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 two RNZ broadcasts, a week apart — Morning Report and The Detail — about New Zealand’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines were unbalanced and inaccurate. The Authority found that any inaccuracies regarding Canada’s alcohol guidelines were not material in the context of the overall broadcasts. With respect to balance, the Authority found the Morning Report broadcast was clearly signalled as focussing on one aspect of the much larger, complex debate on alcohol policy. Although the complainant was mentioned once during Morning Report, in the context the audience would not have expected a countering viewpoint to be presented from the complainant or the industry. The Detail carried significant public interest and sufficiently alerted listeners to alternative perspectives through a comment from the Executive Director of the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council and the host’s use of ‘devil’s advocate’ questioning.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcasts

Morning Report

[1]  The 14 July 2025 broadcast of Morning Report featured an interview, lasting approximately four minutes, with investigative journalist Guyon Espiner. The item was introduced:

The official guidance on low-risk drinking doesn’t reflect modern scientific evidence and underestimates the health risks of alcohol, according to Health New Zealand documents released to RNZ. New Zealand’s drinking guidelines say that to stay low-risk, men should have no more than 15 drinks per week and women no more than 10. But Health New Zealand documents revealed to RNZ under the Official Information Act say the guidelines are out of date. Guyon Espiner has been investigating and joins us now.

[2]  The Morning Report co-host first asked, ‘What’s Health NZ saying about these guidelines?’ Espiner responded:

Yeah, well, they’re saying that these are written in 2011 — so they’re what, nearly 15 years old now. And as you say, 15 standard drinks a week for men, 10 for women, with a couple of days off. So, three standard drinks per day for men and two for women, with a few days off during the week. 

But look, since 2011, since these were written, a lot more evidence has emerged about the health risks of alcohol, including even drinking at moderate levels. It’s now linked to seven different types of cancer. As this evidence has emerged, other countries have significantly reduced the amount of alcohol they say can be drunk while, you know, not exposing yourself to significant health risk. Australia reduced this down to 10 drinks a week for men and women. Canada says to stay low-risk you should consume no more than two drinks a week. 

So, look, we got this OIA material from Health New Zealand. It includes a memo from […], who has a senior position there. He says that the current advice does not reflect the latest scientific evidence, meaning that it understates the health risks from alcohol. He points out UK moved in 2016 to reduce theirs, Australia in 2020 and Canada in 2023, resulting in much lower recommended drinking limits. And so, this documentation says that New Zealand advice is complex and out of step with other countries. And that a review is necessary to update and to modernise these advice levels to ensure the advice is clear, inclusive, and based on the most up-to-date evidence. 

[3]  The co-host then asked Espiner whether ‘the guidelines [are] actually going to be reviewed’:

Well, that’s the interesting bit, I suppose, in some ways. These documents show that Health New Zealand did start a review. In fact, they’ve spent more than $130,000 getting experts at Massey University to work on an initial phase, but then the Ministry of Health has come in and intervened and told them to stop this review. 

Now, we’ve reported this before, that this came after an alcohol lobbyist complained to […], who’s a general manager with the Ministry of Health’s public health agencies. It was the Brewers Association. They complained to [the Health NZ general manager] that Health New Zealand websites, alcohol.org, had these references to a review of the drinking guidelines and also linked to that Canada advice that I was talking about. After a couple of complaints, [the general manager] intervened and told Health New Zealand to take the material down from the website and said that this work would now be paused. 

Now, [the general manager] says that he intervened to clear confusion about whether it was Health New Zealand or the Ministry of Health who should manage these guidelines. He said it would be the Ministry for Health now and that the work was now on hold while it considered its priorities.

But I did talk to the Associate Professor Andy Towers, who’s co-director of Mental Health and Addiction at Massey. Now, he worked on the initial stages of that review, and he said, look, we’ve set these guidelines a lot higher than other countries, and it will mean that we’re going to have alcohol-related harm occurring across the [country], and he says that that will flow through into hospitals and that we really need to update these guidelines and give people better advice. 

