BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item reporting on Te Pāti Māori’s ‘reset’, the co-leaders’ reaction to questioning at a media conference, and Te Pāti Māori’s newest MP Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech in Parliament. The complaints alleged the segment was unbalanced and biased as the broadcast did not report on the temporary suspension of Parliament following haka and waiata after Kaipara’s maiden speech. The Authority found the segment was a straight news report and not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, meaning the balance standard did not apply. In any case, the Authority found the broadcast was clearly signalled as approaching the segment from a particular perspective; the balance standard does not prevent a broadcaster from making editorial decisions about which angle or perspective to feature in a broadcast; and it also allows for balance over time – with TVNZ reporting in-depth on the suspension the following evening. The Authority also found the broadcaster’s decision not to report on the suspension of Parliament in this broadcast did not render the item materially inaccurate or misleading, given its focus on Te Pāti Māori’s ‘reset’ to address alleged issues within the party. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1News, broadcast on 9 October 2025, reported Te Pāti Māori’s plans for a ‘reset’ due to allegations of a ‘dictatorship model’, concluding with sections of Te Pāti Māori MP Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech in Parliament.

[2]  The 1News presenter introduced the segment with a live cross to the 1News Political Editor:

1News presenter:            Just a short time ago, Te Pāti Māori outlined what it’s calling a ‘reset’ after allegations of a dictatorship model were made against the party leadership. [1News Political Editor] is live from Parliament. Kia ora [Political Editor], what can you tell us?

1News Political Editor:   Well, Te Pāti Māori co-leaders said today that their supporters want clear direction and the party is promising to provide that. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer today said that Te Pāti Māori wants to work with Labour and the Greens to form a coalition at the next election, acknowledging while they won’t always agree on everything, they do have one common goal, which is for the National-Act-New Zealand First coalition to become a one-term government. Now, when the co-leaders spoke to the media afterwards, they opened their press conference by saying that they wouldn't be answering questions in [regard] to anything other than the reset. Now, obviously, this all follows the decision by the movement Toitū Te Tiriti to seek independence away from Te Pāti Māori, and it also follows allegations of a toxic political environment within the party from a former vice president. Now, after two, three, four questions on the reset, I did ask the co-leaders about these allegations…

[3]  The Te Pāti Māori co-leaders were then seen in Parliament, walking away from the reporter after the following exchange:

1News Political Editor:   What’s your response to allegations of a dictatorship model at leadership?

Rawiri Waititi:                  Kia ora [1News Political Editor], thank you [walking away]. You fellas can thank [1News Political Editor] for that one, kia ora.

[4]  The 1News presenter then highlighted Te Pāti Māori’s new MP Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech in Parliament that day, followed by a clip of Kaipara’s speech and closing remarks by the reporter:

Kaipara:                            I’m not going to stand here and tell you about the impacts of colonisation on whānau, hapū, iwi, and even on me. That story is well documented. One only has to turn to the Hansard to see in plain black and white how this Government and past governments have perceived our people. Instead, I will speak of resilience.  

1News Political Editor:   So, a big day here at Parliament for Te Pāti Māori. For more on the party’s reset, be sure to go to our website, 1news.co.nz.

[5]  During this, the on-screen banner read, ‘New Te Pāti Māori MP Oriini Kaipara talks about “resilience of Māori”’.

The complaint

[6]  Russell Garbutt and Paul Schon complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, for the following reasons:

Balance – Garbutt and Schon

• There was ‘absolutely NO coverage of the ensuing suspension of Parliament because of the “performance” of a haka performed on the floor of the House’. News ‘is supposed to deliver non-partisan representation of fact. There is no doubt that the suspension of Parliament because of the behaviour of members is comparatively rare while a new member delivering a maiden speech is not’. ‘This was blatant bias on behalf of the State Broadcaster.’ (Garbutt)
• This ‘non-coverage’ was ‘perplexing as the suspension of parliament seems to me important enough for the people to know about and understand the reasoning for such a drastic action’. It ‘smacks of bias and as such a lack of balance in reporting … TV One is … [manipulating] news in my mind to shape the perception of different political parties’. (Schon)

Accuracy – Schon 

• (On referring the complaint) ‘…the public not being informed in a timely manner was very misleading… By only reporting on the speech of the new member of the Te [Pāti] reset, the [portrayal] of the parliamentary events was not accurate’.
• (Responding to TVNZ’s decision) ‘It is not about preference, it is about reporting important news in a timely manner which is related to the seriousness of the event … Failing to even mention anything … on the day is unjustifiable’.

Fairness – Schon 

• TVNZ’s shaping of public perception of different political parties ‘is a very real concern and an attack on democracy and fairness’.
• ‘…the lack of reporting or should I say the selective reporting of a major event in our parliament was by its very nature unfair’.
• ‘When selective reporting such as this is evident we begin to lose trust in your government organisations to report accurately, fairly and in a balanced and timely way on significant events in our country.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

Balance – Garbutt and Schon

[8]  TVNZ did not agree that Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech, the Te Pāti Māori reset and the actions of the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders in the media conference amounted to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance as envisaged by this standard.

[9]  In any case, it is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented within the period of current interest.

[10]  TVNZ was satisfied this occurred across the 9 and 10 October 1News bulletins: the suspension issue was discussed in detail in its 10 October broadcast (it provided details of the content of that bulletin); significant viewpoints on the suspension were heard during that reporting. Further, the issues in question have been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.

