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 comments made by the presenter of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding a suggestion by a representative of The New Zealand Initiative that New Zealand’s car seat regulations should be relaxed to increase birth rates (with reference to a United States study, ‘Car Seats as Contraception’). The presenter said, ‘And here’s the really challenging thing. Car seat regulations, they reckon might save about 60 children from dying in car crashes in a year across the [United] States, but they stop 8,000 families from having babies. So, you save 60, but you don’t have another 8,000. Maybe you’re better off having the 8,000 and losing the 60 – hey, I said it was going to challenge you.’ The complaint was that the presenter’s tone and comment was ‘appalling’ and suggested ‘losing 60 kids was not a bad deal’. The Authority found the presenter’s comments were unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience in the context of audience expectations of Newstalk ZB and this presenter, and given the presenter acknowledged several times the ideas discussed were ‘challenging’.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  During Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive, broadcast at 5.30pm on 22 October 2024, presenter Heather du Plessis-Allan commented on a 2020 United States (US) study “Car Seats as Contraception”:¹

Here's an idea. Listen, this challenged me when I read this. Here’s an idea that might challenge you about what you think. We've got a fertility problem in this country, right? Not enough of us are having babies, which means that we don't have enough workers coming through to pay the taxes to look after the rest of us when we get old, which basically means in the end, we're not going to be able to pay for the pension and the health care that old people need. Blah, blah, blah.

So basically, what we need to do is we need to get on having kids. But how? How does the state - the state needs us to have kids, but how does the state encourage us to have kids? Right, you can't pay people to have babies. And we already subsidise early childhood education. So, what do you do?

[A representative] from the New Zealand Initiative reckons maybe we need to change the car seat rules. Maybe we shouldn't be forcing parents to strap their kids into child seats until they're seven. And he points to a study [which looked] at the effects of car safety seat regulation in the US. Because the thing there is, different states have different rules around when you need to, you know, strap the kids in and stuff. And in states where kids must be in child seats, basically families stop at two kids. They don't have any more kids than that. Because you can't really fit three car seats in the back of your car, right. You’ve got to get a bigger car and stuff like that. But in the states where they don't have the rules, families keep having kids. So maybe, in order to encourage people to have more kids, we need to relax the rules around strapping them in. And here's the really challenging thing. Car seat regulations, they reckon, might save about 60 children from dying in car crashes in a year across the States, but they stop 8,000 families from having babies. So, you save 60, but you don't have another 8,000. Maybe you're better off having the 8,000 and losing the 60 – hey, I said it was going to challenge you.

The complaint

[2]  The complainant considered the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis that:

• The presenter’s comment ‘you would lose 60 kids and gain 8,000 kids’ was an ‘appalling statement to make’ and said in ‘such a tone that losing 60 kids was not a bad deal’.
• The complainant noted the broadcast aired at a time when many parents would be driving with children in the car; the complainant’s son was in the car at the time and was quite ‘taken aback’ by the broadcast.
• The programme should have come with an advisory.
• Under the Authority’s ‘classifications and time band standards’, the station should have ‘moderated their content at a time when children are most likely to be listening’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

• Newstalk ZB’s target audience is adults aged 40-59, and Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive is known for its robust discussion and her assertive, opinionated style. The audience expects such commentary, and du Plessis-Allan’s approach has been recognised in previous Authority decisions.
• While the complainant found the discussion ‘appalling’, NZME did not believe it would have disproportionately offended or distressed listeners.
• du Plessis-Allan presented the findings of the report factually, noting her initial challenges with them. She posed a thought-provoking question regarding the balance between preventing car crash fatalities and declining birth rates.
• NZME disagreed the presenter minimised the loss of children or suggested ‘60 kids hardly matter’.