The Detail

[4]  A week later, the 21 July 2025 broadcast of The Detail included two interviews: one with Espiner, and another with Associate Professor Towers. It was introduced:

The Detail host:         Today on The Detail: how New Zealand’s outdated alcohol guidelines put us out of step with modern research…

Espiner:                     The alcohol guidelines are interesting, aren’t they? Because everyone wants to know whether or not the amount that they’re drinking is going to be safe or not. 

The Detail host:         …whether alcohol lobbyists have a place in shaping our health policy…

Towers:                      It’s very, very clear that you don’t invite the wolf into the hen house. 

The Detail host:         …and how those lobbyists played a role in putting a review of the guidelines on hold.

Espiner:                     We, at the moment, are sticking with these, what, nearly 15-year-old guidelines and the review of that has been paused. 

[5]  The interview with Espiner comprised the first 10 minutes of the broadcast. He first outlined New Zealand’s current alcohol guidelines:

Espiner:                     So, our guidelines say that men should have a maximum of 15 standard drinks a week, and that includes two alcohol-free days a week. So, no more than three a day, over five days, and two days off the booze completely. And for women, it maxes out at 10. So, two standard drinks a day for five days. That’s for a maximum, to keep yourself in the low-risk drinking guidelines. But, you know, Australia, the UK have been considerably less than us, and Canada too, although there’s some debate about what’s official and what’s not official in the Canadian sphere. But they certainly had a substance and health advisory group that said it should be no more than two standard drinks a week in Canada. 

The Detail host:         For men and for women? 

Espiner:                     For men and for women, yeah. 

The Detail host:         That’s a huge difference. 

Espiner:                     It is, isn’t it? 

[6]  Espiner then explained how documents obtained from Health New Zealand through the Official Information Act indicate that ‘these guidelines are out of date: they’re written in 2011, there’s a lot more evidence that’s emerged since then, and other countries have reduced them [their alcohol guidelines] significantly below New Zealand. We need them updated and we need them reviewed’.

[7]  The broadcast continued:

The Detail host:         But Te Whatu Ora | Health NZ and the Ministry of Health are not on the same page. We’ll come back to the new research soon, but first, the review of these guidelines. They were started by the former Health Promotion Agency and continued by Health NZ after the 2022 health reforms. 

Espiner:                     The complication is that the Ministry of Health has come in over the top of that and said, actually, these are our guidelines, we own — we kind of own them, we want to control this and we’re putting a pause on that work. What we got was emails released under the Official Information Act which showed that a lobbyist with the Brewers Association had emailed [the general manager], who’s with the Ministry of Health, and said ‘hey, what’s this about a review of the drinking guidelines on a Health New Zealand website’. He didn’t like the fact that it linked also to the Canadian guidelines, and it had a link to significant reductions in Canada’s advice. And then he emailed again complaining that the material was still up there. And [the Ministry of Health general manager] went to Health New Zealand and basically said, ‘what’s this doing there?’ He looked into it, and he got it taken down, and got that review put on hold. He's saying, ‘look, this wasn’t because the alcohol industry asked me to, this was because it was pointed out to me by the alcohol industry, but I wanted to clear up confusion about whether the Ministry of Health or Health New Zealand should own these guidelines’. And then he put it on pause saying that they had potentially had greater priorities. 

The Detail host:         We asked the Ministry of Health what was going on. They told us that they understand Health NZ is still doing some work on the review and both organisations are working together on potential next steps… But Guyon says it’s clear the alcohol lobby has the ministry’s ear. 

Espiner:                     It certainly does show that they’re listening to the alcohol industry who are pretty exercised about this, because as you can imagine, this could have a significant effect on sales if people did take this advice and did drink significantly less. 

The Detail host:         And this wasn’t the only instance that you saw of the Ministry of Health meeting with alcohol lobbyists, right? 

Espiner:                     The material I’ve got shows that, yes, they’ve had a lot of meetings, a lot of email contact — in fact, one looked like a regular meeting between alcohol lobbyists and Ministry of Health staff.

[8]  Espiner proceeded to discuss:

• how the Ministry of Health have ‘shared with the alcohol industry their plans on how they will combat foetal alcohol spectrum disorder’, and ‘plans about how they might spend the alcohol levy’; and
• whether the alcohol industry should ‘have a role in shaping public health policy’ — which, Espiner said he ‘[doesn’t] have a view on’, but he ‘tease[d] out the elements of the debate’.

