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 a Mike’s Minute segment on Phase Two of the Royal Commission report Whītiki Aotearoa: further lessons from COVID-19 to prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a future pandemic. The complainant alleged the segment presented ‘misrepresentations’ and inaccuracies about the findings of the report and was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations of Mike’s Minute and the comments expressed were either clearly opinion or not materially misleading. The Authority also found the broadcast was not required to present significant perspectives under the balance standard, and the fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 11 March 2026 broadcast of Mike’s Minute offered ‘some simple observations’ on Whītiki Aotearoa: further lessons from COVID-19 to prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a future pandemic (the Report), Phase Two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned (the Royal Commission).¹ Host Mike Hosking briefly listed 17 observations; including:

Three: I'm convinced it's a waste of time because of pandemic responses about the ideology and government of the day, not medical process.

Four: Why do I say that? Read the report. It says numerous times good advice was ignored.

Five: Did the Labour Government broadly cock it up? Yes.

Six: Badly? Yes.

Seven: The report says at its heart, people tried hard. They wanted to do the right thing.

Eight: Is that acceptable? Answer: sort of, but wanting to do well isn't the same as actually doing well.

Nine: It's hard to work out what's worse – the medical cock-ups or the financial ones.

Ten: Robertson and his economic vandalism came out of it probably as bad as Ardern and her megalomania.

Eleven: They were too slow, I would argue, because they were lazy. They sat in opposition for nine years not expecting to get to government, they weren't sharp already. So, not only did Winston hand them a lifeline, they got a pandemic to boot. They never stood a chance. They weren't match fit.

Twelve: It's as much our fault as anyone. A party that gets about 30% support in any given MMP election in 2020 got 50. Too many of us loved being told how to wipe our bums and too many of us were too lazy to think and work out where this was all heading.

Thirteen: The tide turned and given any response, pandemic or war or just plain policy, is reliant on public goodwill. Once it did turn, Labour were done for.

Fourteen: The fact Ardern can't live in the country tells you very clearly how badly the tide turned.

Fifteen: I'm no more confident today we are any more ready for a pandemic, although if we can take anything from the Report –

Sixteen: It's the recommendation that public debt needs to drop so we can be more ready for an unpredictable world. War, anyone?

Seventeen: The reports? Neither of were really needed. We are the experts. We lived through it. Some of us still bear the scars.

The complaint

[2]  Martin Garrood complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  The summary of what the Royal Commission says is ‘far off the mark’.

b)  The Report ‘says many times that the government of the day did well given the uncertainties they faced’. It did not say they ‘cocked up, or cocked up badly’. It says there are some lessons to be learned. To frame that as saying the Government cocked up is ‘lies and propaganda’.

c)  In reference to Hosking’s comments about good advice being ‘ignored’, the complainant claimed that is also not what the Report says. It says that ‘most of the time advice from experts was followed, but a few times it wasn’t – including one time […] where the Commission explicitly says that advice of the Technical Advisory Group did not reach Ministers’.

d)  ‘There is no evidence in the Royal Commission report of either medical cock-ups nor of economic vandalism – that is a complete misrepresentation of what it says and pretending that is just Mike’s opinion does not wash – he presents this as fact – it is clearly not.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  ‘Mike’s Minute is a clearly signposted opinion segment in which Mike Hosking sets out his personal views on topical issues, often in strong and provocative terms.’

b)  ‘From its introduction […] and throughout the segment, the commentary is framed as opinion rather than a factual or comprehensive summary of the Royal Commission’s findings.’

c)  ‘Newstalk ZB listeners are familiar with Mike’s Minute as an editorial commentary segment, and we consider it would have been understood as such.’

d)  ‘While we acknowledge [the complainant’s] disagreement with Mike Hosking’s characterisation of the Royal Commission’s findings, the statements complained of were expressed as value judgements and opinion.’

e)  The fairness standard does ‘not address fairness to the audience’. Hence, ‘the fairness standard is not engaged here’.  

The standards

[4]  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.² The standard states:³

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.

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁴ The standard states:⁵

• 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.

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

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

Our analysis

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

[8]  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.[8]

Balance

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

[10]  An issue of public importance is something that would have 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

[11]  The broadcast discussed ‘simple observations’ of the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This issue can reasonably be considered controversial and of significant interest and concern to the New Zealand public. The standard therefore applies.

[12]  However, the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where:¹¹

a)  It is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way in which the programme is presented that:

i)  the programme is not claiming, or intended, to be a balanced examination of an issue

ii)  the programme is signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective

iii)  the programme is narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.

b)  The audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.

c)  In the context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented.

