BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on Morning Report lacked balance and was unfair. The item reported on the condition of student rental properties in Dunedin – that ‘students continue to live in flats that are colder inside than out despite meeting Healthy Homes Standards’, and ‘advocates are calling for action’ as a result. The Authority considered the item did not purport to be an in-depth or balanced examination of the adequacy of the Healthy Homes Standards, but instead focussed on a particular perspective (advocates calling for change). Listeners were therefore unlikely to expect a countervailing viewpoint in the broadcast. Regardless, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of other viewpoints from other media, given the ongoing period of current interest. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 30 July 2026 broadcast of Morning Report on RNZ National included a roughly three-and-a-half-minute long item about the condition of student rental properties in Dunedin. The segment was introduced:

Advocates are calling for action as Dunedin university students continue to live in flats that are colder inside than out, despite meeting Healthy Homes Standards². Do they?

[2]  The item, introduced by a Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reporter, follows:

RNZ reporter:            Second year student [A] moved into a Leith Street flat after a year in student halls where her room was warm. The low standard of living came as a shock, and she doesn't know any flats that could be considered warm. 

Student A:                 We're all pretty restricted on our power use. We don't use our communal heat pump. We probably each individually have an oil heater in our rooms, and we use that a couple hours a day, but because rent is so expensive and power is so expensive in general, we're pretty reluctant to do that. 

RNZ reporter:            Her flat is about 100 years old. 

Student A:                  They couldn't access the walls to put insulation in, and so there's only double glazing in one room, no insulation in the walls or under floor, because they, quote marks, “couldn't access it”, but we don't know how true that is. It's honestly the same temperature as outside. 

RNZ reporter:            She says it's not fair for students to pay so much to live in such grim conditions.

On Castle Street, the Feisty Goat is up to Healthy Home Standards, kitted out with insulation, heating and ventilation. But flatmate [B] says the 145-year-old house is freezing. 

Student B:                  We love the house, it's real cool. Like, we have a lot of fun, but it does get freezing cold, especially at night. So, most of us- we’ve all got girlfriends and we spend a lot of time staying the nights at their houses because it's actually too cold to sleep here, especially in the winter. 

RNZ reporter:            He says the heat pump does little to heat the home and is turned off. Instead, most of the flat used dehumidifiers. 

Student B:                  I got this big jacket from my mum that she got given that she didn't need it up in Auckland. So, I took it down here and it's been probably the most worn item of clothing between the whole flat. 

RNZ reporter:            He's hopeful the flat will be much warmer after the draughty gaps in the property were sealed yesterday. 

Otago University Students' Association President [OUSA] […] says it's almost impossible to find a decent quality flat. 

OUSA President:       Perhaps in the 21st century, you know, we maybe shouldn't be subjecting our young people to a, you know, quote, rite of passage. That essentially just means you live in unsafe, unsatisfactory housing. 

RNZ reporter:            [OUSA President] says the Healthy Home Standards are good to have, but they're the bare minimum and are not enforced. He says students often know their homes aren't up to scratch, but many won't risk taking their landlord to the Tenancy Tribunal. 

OUSA President:       The problem is that the power dynamic between landlords and tenants is so, so unfair on young people who, you know, want to get a good reference, so they can actually get more housing and another place to live, you know, say, next year if they move on. 

RNZ reporter:            [Senior Manager] from the Green Building Council [NZGBC] says the old, cold and mouldy student flats in Dunedin are well known. 

NZGBC:                      Some of the conditions here are just so bad for students and we've become as a culture kind of accepting of that and I don't think that should be acceptable. 

RNZ reporter:            He says draughty homes are a common problem, as there's no requirement to measure airtightness of homes in New Zealand, unlike in many other countries. [NZGBC Senior Manager] says it should be easy to heat a home to a healthy standard, but it's often not the case. 

NZGBC:                      The Healthy Home Standards are a really good start but without a true warrant of fitness or an energy performance certificate, which is something that's very common in the residential sector across the world and certainly in the OECD, then it is really just the first step and there's a lot of room to improve that. 

RNZ Reporter:           [NZGBC Senior Manager] and [OUSA President] agree that enforcing current standards is an important first step, but more needs to be done to improve living standards for students. 

The complaint

[3]  Fiona Broad complained the broadcast breached the balance and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, for the following reasons:

a)  The broadcast ‘framed cold student flats as evidence that Dunedin flats and the Healthy Homes Standards are inadequate, even though the students interviewed said they choose not to use the installed heating because electricity is expensive’. ‘This is difficult to reconcile with the purpose of the Healthy Homes heating standard, which requires fixed heating with sufficient capacity to heat the main living room. Tenancy Services states that the required heating capacity is intended to show the heater can "heat and maintain the main living room to 18°C".’

b)  It presented ‘a single explanation and treated it as fact’ – that cold indoor temperatures are evidence that Healthy Homes Standards are failing – rather than examining ‘whether cold flats were due to the standards, compliance, heating use, electricity affordability, or tenant behaviour’. 

