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 two Breakfast interviews discussing the Government’s decision to reduce New Zealand’s methane emissions target – first with the Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, then 45 minutes later with New Zealand Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon. The complaint was that the interview approaches varied between the two interviewees, creating an ‘unfairness and imbalance’ for viewers. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as significant perspectives were presented within the broadcast and both interviewees had ample opportunity to explain their positions. Further, the style and type of questions raised in each interview were a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 13 October 2025 broadcast of Breakfast included two interviews led by presenter Jenny-May Clarkson about the Government’s decision to reduce New Zealand’s methane emissions target.

Interview with Lawyers for Climate Action

[2]  The first interview was with Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, and aired at approximately 6.20am. Clarkson introduced Palairet’s interview:

The Government is lowering its 2050 methane reduction target range from 24 to 47% down to 14 to 24%, saying it worked closely with the industry to determine what it calls ‘a practical target’. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says the new target’s range will provide exporters with a clear pathway to reduce emissions, while maintaining productivity and trade competitiveness. But critics say the move is political and not grounded in science. Well, joining us is the Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, Jessica Palairet.

[3]  Clarkson then posed various questions to Palairet regarding Lawyers for Climate Action’s perspective on the Government’s decision to reduce the methane emissions target:

Clarkson:        Government says this decision is grounded in science. Is it?

Palairet:          No, not at all in our view. This is all politics. It’s politics dressed up as though it’s science. So, the way in which this decision was reached is the Government's own independent experts […].

[…]

Clarkson:       Now, the Government is basing its targets on the idea of ‘no additional warming’. So, what is that exactly?

Palairet:          Yeah, so it’s this accounting metric that no one else in the world uses for methane emissions. So, I mean, it’s pretty well established that methane and carbon, they’ve got different effects in the atmosphere. So, it’s kind of fair to treat those differently.

[…]

Clarkson:       So, is this essentially us kicking the can down the road and leaving this issue– because we’re saying we’re going to not make it worse but we’re just going to keep the status quo so to speak, which means what for future generations?

Palairet:          I think it means really bad things for future generations. I mean, in many ways, it's us saying we’re not even going to try kicking the can anymore.

[…]

Clarkson:       What does this mean for our obligations under the Paris Agreement?  

Palairet:          Yeah, I mean, I don’t think it’s consistent with them and it’s not just me saying that. There’s been international experts writing to the Government saying just that.

[…]

Clarkson:       Now, the Government says it’s putting hundreds of millions into methane-cutting tech. Do you think that that is enough to make up for the weaker targets that they’ve just set?

[…]

Interview with Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon

[4]  Approximately 45 minutes later, at 7.05am, Clarkson interviewed New Zealand Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon. Clarkson introduced the interview:

Clarkson:       The Government has almost halved New Zealand's target for reducing methane gas emissions from 24 to 47%, down to a target range of 14 to 24%. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says the Government has worked closely with industry to determine what he calls a ‘practical target’. And while farmers are celebrating the move, lawyers for a climate advocacy group say it sends a wrong signal.  

Palairet:          [A pre-recorded segment of Palairet’s interview] One of the weird things about this decision is yesterday, the Government put out projections that showed we were on track to hit a 24% reduction by 2050. So why on earth would you set a target that is so much lower than what we're projected to achieve anyway? It sends such a bad signal to our international partners. It sends a really bad signal to the world.  

[5]  Clarkson posed various questions for Luxon about a broad range of topics, which Luxon responded to. These questions were about: the Government’s new methane emissions targets; reasons why the targets were changed; the advice of the Climate Change Commission, international scientists and the Government’s science panel; the ceasefire in Gaza; New Zealand’s and the Government’s humanitarian aid to Gaza; and the recognition of Palestine.  

Clarkson:        But coming back to talking about the targets that were released yesterday, is this a win for farmers and a loss for climate change?  

Luxon:            No, actually, it’s a win for both. I mean, essentially, New Zealand has a profile that's quite unique – 50% CO2, 50% emissions.

[…]

Clarkson:       You talk about that range and that was from the science panel that the Government pulled together, right? So, you went to the lowest target from that panel, why go to the lower?  

Luxon:            Well, it’s actually a range of 14 to 24%.

