; Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-023 at [17]; and Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [19]
⁵ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-023 at [11] and [14]; Neal and Discovery NZ Ltd & Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2024-016/017 at [15]; and Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [21]
⁶ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2024-055 at [20]; and Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-014 at [29]
⁷ See, for example, Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2024-055 at [21]; Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-023 at [17]; Neal and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-014 at [30]; and Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [27]
⁸ For a similar decision, see Carson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2024-001 at [8]
⁹ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 5(c) and see, for example, Neal & Mundt and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-022 at [24]
¹⁰ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 16(2)(a)
¹¹ Golden and Radio New Zealand, Decision No. 2019-095 at [17]
¹² For a similar decision, see Lowes and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-004 at [11]