[9]  When asked about the history of the alcohol industry’s ‘input in our laws’, Espiner used pregnancy warning labels as an example: ‘The alcohol industry fought that for 20 years and it was only in 2023 that it became mandatory to have those little cross[es] through with the pregnant belly on’. Cancer warning labels were then discussed:

The Detail host:                     Guyon’s just written another article about how Ireland is now mandating cancer warning labels on alcohol starting next year. 

…

Espiner:                                 You can bet your bottom dollar there will be a lot of interest from the alcohol lobby in New Zealand, and you can imagine that there will a considerable pushback if a government was to go down that track in New Zealand. 

The Detail host:                     The pushback has already started. 

Morning Report host:           Here in New Zealand, the industry lobby group, the Alcoholic Beverages Council, doesn’t want the cancer warning labels in New Zealand. 

NZABC Exec. Director:        There’s a lot more to it than that. I think if we actually have a look at the background to it — I mean, the level of risk of cancer associated with alcohol — it’s very complex. It depends on the amount consumed, the drinking patterns, lifestyle choice, exercise, diet, genetic factors and more. There is a level of complexity, I think, and it’s difficult to put on a label. 

The Detail host:                     That’s the Executive Director of New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council … talking to RNZ's Morning Report. She says the best place to get information on any health concerns is from your doctor. 

[10]  The remaining 13 minutes of the broadcast were an interview with Associate Professor Towers, who co-directs Massey’s Mental Health Addiction training programme and is working on the review of New Zealand’s alcohol guidelines. The conversation canvassed the following areas:

• The harms of drinking alcohol: ‘Alcohol is like any other drug. It is foreign to our system and when you put alcohol in your body, it interferes with all of the health mechanisms, the health organs, and all the health systems. So, it is quite damaging.’
• How scientific understanding of alcohol’s risks has changed in the last 20 years: ‘A whole bunch of researchers around the world looked back on the studies and said, actually, there are some fundamental errors with the way they did this’. As the host of The Detail said, ‘it became clear that [the research] has been interpreted wrongly to conclude that moderate drinking was good for you’.
• The need for harm reduction: ‘Prohibition doesn’t work. We know that it doesn’t work for anything — for alcohol, for other drugs, for sugar. It just makes the issues worse,’ hence ‘why national low-risk drinking advice is important’.

[11]  The conversation turned to alcohol lobbying:

The Detail host:         Do you feel comfortable knowing how much contact there is between the alcohol lobby and our policymakers? 

Towers:                      It’s really concerning to see over the past five-to-ten years, more and more reporting of the engagement of alcohol lobby with politicians, with policy makers — and lately more concerning to see it go through to the area of ministries. It’s very, very clear that you don’t invite the wolf into the hen house. Unfortunately, alcohol industry makes money based on alcohol use and resulting alcohol harms. And in a space where we are trying to reduce the harmful use of alcohol and reduce those harms for society and for communities, there is no space for the alcohol industry there. They do not get to sit at the table. Just as you wouldn’t invite an arms manufacturer to the table to talk about cessation of violence. Just as wouldn’t you invite the tobacco industry to talk about how to reduce the use of cigarettes. It is inappropriate for the alcohol industry to have anything to do with alcohol-related harm policies. 

The Detail host:         Is there not an argument that… the arms manufacturer knows better than — or, you know, the tobacco companies — know better than anyone else how their products work, and maybe how to reduce the harm from their products?

Towers:                      It seems natural to think that if we’re going to solve issues like alcohol-related harms that we should have everyone around the table, and it seems like a good step forward. But what we’ve seen time and time again, both in Aotearoa and internationally, is that the alcohol industry is in the same space as the tobacco industry was about 50 years ago. So, they are using the same tactics, the same techniques. They are fighting the evidence, they are polluting research to say … there are no harms of alcohol, or all those harms are overstated and there are actually benefits of alcohol use. And we know that’s not the case. So, we know they’re not acting in good faith. 