c)  ‘The only additional perspective came from the Green Building Council, which reinforced the same premise by arguing the standards should be strengthened. No countervailing viewpoint was broadcast.’ There was no challenge to the notion that the Healthy Homes Standards should be strengthened, nor did the broadcast provide ‘context about the purpose and limitations of the current standards’.

d)  The complainant pointed to a RNZ interview with NZGBC's Senior Manager the following day, on 31 July 2026. This broadcast ‘went further’, as the NZGBC representative said, ‘There are really good landlords out there’. ‘In context, this appeared to imply that the issues described are caused by bad landlords, rather than examining whether cold flats relate to compliance, heating use, electricity affordability, or other factors. This framing narrowed the issue even further and, in my view, worsened the lack of balance and scrutiny already present in the original story.'

e)  ‘Balanced and considered reporting is particularly important when covering public policy issues. In my view, this article did not provide the level of balance and critical scrutiny that readers and listeners are entitled to expect.’

[4]  In response to the broadcaster’s decision on the complaint, the complainant said RNZ:

a)  ‘mischaracterised’ the broadcast as ‘having canvassed multiple factors’

b)  ‘claimed balance was achieved over time despite no alternative perspective being aired’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Balance

a)  The broadcast ‘sought to explore several strands of what is, in effect, a wicked problem’. It did not attribute ‘responsibility to a single cause’ but instead ‘canvassed a range of possible contributing factors’, including:

i)  the ‘adequacy of the regulatory framework’, and the ‘operation of the Healthy Homes Standards’

ii)  the affordability of electricity

iii)  ‘the choices students make in balancing accommodation quality against affordability’, including in the context of heating

iv)  ‘insulation limitations’

v)  draughts

vi)  the ‘age and condition of housing stock’.

b)  In this context, the broadcast ‘did not purport to provide an exhaustive examination of every possible cause or viewpoint’. RNZ therefore did not accept the ‘complainant's characterisation that the broadcast presented a single explanation and treated it as established fact’. 

c)  ‘The following day’s [31 July 2026] interview with [the NZGBC representative] introduced an additional perspective on the issue, particularly in relation to housing standards and the need for warmer rental accommodation.’

d)  Balance may be achieved over time, within the period of current interest – and in this instance, ‘health impacts of cold rental accommodation remain a live issue during the winter period and are likely to continue to receive editorial attention and discussion as events develop’. In light of this broadcast and the subsequent interview with the NZGBC representative, RNZ considered its coverage ‘reflected this principle’. 

Fairness

e)  ‘[T]he report examined a matter of public interest by exploring a range of factors that may contribute to cold rental housing. It did not make findings of fault against any identifiable individual or organisation, nor did it present material in a way that was unfair or misleading.’

The standards

[6]  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.³ The standard states:⁴

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.

[7]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ The standard states:⁶

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

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

[9]  The starting point in determining a complaint that broadcasting standards have been breached is the right to freedom of expression. This right includes both the broadcaster’s right to impart information and ideas to audiences, and the audience’s right to receive that information. Our role is to weigh up the right to freedom of expression, including 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.⁷

[10]  The quality of student housing in Dunedin is a long-standing issue of public interest. Adequate housing is seen as a fundamental human right and is recognised as such under international human rights law, including in agreements the New Zealand government has ratified or affirmed.⁸ In this context, we would require a corresponding level of harm before finding it outweighed the public interest or justified regulatory intervention to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

[11]  For the reasons that follow, we have not identified such level of harm in this instance.

Balance

[12]  Several criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.⁹

[13]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘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.¹⁰

[14]  The broadcast was introduced:

Advocates are calling for action as Dunedin university students continue to live in flats that are colder inside than out despite meeting Healthy Homes Standards. 

[15]  It then included first-hand experiences of two students, followed by views of the ‘advocates’ – OUSA President and the NZGBC representative – calling for change. To some extent, it discussed the adequacy of the Healthy Homes Standards in addressing living conditions, including comments from the students indicating they had done little to improve the heating in their particular homes (there was ‘no insulation in the walls or under floor, because they, quote marks, “couldn’t access it”’ / ‘He says the heat pump does little to heat the home and is turned off’), and advocates saying they were ‘a good start’ but enforcement was needed. We accept that the adequacy of the Healthy Homes Standards and whether they are being met is a public policy issue, which is known to generate public debate and conflicting opinion. It is also an issue of legitimate concern to the New Zealand public at large. As a result, we accept the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance.¹¹

[16]  Having found the balance standard applies, the next question is whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in the circumstances.¹² A key consideration in this assessment is what an audience expects from a programme and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.¹³

[17]  Guideline 5.4 of the standard stipulates the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where it is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way in which the programme is presented, that:

• the programme is not claiming, or intended, to be a balanced examination of an issue
• the programme is signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective.

