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 about comments, during an interview on The Huddle, distinguishing alcohol from tobacco in relation to the need for cancer warning labels. The Authority found the comments amounted to opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply and, in the context, the audience was unlikely to be misled. The Authority identified no harm sufficient to justify its intervention.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 15 July 2025 broadcast of The Huddle included an interview of former New Zealand Minister of Police Stuart Nash and a co-interviewee discussing their views on a range of political topics, including the Australian debate about placing prominent cancer labels on alcoholic beverages. The Huddle host introduced the segment:

Hey, Australia is debating at the moment whether or not to put quite prominent labels on their alcoholic drinks — cancer warnings on their alcoholic drinks. Other countries are lowering their safe drinking guidelines and ours are actually way above most other countries that we would compare ourselves to. [Co-interviewee], do you think we need to do anything about that?

[2]  The segment was led by The Huddle host with commentary by Nash and the co-interviewee, including:

Host:                           I mean they put, Stuart, they put — in fact you might have been in when they did this — put, you know, ‘don’t drink while pregnant’ labels on wine, I think it was, a couple of years ago. I mean, does it make a difference?  

Nash:                          It’s a little Darwinian, isn’t it? I mean, if you want to drink 20 pints a night, you're never going to reach 100. But, you know, I mean most Kiwis enjoy beer with their mates without seeing a big cancer warning on it. I mean, we know tobacco is bad for you — they've got that all over the place — but … I don’t want to drink a bottle of wine with my wife or go for a beer with my mates and all I see is ‘don’t drink you'll end up with cancer’ for God’s sake. Talk about killjoy, let's enjoy a drink every now and again.

…

Host:                           They’re quite ugly. You know, if you think about the labels they have on cigarettes, if you could imagine that on an alcoholic drink that would probably have some impact I would think…

Co-interviewee:         Picture of a tumour is going to take the fun out of a chardonnay like no tomorrow. And also, if you compare us — what are we, we’re 15 — well, number one we're sexist because I think it's 15 for men and 10 for women. The Aussies, interesting, they’re both men and women, they’re allowed 10 a week…

Nash:                          Well, we all know that you know the drinking, when you reach a certain age, you drink too much, and it never ends well. But again, if you want to have a quiet beer with your mates or a wine with your wife or you want to go out on a boys weekend then, you know, the last thing you want to see is these bloody tumours and cancer warnings over everything. I mean, we do know … that tobacco is bad for you, right. I mean… that's proven beyond doubt, so I don't mind seeing that sort of stuff on, on cigarettes. I mean, who smokes these days? I don’t know anybody who smokes. In terms of drinking I mean shivers people, people enjoy drink to socialise and catch up with their mates and have a good time. They don't want to see that sort of stuff.  

Co-interviewee:         Stuart, I’ve just got one question: what’s the age when it’s too much? What age is that when you stop, when you cut down?

Nash:                         Oh, about 105 but … the wine industry says a couple of glasses of red wine is actually not bad for your brain.

Co-interviewee:         Not bad for your health, yeah.

Nash:                        I don’t know if that's true or not but so, you know, let's go with that.

Host:                         Yeah, just keep going until it well, until it kills you basically…

The complaint

[3]  Nathan Cowie on behalf of Communities Against Alcohol Harm (CAAH) complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• Comments made during the broadcast by Nash ‘were materially misleading with respect to the long-established fact that alcohol is carcinogenic to humans’.
• ‘Of particular concern were the comparisons made to tobacco, which like alcohol, is carcinogenic to humans … Nash endorsed the rationale for tobacco cancer warnings as being justified because it is well known that “tobacco is bad for you” and that its harms are “proven beyond doubt”’.
• The misleading implications from Nash’s comments are that ‘alcohol is neither bad for you, nor are its (cancer) harms proven beyond doubt’ and if alcohol was bad for you and its harms proven beyond doubt the warning labels would be justified as they are on tobacco products.
• ‘The discussion was clearly analysis, comment and or opinion. However, our submission is that the broadcaster has failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure the discussion was not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to, or upon which the analysis, comment or opinion was based.’

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  NZME Radio Ltd (NZME) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The Huddle ‘is an opinion-based feature and is therefore not captured by Standard 6’.
• ‘…the often-jovial nature of the segment (i.e., as opposed to hard-hitting news) helps to reinforce the opinion-based nature of the segment and that guests are sharing their own views on the topics discussed, rather than statements of fact.’

The standard

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹ The standard states:²

• 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

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

[7]  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.³

[8]  The complainant’s main concerns related to the potentially misleading implications of Nash’s comments distinguishing alcohol from tobacco. In particular, the complainant says Nash implies alcohol is not ‘bad for you’ and its cancer harms are not ‘proven beyond doubt’, which may mislead regarding alcohol’s carcinogenic effects.

[9]  Under guideline 6.1, the requirement for factual accuracy does not generally apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.⁴

[10]  In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:⁵

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided

[11]  Noting the informal tone and language used, the nature of The Huddle as an opinions-based feature, the status of the commentators (none of whom were promoted as experts in the effects of alcohol consumption) and the lack of evidence presented for Nash’s statements, we consider listeners are likely to interpret Nash’s comments as his own opinion.

[12]  The audience can be expected to understand opinion as contestable, and potentially incorrect. This is why the accuracy standard does not generally apply to opinion. However, guideline 6.1 establishes a limit to this rule: broadcasters must still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to or on which the analysis, comment or opinion is based. This does not prevent the sharing of opinions which may be wrong — but limits the risk of factual matters being misrepresented to support an incorrect opinion.⁶

[13]  In this case, the concern is a misleading implication which might be drawn from Nash’s comments rather than an issue with facts referred to or any facts on which Nash’s opinion was based. Nash does not cite facts to support his perspective. His comments appear to reflect his beliefs only, including a preference for not being exposed to cancer warnings in enjoyable social situations.

[14]  The audience is likely to understand these comments for what they are — his opinion only — rather than interpret them as authoritative commentary on the comparative carcinogenic effects of alcohol.  

[15]  In these circumstances, the accuracy standard does not apply.

[16]  We are also conscious of the broader context in which the comments were made, which mitigated the risk of the audience being left with an impression alcohol is ‘not bad’ or hasn’t been ‘proven’ to be bad:

a)  The introduction noted Australia was considering introducing cancer warnings on alcohol and that other countries were lowering their safe drinking guidelines.

b)  Other comments acknowledged the risks from alcohol:

i)  ‘It’s a little Darwinian, isn’t it? I mean if you want to drink 20 pints a night, you’re never going to reach 100…’

ii)  ‘Well, we all know that you know the drinking, when you reach a certain age, you drink too much and it never ends well.’

iii)  ‘Yeah, just keep going until it well, until it kills you basically …’

[17]  Overall, the right to freedom of expression allows for the expression of opinions that may be controversial, challenging or misinformed, provided they do not cause undue harm. In this context, we have identified no harm justifying our intervention.

[18]  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
19 November 2025  

 
Appendix

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

1  CAAH’s formal complaint to NZME – 6 August 2025

2  NZME’s response to complaint – 3 September 2025

3  CAAH’s referral to the Authority – 17 September 2025

4  NZME’s confirmation of no further comments – 3 October 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Guideline 6.1
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ See, for example, Burne-field and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-040 where analysis, comment or opinion about Italy’s COVID-19 death-rate statistics was found to be misleading as the comments conflated conclusions drawn from misinterpretation of a study.