But also, when they have been around the table while they are trying to be in this space, they are advocating for solutions that don’t actually solve the major issue. So, what they tend to do is promote ideas of personal responsibility around drinking. And again, that might sound [like a] natural thing to talk about. But what we know is that if you have environments that are alcogenic — there’s a hell of a lot of easy access to alcohol use; it’s cheap, it’s available, it’s in our supermarkets — we know that alcohol use will go up and alcohol-related harms also go up. So, the alcohol industry is showing time and time again they are not interested in changing their behaviour. They want to change other people’s behaviour. They want to continue with this, even though we know the research says very, very clearly what they’re advocating for does not work. They keep advocating for that saying it’s not our problem, it’s about the drinker. And we’re saying, no it’s not. You are part of the problem as well. I’m paid not by the alcohol industry. 

I’m not paid to— by someone else to find that alcohol is bad. I’m paid by the government through the university to do evidence-based research. So, whether I find that alcohol’s good or alcohol’s bad or alcohol is indifferent, I still get paid. I don’t have a vested interest here. The alcohol industry does. 

The Detail host:         Can you give me some examples, too, of instances where their lobbying has had an impact on our policy? 

Towers:                      Look, one of the problems with alcohol lobbying is that you can’t, you can’t identify person X speaking to politician Y and therefore legislation Z changes ... But what you can see is that when we are approaching things like the local alcohol policies lapse. So, when that was introduced over a decade ago, the local policies were meant to provide communities with the ability to reduce alcohol-related harms.

…

Unfortunately, what we saw was that the required evidence to identify harms in communities, it was impossible to provide because for some reason, the legislators, the policymakers had decided that a certain threshold of evidence was required and that was not in keeping with anything that any researcher that I know thought was sensible... 

And … time and time and time again local alcohol policies were not making it through the system. They were not enacted because the evidence was too high, which is ridiculous, and alcohol industry — which has deep pockets — just took people to court. They took cities and towns to court. And ultimately, we can’t win when it’s a fight about money. And researchers, anyone paid by government, local government, national government, we don’t have any money. And it’s an uneven playing field. 

I mean, even the current reporting by RNZ that the alcohol industry is now raising concerns that the government is reviewing the low-risk advice, and that they weren’t included in anything. And so now, suddenly, we’re seeing people say, oh, no, no, we need to stop this process. I didn’t ask to stop the process. I don’t know of any public health person around the country or alcohol harms person around the country in this space who would want to stop a review of low-risk alcohol use advice because, you know, it’s well past due. So, it’s very, very unclear who made the call to create this as a contentious space. It’s not contentious.

[12]  Finally, Towers was asked, ‘How are we doing compared to other countries, both on our policy and on our outcomes?’: 

Well, firstly, Aotearoa basically has a drinking problem. Our research shows really, really clearly that… more Kiwis drink than in many other countries… And so, we currently have quite a high level of alcohol use and therefore a high amount of alcohol harm — in our communities, for our economy, for the health system. That kind of puts us above the average in the OECD... And unfortunately, because we’re in a space where high levels of alcohol use are normal, it’s very, very hard to get people in the community to realise this isn’t normal, this isn’t okay…

In terms of alcohol, I mean, we’re not necessarily drastically different in terms of the types of outcomes that are seen in other countries. Other countries are grappling with the same issue and also the alcohol industry at the same time. Where I think we’re behind is fundamentally we’ve seen other countries do the small things, and one of those small things is review our low-risk alcohol use advice. I mean that’s a small thing. It’s one thing. But if we’re not even doing the small things then it says very, very clearly, we don’t have a system that cares about alcohol use. 

The complaint

[13]  The Brewers Association of New Zealand Inc (Brewers Association) complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

Balance

a)  When covering ‘alcohol policy, including the role of industry stakeholders’, RNZ ‘has consistently failed to present alternative viewpoints or seek comment from the Brewers Association’ — ‘a central party to many of the issues discussed’ — or from others in the industry, such as the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council.

i)  ‘Across several stories referencing Official Information Act (OIA) documents’,¹ no attempt was made to seek comment from the Brewers Association ‘despite being named or clearly implicated’. ‘Instead, selected snippets of our emails were published without context, while government agencies were quoted directly and specifically claimed to have been reached out to for comment.’

ii)  ‘Suggesting that inclusion of partial OIA content amounts to balance, without engaging the subject for direct comment, fails the most basic interpretation of balanced journalism, particularly in reporting on contested public policy.’

iii)  In the article that included comments by the Brewers Association,² the comments were added after the Brewers Association ‘approached RNZ with concerns, not as part of any editorial process to proactively ensure balance’.

iv)  ‘In the case of the multiple RNZ reports on alcohol industry-government interactions, the Brewers Association — named and referenced in the documents — is clearly a significant viewpoint.’ 

v)  ‘Failing to seek comment repeatedly, across multiple investigative stories, cannot be justified by time constraints or editorial prerogative.’

