BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reporting on then Leader of the Opposition and National Party leader Hon Simon Bridges travelling from Tauranga to Wellington during COVID-19 Level 4 lockdown breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that the item, which was focussed on MPs breaking lockdown rules, was misleading in putting Mr Bridges in that category.  The Authority acknowledged that, during the time of the broadcast, there was confusion surrounding the scope of the rules, particularly as to what constituted an essential service. However, the broadcaster had access to information suggesting Mr Bridges was engaged in an ‘essential service’ and, given the level of harm potentially caused by portraying a senior Member of Parliament as breaking lockdown rules, had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that this particular item did not mislead the public.

Upheld: Accuracy

No Order

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was because, although the woman who had made the HDC complaint could disclose this to others, and the HDC does not have the power to order name suppression, the HDC process is otherwise treated as a confidential process. The complainant could reasonably expect the complaint would not be disclosed to a national audience without any prior warning or a chance to respond. Removing the complainant’s name from the item would not have detracted from the public interest in the story overall.

Upheld: Fairness, Privacy. Order: Section 16(1) - $3,450 legal costs to complainant

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about three RNZ broadcasts regarding political commentator Matthew Hooton. Two items on 21 and 22 May 2020 comprised interviews with Mr Hooton about the National Party leadership contest at that time, following which an item on 24 May 2020 discussed the emergence of Mr Hooton’s conflict of interest in this regard. The complaint was the 21 and 22 May items failed to disclose the conflict and the 24 May item failed to address it adequately. The Authority did not consider the broadcasts breached the accuracy standard, noting Mr Hooton disclosed his friendship with Todd Muller (National Party) in the 21 May item and accepted he had ‘nailed his colours’ to the Muller mast in the 22 May item. The conflict of interest generated by his subsequent engagement by Todd Muller did not arise until after these broadcasts. The nature and disclosure of his conflict was then discussed at length in the 24 May item once the details had emerged. Regarding balance, the Authority was satisfied significant points of view were adequately presented. Overall, the Authority did not find actual or potential harm at a level that justified regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness

The Authority has upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks in response to a breach of the alcohol standard during The Morning Rumble was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the item, which focussed on an interviewee’s ability to ‘down’ alcohol at a rapid rate, amounted to alcohol promotion that was socially irresponsible. While the broadcaster had apologised to the complainant, and communicated the importance of the alcohol standard internally to content directors of The Rock FM, the Authority found that this was insufficient to remedy the harm caused by the broadcast.

Upheld: Alcohol (action taken)

Orders: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $1,000 costs to the Crown

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview was biased and unfair, and breached the fairness and balance standards. The Authority found the robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected of a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election. Regarding balance, the Authority did not consider controversial issues of public importance were ‘discussed’ for the purposes of this standard, with one exception in respect of which Mr Peters briefly presented his views. The Authority also noted Mr Peters had an opportunity to present his views on the other topics raised during the interview and the issues were otherwise widely covered in other broadcasts and media - meaning a range of viewpoints were publicly available.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about references to Advance NZ/New Zealand Public Party co-leader Billy Te Kahika spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, during a panel discussion on Te Ao with Moana. The episode included two online panel discussions about the issue of misinformation on social media and its implications for Māori in particular. Noting that two other episodes of the programme broadcast in the preceding weeks had allowed considerable time to Mr Te Kahika to put forward his position on these issues, the Authority did not find any breach of the balance, accuracy or fairness standards.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers. However, in the context of the programme as a whole – a documentary depicting New Zealanders’ experiences in World War I, which carried public interest – the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for finding the broadcast encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, women as a section of the community. The Authority noted that occupation is not a recognised ground for discrimination, so sex workers did not amount to a relevant section of the community for the purposes of the standard.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the host’s language and approach during an interview broadcast on Magic Afternoons with Sean Plunket. Mr Plunket interviewed the Chief Executive of Universities New Zealand about the charging of holding fees for accommodation at university halls of residence during the COVID-19 lockdown period. During the interview Mr Plunket appeared increasingly frustrated and hung up on the interviewee after using the phrase, ‘Jesus Christ’. Noting it has previously determined that the use of variations of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ as exclamations or expressions of frustration or surprise did not threaten community standards, the Authority did not find any breach of the good taste and decency standard in this case. It also found that, in the context of robust questioning on a topic of significant public interest, Mr Plunket’s manner and approach, although it was at times rude and overly forceful, did not reach the threshold for finding a breach of the good taste and decency standard or justifying regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of the talkback programme Dasam Granth Da Sach breached the accuracy standard. The host, while engaged in discussion with a caller, had made statements that the complainant alleged were unsubstantiated comments about a historical event that had the potential for disrupting harmony between the Sikh and the Hindu communities. The Authority found that the accuracy standard did not apply in this instance as the programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme and the relevant statements were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party that included very brief footage of a young person using a hand-held grinder without a guard. The complaint was that this was contrary to health and safety guidelines and promoted poor industrial practice. Noting the clip was fleeting and peripheral to the overall nature and purpose of the advertisement, the Authority did not find any breach of broadcasting standards. No actual or potential harm was caused in terms of the objectives of the applicable standards that outweighed the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election.

Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Codes (Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy)