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 an interview on Morning Report with the new leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon MP breached the discrimination and denigration standard. During the interview, Luxon was asked questions around his Christian beliefs and the impact of these beliefs on his political views on abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. The Authority was satisfied the interview did not contain anything that encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, people of Christian faith.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

Broadcast

[1]  On 1 December 2021 on RNZ National’s Morning Report, Susie Ferguson interviewed the new leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon MP. They discussed a number of topics, including Luxon’s policies on COVID-19 and housing, his Christian beliefs, and his intended party composition. The discussion around Luxon’s Christian beliefs began as follows:

Ferguson:      Let's talk about Christianity. You're a Pentecostal Christian?

Luxon:            No, I'm actually a Christian. And that just means it's a personal faith, so I haven't been to a church for like –

Ferguson:      So –

Luxon:            No I really want explain it because I know -

Ferguson:      Whereabouts do you go to worship?

Luxon:            I don't. I actually haven't been to a church for five years or regular church for five years. And really, what my faith is about is fundamentally, you know, it's – and I get it, people want to use my faith and represent it in weird and interesting ways and use it negatively against me. And I've talked about it before because it is often misrepresented and labelled.

Ferguson:      But do you believe in a literal translation of the Bible, of miracles, of speaking in tongues?

Luxon:            Well, I believe in – you know, my faith is, yeah, well, I've, you know, the Bible guides me in terms of my faith, and it gives me purpose and it puts me in the context of something bigger than myself -

Ferguson:      But specifically on those things. Do you believe in that?

Luxon:            Look, I'm not going to talk about that because I know you want to misrepresent that.

Ferguson:      No, I don't want to misrepresent it. I'm curious because I don't understand fully the part that your religion plays. And that's why I'm asking you, do you believe in those kinds of things?

Luxon:            Well, all I can say is my faith is personal. It gives me purpose. It gives me something bigger than myself. And importantly, it's completely separate from the state, and we have that for very good reasons here in New Zealand. I'm a member of Parliament and a leader of a party, and that represents all people of all faiths, not one group, not one interest. And I think, you know, people of faith here in New Zealand, that's a positive thing.

[2]  Ferguson went on to ask Luxon about his views on abortion and euthanasia:

Ferguson:      You have said in the past, no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others.

Luxon:            Absolutely.

Ferguson:      You're anti-abortion, you're anti-euthanasia. Those are both votes that you have – certainly, the euthanasia vote you cast while you have been an MP – didn't you force your beliefs on people when you voted to scrap safe spaces outside abortion clinics?

Luxon:            So just so we're clear on that one. In the first reading, there was an issue about the Bill of Rights, about people's ability and freedoms to protest. The Attorney-General found that the Bill in the first reading was contravening that, it was fixed up in the select committee process as I talked about earlier and I actually supported that in the second reading.

[3]  Ferguson also asked Luxon about his views on same-sex marriage, to which he responded he was ‘completely supportive’ and would have voted to pass the legislation legalising it if he had been an MP at the time.

The complaint

[4]  Alan Thorp complained that Ferguson’s questions were discriminatory towards Christians and denigrating to Luxon, in breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Thorp stated:

• Ferguson’s questions were based on assumption and bias against the Christian faith.
• ‘If the interviewer had asked the same questions on the basis of ethnicity it would be outrageous, or even another religious set of beliefs that are not Christian, it would be outrageous.’
• The broadcaster should make an on-air apology to Luxon and all New Zealanders who hold a faith belief.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) acknowledged the complainant’s concerns but did not uphold the complaint on the basis that:

• ‘RNZ interviews politicians and public figures in the public interest.’
• ‘Mr Luxon has made several speeches in parliament and in the media about his faith. This puts the matter in the public sphere. He has also discussed the connection between faith and politics and he appears to welcome questions on this topic from journalists. Mr Luxon is free to refuse to answer questions about religion or any other personal matter if he chooses.’
• A high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice and nastiness, is necessary to conclude that the discrimination and denigration standard has been breached, and it did not accept that the questions in the broadcast reached this threshold.

The standard

[6]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief. It protects sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and fosters a community commitment to equality.²

[7]  ‘Denigration’ is defined as devaluing the reputation of a particular section of the community. ‘Discrimination’ is defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment.³ 

Our analysis

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

[9]  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 reasonable and justified.⁴

[10]  The discrimination and denigration standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.⁵ We are satisfied that people of Christian faith constitute a recognised section of the community for the purposes of this standard. The standard does not apply however to Luxon as an individual.

[11]  We acknowledge the complainant found the line of questioning in the interview in relation to Luxon’s Christian beliefs offensive. However, comments will not breach the standard simply because they are critical of a particular group or because they offend people.⁶ The importance of freedom of expression means that a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a breach of the standard.⁷ We do not accept the questions carried this high level of condemnation.

[12]  In our view, while it was a robust and probing interview, Ferguson’s questions were not malicious or derisive in nature towards Christians. It was clear that the intention behind the questions was to explore the impact of Luxon’s beliefs on his political views on important issues such as abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. This is a legitimate topic to discuss with an incoming Opposition leader, and a matter of significant public interest.

[13]  For these reasons, we are satisfied that the interview did not contain anything that encouraged discrimination against, or the denigration of, Christians.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
7 March 2022

Appendix

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

1  Alan Thorp’s formal complaint to RNZ – 1 December 2021

2  RNZ’s response to complaint – 23 December 2021

3  Thorp’s referral to the Authority – 23 December 2021

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 22 February 2022

¹ Standard 6 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
³ Guideline 6a
⁴ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁵ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
⁶ As above
⁷ Guideline 6b