Accuracy

b)  It was materially inaccurate to state Canada’s recommended alcohol limit as being two drinks per week, and that they had reduced their recommended alcohol limit in 2023.

i)  ‘The Canadian Government has not adopted new alcohol guidelines. While the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) released a report recommending new thresholds in 2023, Health Canada did not adopt these guidelines. The official Government of Canada guidance, as confirmed on Health Canada’s website and in multiple public statements, remains unchanged at 10 standard drinks per week for women and 15 for men.’

ii)  ‘This distinction is crucial and was communicated clearly in multiple emails to RNZ on 14 July and 15 July, along with authoritative sources including Health Canada’s website and statements from the Canadian Minister for Mental Health and Addictions.’ Regardless, The Detail ‘continued to report the narrative about changed guidelines’.

iii)  ‘While RNZ refers to media outlets such as the BBC and New York Times reporting on the CCSA proposal, those articles have no bearing on the obligation under [the accuracy standard] — which requires correction once the broadcaster is put on notice of a material error of fact.’ 

iv)  ‘Since RNZ’s [14 July] article remains uncorrected, it has now been referenced by other [local] news outlets… further perpetuating the misinformation. This demonstrates that the initial inaccuracy has had a real-world ripple effect, highlighting why timely correction was critical. RNZ’s failure to act has therefore contributed to the spread of false information across the media ecosystem — a direct breach of their responsibility to avoid materially misleading the public.’

The broadcaster’s response

[14]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Accuracy

a)  The BBC³ and The New York Times⁴ published articles stating the CCSA’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health were Canada’s ‘new’ alcohol guidelines.

i)  The articles compared these guidelines with other countries, which ‘clearly infers that these [the CCSA’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health] are the official standards. 

ii)  Both articles were published in January 2023, over two-and-a-half years ago, yet ‘neither media organisation has seen the need to amend or correct their articles’. 

iii)  ‘Readers of these two outlets would consider the official Canadian recommendations to be two drinks per week, and that is certainly the interpretation made by Health New Zealand in the documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act.’

b)  ‘The CCSA is a state-funded body (if not a government agency) that reports to the Canadian Health Minister.’ It states on its website that the Guidance on Alcohol and Health ‘replaces Canada’s Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs) issued in 2011’.

c)  ‘The [14 July] story, at that point, reflected what could be seen as a confusing reality, not least that Health NZ had interpreted the Canadian guidelines to be two glasses per day, as explained in the story.’

d)  Regardless, RNZ amended its 14 July article, which now:

i)  includes comment from the Brewers Association that Canada’s guidelines ‘have not been altered’

ii)  does not include ‘a graphic that contained the incorrect information’

iii)  states, in the body of the article: ‘In Canada, a government-appointed group also recommended a sharp drop though this has not been officially adopted. The official guidance in Canada remains a maximum of 15 standard Canadian drinks per week for men and 10 for women’ 

iv)  carries an editor’s note at the beginning of the article regarding i) and ii).

Balance

e)  The four RNZ articles cited by the complainant ‘are, in fact, a series of reports based on the release of documents to RNZ under the Official Information Act. They are accurate reports of the information contained within those documents. RNZ is entitled to make editorial decisions about which other organisations are contacted to provide its audience with context or comment’.

f)  Those four reports were ‘not about the relative alcohol guidelines of various countries — that is a minor element. Rather, the series looks at the functioning of government in New Zealand, in this case how the Government re-considered its own approach to alcohol, and its engagement with the alcohol industry.’

g)  Additionally, three recent RNZ stories on this subject matter ‘feature comments from industry representatives’.⁵ One article quotes the NZ Alcohol Beverages Council, of which the Brewers Association is a member.

h)  New Zealand broadcasters ‘operate with a significant degree of editorial freedom and discretion. This includes the fundamental right to determine who they speak to and what content they present, even on controversial issues. Complaints that allege a lack of balance simply because a specific individual or interest group was not featured often fall within this protected area of editorial independence.’