The standard

[4]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard² is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.³ The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

Our analysis

[5]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[6]  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 – which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of ideas and opinions, and the audience’s right to receive those – against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the level of harm justifies us placing a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.⁴

[7]  Context is crucial in assessing potential harm under the offensive and disturbing content standard. Relevant contextual factors in this case include:

• Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive is a live radio show focussed on news and the presenter’s opinions on current affairs.⁵
• It airs on Newstalk ZB, an adult-targeted radio station for 40–59-year-olds.
• There are no classifications or timebands on radio, although certain times are recognised to be children’s normally accepted listening times (usually up until 8.30pm, especially before school and after school, and on weekends and public holidays).⁶ Children may have been listening at the time of this broadcast at approximately 5.30pm.
• Audiences of Newstalk ZB expect to be exposed to controversial or unpopular points of view, in the interests of generating robust discussion and debate.
• du Plessis-Allan is known for holding strong, provocative opinions, and described as “assertive, direct and opinionated” with a “straight down the middle approach”.⁷
• In this broadcast, the presenter presented a factual summary of the study, and the suggestion of The New Zealand Initiative to relax car seat regulations, in the context of New Zealand’s declining birth rate.
• The presenter clearly signalled upfront the ideas about to be discussed ‘challenged’ her and would be challenging for listeners to think about.
• The presenter’s tone was matter-of-fact and moderate throughout.

[8]  We acknowledge the complainant was upset by du Plessis-Allan’s comment, interpreting the presenter’s proposition as meaning ‘kids hardly matter’ and that it is ‘ok for kids to die for the better good of population growth’.

[9]  However, while the proposition of ‘losing 60’ children may have been confronting or seen as offensive, particularly to those with children, in the above context we do not consider the discussion went beyond audience expectations of this radio station and presenter. Nor do we consider it would have disproportionately offended or distressed the audience (including any children who happened to be listening), or seriously violated community standards of taste and decency, in the context.

[10]  du Plessis-Allan clearly recognised several times the ideas arising from the study (and related suggestions from The New Zealand Initiative) were ‘challenging’ and ‘challenged’ her. Framing the topic in this way, alongside the presenter’s introductory comments about fertility rates and the suggestion of relaxing car seat regulations, was sufficient in our view to signpost the topic and act as an advisory for the audience that the ideas might be ‘challenging’ for them – at which point they could decide whether to continue listening. The standard does not prevent the discussion of challenging ideas, and we do not think the choice of topic in itself – in the matter-of-fact way it was presented – required a more targeted or explicit audience advisory under the standard,⁸ or was so challenging that it ought not be raised on air at this time of the day. 

[11]  du Plessis-Allan highlighted a study and related calls by The New Zealand Initiative to relax car seat regulations in New Zealand in the interests of increasing birth rates. The nature and tone of the discussion would not have, in our view, unduly alarmed or distressed child listeners. It was clearly intended to be thought-provoking for the programme’s adult target audience – rather than seriously suggesting it was ‘okay’ or ‘not a big deal’ for 60 children to lose their lives, which could reasonably be explained to any children ‘taken aback’ by it.

[12]  In these circumstances, we do not consider the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard or caused harm justifying regulatory intervention or limiting freedom of expression.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
12 February 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Jagmohan Singh’s formal complaint – 22 October 2024

2  NZME’s response to the complaint – 19 November 2024

3  Singh’s referral to the Authority – 19 November 2024

4  NZME’s further comments – 5 December 2024

5  Singh’s final comments – 6 December 2024

6  NZME’s confirmation of no further comment – 6 December 2024

¹ Jordan Nickerson and David Solomon “Car Seats as Contraception” (2024) 67(3) JLE 517
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ See, for example, Tamihere and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-095
⁶ Guidelines 2.1 and 2.12, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁷ For example, Newton-Wade & Nick Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-116; Newstalk ZB “Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive” (accessed 3 September 2024) <newstalkzb.co.nz>
⁸ Guideline 1.7 states an appropriate advisory should be broadcast before content that is likely to be outside audience expectations, disturb children or offend or disturb a significant section of the audience.