Clarkson:       Yep, but that was the lowest range.

Luxon:            That the Climate Change [Commission] actually had a range and they actually stepped it up. They actually increased it. And then we had, obviously, conversations with industry as well.

[…]

Clarkson:       I do want to move on, but just one final question. This isn't about cutting warming anymore, is it? It's about holding steady. So, is that climate leadership?

Luxon:            Yeah, this is actually taking responsibility to say, we are a country that has the best farmers in the world, both in a carbon management, emissions management, and also in terms of their basic productivity. 

The complaint

[6]  Richard Craig complained the broadcast breached the balance and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• Palairet ‘was given patsy questioning [and] she was not questioned about the points Luxon explained […] that NZ has a unique profile. That’s presenting an unfairness and imbalance to viewers.’
• Luxon‘s ‘questioning on the other hand had a lot of effort and preparation and background that went into it […] Breakfast in this case has gone out of its way to ‘Participants on Breakfast on both sides of an argument should be questioned similarly so that we can make up our own minds.’

[7]  On referring the complaint to the Authority, the complainant added:

• Balance: ‘the two participants in the issue were not scrutinised equally, one (the Prime Minister) was scrutinised with vigour, the other was “gaslighted”.’
• Fairness: ‘I don’t mind the Prime Minister being scrutinised with vigour, but I do expect the other participant in the item to be exposed to the counter argument also, that’s not fair it’s skewing the narrative.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

• ‘Jessica Palairet was interviewed first in the programme so it was not reasonable to expect that she would be questioned about issues raised by Christopher Luxon 45 minutes later.’
• ‘[TVNZ] considers that each interview provided a robust viewpoint on the issues discussed, we do not agree that either of the interviewees were treated differently. We find that each was provided with space to put their viewpoint across.’
• TVNZ acknowledged the complainant considered the broadcast was ‘unfair to viewers’; however, it disagreed with this assessment – and ‘in any case, unfairness to viewers is not an issue which [the fairness standard] is designed to regulate’.

The standards

[9]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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.

[10]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.³ The standard states:⁴

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

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.⁵

Balance

[13]  The balance standard only applies to broadcasts which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁶ We accept the broadcast did discuss a controversial issue of public importance, ie the Government’s decision to reduce the methane emissions target. The balance standard therefore applies.

[14]  We are satisfied TVNZ met the requirements of the balance standard by including interviews giving opposing perspectives, from Palairet and Luxon. Both had ample opportunity to present and discuss their views on the issue and capably explained the reasons behind those views, as set out in the summary of the broadcast at paragraphs [2] to [5] above.

[15]  Responding to the complainant’s concerns about the interview style and approach, we note the balance standard does not dictate how perspectives are to be presented or what questions should be asked to elicit those perspectives – those are within the broadcaster’s editorial discretion.⁷ Nor does it require each perspective to be given equal air time (balance is not achieved by a ‘stopwatch’).⁸ The standard requires only that broadcasters give a fair voice to significant alternative perspectives on the issue discussed.

[16]  This clearly happened here, with Lawyers for Climate Action’s position being the lead ‘angle’ near the beginning of the programme, and Luxon presenting the Government’s position in response later in the programme. Clarkson allowed both to speak at length and clearly present their viewpoints for the audience. We do not agree there was any ‘skew’ in the way these interviews were presented.

[17]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under this standard, whether considering the broadcasts separately or together.

Fairness

[18]  The fairness standard applies only to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. It does not address ‘fairness’ to the audience or whether facts or issues are ‘fairly’ or misleading conveyed.⁹ Therefore, the fairness standard does not apply to the complainant’s concerns that the presenter’s interview approach and TVNZ’s ‘skewed presentation’ created unfairness for viewers. These concerns are more appropriately addressed under the balance standard above in considering whether the interview approaches resulted in the discussion being unbalanced or viewers being left uninformed (which we have found not to be the case).

[19]  We do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
1 April 2026  

 
Appendix

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

1  Craig’s original complaint – 13 October 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 6 November 2025

3  Craig’s referral to the Authority – 14 November 2025

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 10 December 2025

¹ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁴ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
⁸ Guideline 5.3: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁹ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20