The standards

[15]  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.⁶ The standard states:⁷

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.

[16]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁸ The standard states:⁹

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

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

[18]  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.¹⁰

Preliminary issues

[19]  We note a large portion of the Brewers Association’s balance complaint centres around RNZ allegedly ‘consistently failing to present alternative viewpoints or seek comment from the Brewers Association’ or the broader alcohol industry. Four online RNZ articles were cited as ‘examples where no effort was made to contact the Brewers Association for comment, despite being named or clearly implicated’.

[20]  The Authority’s jurisdiction is limited to broadcasting (ie audiovisual content and not text articles or still images), and our primary focus is to determine whether the specific broadcasts nominated by the complainant breached broadcasting standards. Broadcasting standards do not apply to the four written online articles cited by the complainant, which fall within the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Media Council.

[21]  Accordingly, our analysis will focus on whether the relevant Morning Report and The Detail broadcasts breached broadcasting standards.¹¹

Balance

[22]  The balance standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must therefore be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.

[23]  We consider both broadcasts were news and current affairs programmes, and that they discussed a controversial issue of public importance: alcohol policy in New Zealand (including the industry’s role in its development). The next question is whether RNZ made reasonable efforts, or gave reasonable opportunities, to present ‘significant viewpoints’ in the circumstances.

[24]  Guideline 5.4 states that the requirement to present significant viewpoints is likely to be reduced, or in some instances negated, where it is evident from the programme’s introduction and the way the programme is presented that it is:

• not claiming or intended to be a balanced examination of an issue;
• signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective; and/or
• narrowly focussed on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.

[25]  As stated, the complainant’s primary concern under this standard is that RNZ failed to present alternative viewpoints or seek comment from the Brewers Association or others from the alcohol industry, such as the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council. However, the nature of the items and the discussions influence the level of balance required.¹²

Morning Report

[26]  The complainant said, in further submissions:

Across several stories referencing Official Information Act (OIA) documents — where the Brewers Association was named — no attempt was made to seek our comment. Instead, selected snippets of our emails were published without context, while government agencies were quoted directly and specifically claimed to have been reached out to for comment. This creates a clear imbalance in coverage.

[27]  Rather than providing an in-depth discussion of New Zealand’s alcohol policy, this segment was clearly signalled from its introduction as narrowly focussing on one aspect of the much larger, complex debate on alcohol policy: Health New Zealand documents obtained by RNZ under the OIA, stating New Zealand’s alcohol guidelines are out of date.

[28]  We acknowledge the complainant was named in the Morning Report broadcast. However, they have not alleged their viewpoint was misrepresented. While the named Health New Zealand employee was paraphrased, neither Health New Zealand nor any other government agency was quoted directly. The broadcast was also not centred on the Brewers Association. It was a brief interview, lasting for under four minutes, during which the complainant was mentioned once in passing. 

[29]  In this context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented — whether from the Brewers Association or other industry representatives.

The Detail

[30]  Our analysis at [28] regarding Morning Report also applies to this broadcast, given The Detail mentioned the Brewers Association in a substantially similar context. 

[31]  Balance can be achieved in various ways and not only through the inclusion of direct comment from an opposing perspective. The Authority has previously recognised that one of these ways is through interviewers challenging an interviewee’s perspective or employing ‘devil’s advocate’ questioning.¹³ The host of The Detail adopted devil’s advocate questioning when interviewing Towers, asking him, for example:

• ‘I feel like every time alcohol comes up, the conversation sort of goes, yep, I know it’s not good for me, but there’s lots of other things that we do that aren’t good for us, you know? I mean, we spend time in the sun, we eat a lot of sugar. I mean, is there any legitimacy to that argument — that everything we do might be a little bit bad for us? Is it just another thing in this basket?’
• ‘Is there not an argument that … the arms manufacturer knows better than — or, you know, the tobacco companies — know better than anyone else how their products work, and maybe how to reduce the harm from their products?’

