BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item reporting on the Government’s proposed reform of the Retirement Villages Act 2003. The complainant alleged the segment was unbalanced for not explaining changes to payments in connection with the sale of vacated units will only be applied to new retirement village residents, and not current residents. The Authority found the broadcast provided significant perspectives regarding the proposed reform and did not purport to provide a comprehensive examination of the Government’s proposed changes.  In addition, the standard allows for balance to be achieved over time within the period of current interest, and the broadcaster had covered the issue of impacts on existing residents in reports the next morning.

Not Upheld: Balance 

The broadcast

[1]  The 4 December 2025 broadcast of 1News included an item about some of the Government’s proposed reforms to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 (the Act). The 1News host introduced the segment:

Rules that govern retirement homes have been overhauled, aiming to reduce the amount of time some people have to wait to get money back when they leave the village. It's part of the long-signalled review of the Retirement Villages Act. Improvements include a process for former residents to get early access to funds when needed. After a unit has vacated, repaying funds no later than 12 months and stopping weekly fees immediately. And having interest paid after six months if a unit isn't resold. More than 53,000 Kiwis live in retirement homes, with 130 people choosing to move into a facility each week. The Government says these changes will provide greater protections for residents and whānau. But some smaller operators say it may run them into the ground. [1News reporter] has more.

[2]  The segment started with shots from a retirement village luncheon, attended by Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka. It included the perspective of two current residents and commentary from Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightston:

1News reporter:        The Government handing out a pre-Christmas treat as it announces changes to decades-old law.

Resident One:           I was encouraged that there’s something actually happening at long last.

Resident Two:           It was the unfairness of families waiting for their money and the old person dying and knowing it’s going to be difficult for their families.

1News reporter:        It comes after a lengthy review which included the public and industry consultation.

Wrightson:                 So, it's been five and a bit years’ work now, [working] through very carefully the competing tensions between the needs of the residents and the needs of the operators. They’re really complex issues. Some of them are more easily resolved than others.

1News reporter:        Most of the changes, including clarifying ownership of chattels, transparency of contracts and a new dispute resolution body, are all being widely encouraged, but there's one key area of contention – and that's around what happens to an unsold unit when somebody dies.

[3]  The 1News reporter focused the discussion on ‘one key area of contention’, being ‘what happens to an unsold unit when somebody dies’. It was noted, ‘Under new requirements, after six months village operators have to pay interest if the unit remains unlicensed and, after 12 months, operators have to buy it back.’ The segment continued with commentary from Potaka discussing ‘the right incentives’ to ensure people get paid out their funds.

[4]  The broadcast then included comments from three retirement village operators, as well as the Retirement Villages Association Executive Director Michelle Palmer, who discussed the financial concerns of ‘not-for-profit operators and small operators of retirement villages’ in relation to the reforms:

1News reporter:        While some operators like Ryman Healthcare and Oceania say they already return capital within a year, others like Somerset say it’s a double financial hit and may result in additional fees. A warning too, exemptions for smaller operators won’t protect them enough.

Palmer:                       A lot of not-for-profit operators and small operators of retirement villages have called me today and have expressed concern around what this means for them. And, to be honest, particularly small and medium operators and in the rural locations, the amount of money that they are going to have to draw down and credit or hold is going to jeopardise their existence.  

[5]  The segment concluded:

1News reporter:        The legislation still needs to go through Parliament with opportunity for more feedback, but there’s pressure to get this right given the country’s rising ageing population.

    […]

Resident Three:        I think what was announced was like our Christmas wish come true.  

1News reporter:        And will give them something extra to talk about this holiday season. [1News reporter], 1News.

1News host:               Tomorrow, Breakfast speaks with rest home residents about how the changes could affect those already living in a retirement village. That’s from 6am here on [TVNZ] 1.