[11]  TVNZ did not agree the item was biased, but in any event noted previous Authority decisions explain the balance standard does not require programmes to be presented impartially or without bias.¹

Editorial discretion and personal preference – Garbutt and Schon

[12]  Regarding its ‘editorial decision to discuss that the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders walked away from a media conference when a question they did not like was asked’ in the 9 October broadcast, TVNZ provided comment from 1News as follows:

There were two questions that were designated for the live [cross with the reporter on 9 October], we chose these two subjects as we believed them to be the most newsworthy on that day. On 9 October we covered off the most pressing critical issues which included the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders’ refusal to answer serious questions. [Our reporter] was the only reporter to ask the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders about the allegations that had been made … with that exchange being played on that night. 1News did not neglect to show the suspension of Parliament, the matter was well canvassed in a track by [the reporter] the next day.

[13]  It said while it understood the complainants’ ‘preference is that the suspension of Parliament was discussed in the 9 October 1News report [rather than 10 October], this is not an issue which can be considered by the formal complaints process’.² ‘There is limited time available in the news bulletin and it was an editorial choice to broadcast the issue that screened rather than the issue [the complainants] would have preferred to have seen. TVNZ is permitted to make these types of decisions … under the Broadcasting Act 1989.’

Accuracy – Schon

[14]  Schon did not make ‘an allegation that any material point of fact is inaccurate in the item’. As above, 1News made the editorial decision to focus on the issues reported on 9 October, and the suspension the following evening on 10 October.

Fairness – Schon

[15]  Schon also had ‘not made an allegation in this regard’ (that a particular individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast was treated unfairly).

The standards

[16]  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.

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

• 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.

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

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

Our analysis

[19]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[20]  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.⁹ We have not found any such harm in this case, for the reasons outlined below.

Balance

[21]  The crux of the complaints is that 1News’ lack of coverage of the Speaker’s suspension of Parliament in the 9 October broadcast resulted in a ‘lack of balance’ and demonstrated ‘blatant bias’.

[22]  The balance standard is not directed at bias in and of itself.¹⁰ Broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.

[23]  For the balance standard to apply, the programme must be ‘news, current affairs or factual’ and the subject matter must be an issue of ‘public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.¹¹

[24]  In our view, the broadcast was more a straight report on recent developments within Te Pāti Māori, than a ‘discussion’ of a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. The segment focused on the ‘reset’ of Te Pāti Māori, the co-leaders’ behaviour towards the reporter’s questions about alleged issues within the party, and Te Pāti Māori’s newest MP’s maiden speech.

[25]  Therefore, while we acknowledge the complainants’ strong views that the subsequent suspension of Parliament was an important and newsworthy event to report alongside this item, we do not consider the balance standard applied in respect of these concerns; it was not an omission of a ‘significant alternative viewpoint’ regarding the issues focused on.

[26]  Even if the balance standard was triggered, we would not find any breach, noting:

a)  The programme’s introduction did not claim to be a balanced examination of an issue. The item was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from the particular angle of Te Pāti Māori’s announcement of its intentions for a ‘reset’ and its co-leaders’ actions at the relevant media conference, including refusing to answer the reporter’s question about prior allegations in respect of the party.

b)  The standard does not require every significant viewpoint to be presented in every programme that discusses a particular issue.¹²

c)  TVNZ reported on the suspension of Parliament following Kaipara’s maiden speech the following evening in the 1News bulletin on 10 October, within the period of current interest.

[27]  In these circumstances, we do not uphold the complaints under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[28]  This standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs, and factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not materially mislead the audience.

[29]  Schon’s concerns relate to an alleged omission of relevant and important context and viewers not receiving a full picture of what happened on 9 October, or an accurate account of ‘parliamentary events’.

[30]  For similar reasons to those discussed under balance, we do not consider it was misleading or inaccurate to omit details of the events after Kaipara’s speech, as they were not critical to viewers’ understanding of the matters focused on. Te Pāti Māori’s ‘reset’ was about addressing alleged issues of ‘dictatorship’, ‘poor leadership’ and a ‘toxic political environment’ within the party – issues the party co-leaders refused to respond to the reporter’s questions about, earlier that day. The segment highlighting Kaipara’s maiden speech was – as per the banner shown onscreen – focused on conveying her sentiments about resilience. There is no suggestion that what was reported, regarding these two aspects, was inaccurate. 

[31]  The subsequent issue of the temporary suspension of Parliament by the Speaker and the Speaker’s request to meet with the party, was addressed in detail in the following night’s news bulletin. 

[32]  Accordingly, we find no harm under this standard that would outweigh the broadcaster’s freedom of expression or the public interest, and no breach of the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[33]  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 are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed.¹³ Schon’s concerns under fairness identify issues more properly considered under the balance or accuracy standards above, as they focus on the potential consequences arising from the allegedly unbalanced ‘selective reporting of a major event’. There was no suggestion the broadcast otherwise dealt ‘unfairly’ with any individual or organisation referred to.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
11 February 2026    

Appendix

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

Garbutt’s complaint

1  Garbutt’s original complaint – 10 October 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 31 October 2025

3  Garbutt’s referral to the Authority – 3 November 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 3 November 2025

5  Garbutt’s further comments – 4 November 2025

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 4 November 2025

7  Garbutt’s further comments – 5 November 2025

8  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 17 November 2025

9  Garbutt’s further comments – 2 December 2025

10  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 5 December 2025

Schon’s complaint

11  Schon’s original complaint – 6 October 2025

12  TVNZ’s decision – 6 November 2025

13  Schon’s referral to the Authority – 10 November 2025

14  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 21 November 2025

¹ Citing Right to Life Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-043
² Citing section 5(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which states ‘complaints based merely on a complainant’s preferences are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure’.
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁸ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ For a similar finding see Rupa and Television New Zealand Limited, Decision No. 2025-013 at [7]; and Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-021 at [13].
¹¹ Guideline 5.1
¹² Guideline 5.2
¹³ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20