[32]  Balance was also provided with the inclusion of comment from an industry representative, the Executive Director of the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council: ‘There’s a lot more to it than that. I think if we actually have a look at the background to it — I mean, the level of risk of cancer associated with alcohol — it’s very complex. It depends on the amount consumed, the drinking patterns, lifestyle choice, exercise, diet, genetic factors and more. There is a level of complexity, I think, and it’s difficult to put on a label.’ The host followed this with, ‘She [the Executive Director] says the best place to get information on any health concerns is from your doctor.’

[33]  The balance standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁴ The audience was sufficiently alerted to significant viewpoints, given that alternative perspectives were presented through direct comment and ‘devil’s advocate’ questioning.

[34]  Finally, we note the public interest in the broadcast. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of robust democracies and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.¹⁵ As outlined at [18], the Authority’s role is to weigh up the right to freedom of expression, which includes the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast.

[35]  By examining issues that affect the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders, as well as the integrity of public policy, we consider this broadcast carried significant public interest. For the reasons outlined above, we have not identified a correspondingly high level of harm that justifies regulatory intervention or limiting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. We therefore do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

Does the standard apply?

[36]  The complainant alleged it was materially inaccurate for both broadcasts to state:

a)  Canada’s recommended alcohol limit is two drinks per week; and

b)  Canada had reduced their recommended alcohol limit in 2023.

[37]  The accuracy standard requires the broadcaster to make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact. We consider the following statements complained about were expressed as points of fact (emphasis added):

a)  ‘As this evidence has emerged, other countries have significantly reduced the amount of alcohol they say can be drunk while, you know, not exposing yourself to significant health risk. Australia reduced this down to 10 drinks a week for men and women. Canada says to stay low risk you should consume no more than two drinks a week.’ (Morning Report broadcast)

b)  ‘He points out UK moved in 2016 to reduce theirs [recommended alcohol limit], Australia in 2020 and Canada in 2023, resulting in much lower recommended drinking limits.’ (Morning Report broadcast)

c)  ‘But, you know, Australia, the UK have been considerably less than us, and Canada too, although there’s some debate about what’s official and what’s not official in the Canadian sphere. But they certainly had a substance and health advisory group that said it should be no more than two standard drinks a week in Canada.’ (The Detail broadcast)

[38]  The accuracy standard therefore applies.

Were the statements materially inaccurate?

[39]  The next question is whether the statements were materially inaccurate or misleading. To assess this, we must first ascertain what Canada’s alcohol guidelines are. As noted, RNZ amended its 14 July article to state the 2023 guidelines ‘have not been officially adopted’ by the Canadian government.¹⁶

[40]  Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health (2023) was developed by the CCSA and funded by Health Canada. The CCSA also helped develop and publish the 2011 Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).¹⁷ On its website, the CCSA states Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health ‘replaces Canada’s Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs) issued in 2011’.¹⁸ The 2023 guidelines state that to stay ‘low-risk’, no more than one to two standard drinks should be consumed per week.¹⁹

[41]  However, in January 2025, the office of Canada’s then-Minister of Mental Health and Addictions released a statement saying, ‘Canada’s 2011 low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines remain the official guidance to Canadians and Health Canada’s website continues to reflect this.’²⁰ The LRDGs remain available on Health Canada’s website.²¹

[42]  The relevant statements from the Morning Report broadcast suggested the Canadian government had changed its alcohol guidelines in 2023, ‘resulting in much lower recommended drinking limits’ but, the 2011 LRDGs remain the Canadian government’s official guidance on alcohol consumption. The statements in question from Morning Report were therefore incorrect.

[43]  Espiner’s comments during The Detail were more nuanced. While the 2011 LRDGs remain the Canadian government’s official guidance on alcohol consumption, there has been confusion around which guidelines should be followed. A researcher involved in developing the 2023 guidelines said in early 2025 that ‘the conflicting guidance “has been an ongoing issue for the public health community and scientists” for the last two years’.²² Additionally, Espiner added a caveat, that Canada ‘certainly had a substance and health advisory group [the CCSA] that said it should be no more than two standard drinks a week in Canada’.