The complaint

[6]  Colin Beardon complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  The item ‘failed to mention that the changes to payments [in connection with the sale of vacated units] will not be retrospective, meaning they will only apply to new contracts signed after the legislation’s implementation’.

b)  This omission gives ‘the false impression it applies to current residents when it does not’.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  Television New Zealand (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

a)  ‘We agree that reform to the Retirement Villages Act amounts to a “controversial issue of public importance”…’

b)  The item included ‘a range of significant viewpoints, through analysis from the report and comments’ from the retirement commissioner, associate housing minister, Retirement Villages Association executive director and ‘several retirement villages residents’.

c)  ‘... we note the story did not claim that payments would be retrospective. It did not go into that level of specificity regarding how the prospective legislation would be implemented.’

d)  ‘The story’s purpose was to summarise in broad terms the purpose of the reforms and highlight some of the concerns held by the retirement village sector.’

e)  ‘The story also noted that the Bill would be subject to further debate in Parliament, so viewers would have understood that it had not yet passed into law.’

[8]  In further comments on the complaint, TVNZ noted the following morning’s Breakfast programme discussed concerns with the 12-month time frame for capital sum repayment only being available to new residents and not current residents. This included comment from Retirement Village Residents Association President Brian Peat, saying:

…the major issue still […] is the repayment capital sum. It’s been identified at 12 months at the moment, and that’s a positive step; there’s a timeframe. However, the 12-month time frame will only apply to new residents coming into villages; it will not apply to existing residents, and that is completely unfair. Because we’ll have a two-tier system, and that is just not on, and the 56,000 residents currently in villages will not see the benefit of the changes.

[9]  TVNZ also said, ‘[the] fact that the current proposals do not encompass existing retirement home residents was then conveyed in news items during both the regular 6.30am and 7am bulletins within Breakfast, each also including an excerpt of Brian Peat’s perspective from the interview.’

The standard

[10]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.² The standard states:³

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.

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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁴

Balance

[13]  Several criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs, and factual programmes which discuss a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.⁵

[14]  An issue of public importance is something that would have significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public. A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion, or about which there has been ongoing public debate.⁶

[15]  The broadcast reported on proposed changes to the Act. TVNZ accepted this constituted a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied, and we agree.

[16]  We also agree the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to include significant viewpoints on the reforms. Perspectives were included from Wrightson, Potaka, Palmer, three retirement village operators and three current retirement village residents.

[17]  The complainant’s concern is the broadcast did not mention ‘the changes to payments will not be retrospective, meaning they will only apply to new contracts signed after the legislation’s implementation.’

[18]  A key consideration, under the balance standard, is what the audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.⁷  

[19]  This broadcast did not purport to provide a comprehensive examination of the Government’s proposed changes to the Act. It reported key areas of change and controversy following the Government’s announcement earlier that day.⁸ The audience would not have expected, and broadcasters are not obliged to include, all potential perspectives in such a broadcast. The standard requires broadcasters to present significant viewpoints on such issues ‘either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest’, allowing for balance to be achieved over time.⁹

[20]  As the proposed reforms had just been announced, the period of current interest was ongoing. Consistent with this, the broadcast signalled information about ‘how the changes could affect those already living in a retirement village’ would be discussed the next morning. The following morning’s Breakfast programme and news bulletins then addressed issues associated with the capital sum repayment timeframe not applying to current residents. This, together with ongoing media coverage as the reforms progressed, would mitigate any risk of viewers being misled by the 4 December broadcast.

[21]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the balance standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

John Gillespie
Acting Chair
28 April 2026  

  
Appendix

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

1  Beardon’s original complaint – 5 December 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 16 January 2026

3  Beardon’s referral to the Authority – 19 January 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 30 January 2026

5  Beardon’s further comments – 12 February 2026

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 2 March 2026

7  Beardon’s confirmation of no further comments – 4 March 2026

¹ Susie Staley declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Commentary, Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ As above
⁷ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
⁸ New Zealand Government | Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa (4 December 2025) "Retirement village rule changes strengthen rights" <beehive.govt.nz>
⁹ Guildeline 5.2: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14