[18]  In such circumstances, the audience is less likely to interpret the programme as reflecting on other relevant perspectives.¹⁴

[19]  Here, the relevant item did not purport to be a balanced or detailed examination of the effectiveness of the Healthy Homes Standards. Its introduction clearly signalled the segment was approaching the issue from a particular perspective: that of ‘advocates,’ and their wishes for more to be done to ensure Dunedin student flats are safe and healthy. This was reinforced by the choice of interviewees including the OUSA President and the NZGBC Senior Manager. In this context, we consider the audience would have understood the segment largely represented the viewpoints of the advocates spoken to on this issue (and students’ experiences), and would not have anticipated broader debate around the topic or been left otherwise misinformed.¹⁵ 

[20]  In any event, the balance standard is designed to provide protection where viewpoints are not available over time.¹⁶ It stipulates balance can be achieved ‘within the period of current interest’.¹⁷ The proliferation of information available to today’s audiences therefore means complaints under this standard will rarely be upheld.¹⁸ Since the Healthy Homes Standards were announced in February 2019 for staggered implementation over the following years, there has been ongoing media coverage on how they are operating and whether they are being met. While the 31 July RNZ interview with NZGBC's Senior Manager, highlighted by the complainant, was essentially a continuation of the perspectives canvassed in the 30 July broadcast, wider reporting shows differing perspectives have been covered over time, including those of landlords, the Ministry of Housing, and property investors.¹⁹ Listeners could therefore reasonably be expected to be aware of a range of perspectives on the issue.²⁰

[21]  We do not agree that the broadcast attributed the problem of cold flats exclusively to inadequacy of the Healthy Homes Standards. The broadcast signposted other possible contributing factors such as the age of housing and electricity affordability.

[22]  We also note the broadcast was not wholly critical of the Healthy Homes Standards. It quoted the OUSA President and the NZGBC representative (respectively) as saying the Standards are ‘a good starting point’, and ‘good to have’ but the ‘bare minimum’. Further, key issues identified by the item’s interviewees were that landlords can legally self-assess their compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, and the power imbalance between landlords and tenants more generally means tenants often do not wish to enforce compliance via the Tenancy Tribunal. This is not a critique of the Standards themselves, but rather how – or whether – they are enforced.

[23]  Accordingly, we find no breach of the balance standard.

Fairness

[24]  The complainant has not alleged the broadcast dealt with an ‘individual or organisation’ unfairly, as is required for the fairness standard to be engaged. The standard therefore does not apply.

[25]  However, for completeness, we note:

• Landlords are not an individual or organisation, in so far as the complaint may allege the broadcast was unfair to landlords.²¹
• The standard does not address ‘fairness’ to the audience, or whether issues or facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed (which are matters for the accuracy or balance standards).²²

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

John Gillespie
Acting Chair
28 October 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Broad's original complaint – 31 July 2026

2  RNZ's decision – 31 July 2026

3  Broad's referral to the Authority – 4 August 2026

4  RNZ's response to referral – 11 August 2026

5  Broad's confirmation of no further comments – 26 August 2026

¹ Susie Staley declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint
² The ‘Healthy Homes Standards’, set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, are the minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture control, and draught stopping in rental properties
³ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁶ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Tūāpapa Tika Tangata o Aotearoa | Aotearoa New Zealand Human Rights Foundation The right to a decent home in Aotearoa New Zealand: review 2023 – 2026 (August 2026) at 12
⁹ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹¹ See Ministry of Social Development and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-097 at [15]; See also Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁴ The Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand Inc and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-062 at [20]
¹⁵ For similar findings, see Henderson and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-023 at [34]; Forrest and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-050 at [22]; and Garrett and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-073 at [13]. See also Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁷ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁹ See, for example: Kate Rickard “Healthy Homes standards: MBIE has no national compliance estimate” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 4 August 2026), where, ‘[A representative of the New Zealand Property Investors Federation] argued the figures instead suggested most landlords were meeting their obligations. “The Healthy Homes Standards have required significant investment from rental property owners over many years, and landlords have worked hard to meet the requirements.”’; Bella Craig “Calls for independent checks on healthy homes standards” RNZ (online ed, 13 April 2026), where the Ministry of Housing was quoted as saying, ‘The Healthy Homes Standards focus on minimum standards that will have the greatest impact on the warmth and dryness of a home without imposing an unreasonable burden and cost on landlords,’ and a property manager, ‘The property management company said they were holding Healthy Homes documentation provided by the owner and it confirmed the property was compliant.’ See also: Kate Rickard “Regulator flying blind on Healthy Homes compliance” NewstalkZB (online ed, 4 August 2026); Susan Edmonds “Quarter of all tenant applications to Tenancy Tribunal relate to concerns about Healthy Homes” RNZ (online ed, 6 August 2025); Anne Gibson “Multi-millionaire Auckland landlord questions Healthy Homes standards for rentals” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 19 June 2025); and Bonnie Flaws “Meeting new rental property standards not easy, even if you are trying, landlord says” Stuff (online ed, 8 March 2019)
²⁰ See Garrett and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-073 at [14]
²¹ For a similar finding, see Parlane and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-075 at [22]
²² Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20