[13]  Applying these factors, we are satisfied there was no breach of the balance standard in this case. This is because:

a)  Mike’s Minute is a regular opinion piece approximately two minutes long, comprising the host’s ‘perspective’ on his chosen topic of the day. Listeners are likely to understand it presented the perspective and opinion of Hosking only.

b)  Hosking gave his ‘observations’ on the Report. It did not purport to be an in-depth or balanced examination – or even a summary – of the effectiveness of the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

c)  In this context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented to either contradict or validate Hosking’s opinion piece.

d)  Upon publication, the Report garnered public and political media attention and is widely available for interested listeners to access themselves.¹² Viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.

[14]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[15]  The accuracy standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.¹³

[16]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.¹⁴ However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to.

[17]  The complainant raised the following statements as ‘misrepresentations’ in his original complaint:

a)  Statement one: the ‘Labour Government, broadly, [did] cock it up’ and ‘badly’

b)  Statement two: the Report ‘says numerous times, good advice was ignored’

c)  Statement three: it’s ‘hard to work out what’s worse – the medical cockups or the financial ones,’ and referring to Grant Robertson’s ‘economic vandalism’ and Jacinda Ardern’s ‘megalomania’.

[18]  The key question is how a reasonable listener would likely perceive the statements. The following factors are relevant:¹⁵

a)  the language used

b)  the type of programme

c)  the role or reputation of the person speaking

d)  the subject matter

e)  whether the statement is attributed to someone

f)  whether evidence or proof is provided.

[19]  The segment did not purport to be an in-depth discussion or summary of the Report, as Hosking did not go into detail on any point but instead provided broad statements and ‘observations’ of his critical opinions consistent with audience expectations of Mike’s Minute. The language used, particularly in the first and third statements above, was very casual (‘broadly’, ‘cocked up’, ‘cocked up badly’, ‘hard to work out what’s worse’, ‘economic vandalism’, ‘megalomania’).

[20]  We are also conscious that the nature of such a Royal Commission report is to identify issues and lessons to guide future situations. Listeners are likely to understand:

a)  areas for improvement would be identified

b)  Hosking was providing his own perspective on the issues

c)  others may see the issues differently.

[21]  In this context, the statements are likely to be interpreted as opinion, as opposed to fact, to which the standard does not apply.  

[22]  We acknowledge the second statement may appear more factual as it comments on what the Report ‘says’. However, again, the language used (ie the Report ‘says numerous times, good advice was ignored’) together with the absence of examples to back up the statement and the statement’s presence on a list of ‘observations’ means listeners are also likely to interpret this as Hosking’s view of what is ‘numerous’ and what is ‘good advice’. For these reasons we consider this statement is also likely to be interpreted as opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply.

[23]  In any event, noting the Report does include some examples of advice received which was not implemented,¹⁶ we are not satisfied this statement, if inaccurate, is materially inaccurate.

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

Fairness

[25]  The purpose of this standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes. The fairness 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).¹⁷

[26]  While the complainant subsequently expressed concerns regarding the impacts on the Labour Government and its representatives, the original complaint was focused on issues of misrepresentation rather than reputational impact.¹⁸ Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider issues raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. In these circumstances, we consider the fairness standard does not apply.

[27]  In any event, we note the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to politicians or organisations familiar with dealing with the media is higher than for others.¹⁹ Given the high public interest in the Royal Commission, such scrutiny of Government and politician’s actions is expected, and we do not consider any of the comments would reach the threshold for a finding of unfairness.

[28]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the fairness standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
24 June 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Garrood’s original complaint – 11 March 2026

2  NZME’s decision – 10 April 2026

3  Garrood’s referral to the Authority – 20 April 2026

4  NZME’s response to the referral – 8 May 2026

5  Garrood’s further comments – 24 May 2026

6  NZME’s confirmation of no further comments – 26 May 2026

¹ Te Tira Ārai Urutā I NZ Royal Commission COVID-19 Lessons Learned (February 2026) “Whītiki Aotearoa: further lessons from COVID-19 to prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a future pandemic” <covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz>
² Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁵ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁷ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹¹ Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² See, for example, Beehive: New Zealand Government (10 March 2026) “COVID-19 Inquiry released – Hon Simeon Brown” <beehive.govt.nz>; “Covid-19 response inquiry finds government’s response effective but late, poorly communicated” RNZ (online ed, 10 March 2026); “Covid inquiry report slams cost of long lockdowns, urges future changes - The Front Page” New Zealand Herald (online ed, 10 March 2026); and Taxpayers’ Union (10 March 2026) “Hipkins Must Answer As Royal Commission Reveals Ministers Ignored Advice During COVID Response” <taxpayers.org.nz>
¹³ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15 
¹⁴ Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁵ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁶ Whītiki Aotearoa: further lessons from COVID-19 to prepare Aotearoa New Zealand for a future pandemic (Te Tira Ārai Urutā I NZ Royal Commission COVID-19 Lessons Learned, February 2026) at 2.3.5.2 and 2.3.6
¹⁷ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
¹⁸ The complaint references concerns regarding ‘lies’, ‘propaganda’, ‘misrepresentation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘political bias’
¹⁹ Guideline 8.1: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19