[44]  Even if the statements in The Detail (as well as Morning Report) were inaccurate, we do not consider they were material in the context of the full interviews or would have significantly affected listeners’ understanding of the overall broadcasts.²³

[45]  Although the Morning Report broadcast stated New Zealand’s guidelines were ‘out of step with’ and ‘a lot higher than’ other countries, including Canada, these statements were (respectively) attributed to a senior Health New Zealand employee and Associate Professor. Canada was also not the only country expressly mentioned: the UK and Australia were cited as having lowered their recommended drinking limits in recent years.

[46]  In its introduction, the broadcast was framed as being about ‘Health New Zealand documents revealed to RNZ under the Official Information Act’ which indicate that New Zealand’s ‘official guidance on low-risk drinking doesn't reflect modern scientific evidence and underestimates the health risks of alcohol’. We consider this was the overall impact of the interview, and the brief references to other countries’ alcohol guidelines would not have significantly affected listeners’ understanding of the programme.²⁴

[47]  Similarly, the relevant broadcast of The Detail was introduced as being about ‘how New Zealand’s outdated alcohol guidelines put us out of step with modern research’, ‘whether alcohol lobbyists have a place in shaping our health policy’, ‘and how those lobbyists played a role in putting a review of the guidelines on hold’ — and these topics were the focus of the broadcast’s two interviews. Espiner’s comments about Canada’s alcohol guidelines were fleeting in the context of both his 10-minute-long interview and the full 24-minute broadcast. 

[48]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 October 2025  

 
Appendix

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

1  Brewers Association of New Zealand’s original complaint – 31 July 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 1 August 2025

3  Brewers Association’s referral to the Authority – 6 August 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 25 August 2025

5  Brewers Association’s further comments – 4 September 2025

6  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 5 September 2025

¹ Guyon Espiner “Alcohol lobbyists given input on health policies, documents reveal” RNZ (online ed, 9 May 2025); Morning Report “Health Ministry manager ‘way too friendly’ with alcohol lobby” RNZ (online ed, 30 June 2025); Guyon Espiner “Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal” RNZ (online ed, 14 July 2025); and Gwen Mcclure “Booze warnings on hold” RNZ (online ed, 21 July 2025)
² Guyon Espiner “Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal” RNZ (online ed, 14 July 2025)
³ Holly Honderich “What’s behind Canada’s drastic new alcohol guidance” BBC (online ed, 18 January 2023)
⁴ Michael Levenson “Canada’s New Guidelines for Alcohol Say ‘No Amount’ Is Healthy” The New York Times (online ed, 18 January 2023)
⁵ Guyon Espiner “Villa Maria adds fatal cancer warning label on bottles sold in Ireland” RNZ (online ed, 18 July 2025); Joe Shaw “Christchurch community have their say on council’s new alcohol policy draft” RNZ (online ed, 11 June 2025); and Laura Smith “Alcohol retailers fight Rotorua’s proposed freeze on new liquor off-licences” RNZ (online ed, 16 April 2025)
⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹¹ For a similar finding, see Seafood New Zealand Ltd and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-083 at [5]-[7]
¹² For a similar finding, see Seafood New Zealand Ltd and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-054 at [28]
¹³ Seafood New Zealand Ltd and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-054 at [29]
¹⁴ Guideline 5.3.
¹⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 3
¹⁶ Guyon Espiner “Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal” RNZ (online ed, 14 July 2025)
¹⁷ Catherine Paradis and others Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report (Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, January 2023) at 12
¹⁸ Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction “Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health” <ccsa.ca>
¹⁹ Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction “Drinking less is better” <ccsa.ca>
²⁰ Nicole Ireland “Want to cut back on alcohol? You may see conflicting advice on low-risk drink limits” St Albert Gazette (online ed, 3 January 2025)
²¹ Health Canada “Low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines” <canada.ca>
²² Nicole Ireland “Want to cut back on alcohol? You may see conflicting advice on low-risk drink limits” St Albert Gazette (online ed, 3 January 2025)
²³ For a similar finding, see Xiao and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-014 at [16]
²⁴ For a similar finding, see Xiao and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-014 at [18]-[19]