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 1News item on rising gang membership, which featured archival footage of gang members. The complainant said the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, balance and accuracy standards on the basis the footage promoted gang activity/membership and misrepresented the current situation where gang patches and insignia are banned in public. In the context of the item, the Authority did not consider the likely impact of the visual content was to encourage illegal or antisocial behaviour. It also found the content was unlikely to mislead reasonable viewers regarding current gang activity. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 29 July 2025 broadcast of 1News included an item about rising gang membership in Aotearoa New Zealand. The story was illustrated with archival footage of gang members, including members wearing patches/insignia, driving in groups, embracing and saluting.

[2]  The broadcast audio included:

Newsreader:                          The number of gang members has soared to a record high. For the first time, there are now more than 10,000 patched gang members and prospects. And while some suspect the true number may be even higher, the Prime Minister maintains his Government is smashing the gangs…

Reporter:                                Cracking down on these guys has been a key goal for the Government.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: We are definitely going to go after gangs.  We're going to make their life a misery.

Hon Mark Mitchell:               It's becoming really uncomfortable to be a gang member in New Zealand.

Luxon:                                    We are actually tough on crime.

Mitchell:                                 We're clamping down hard on the gangs.

Reporter:                                But it appears the gangs haven't got the memo. Instead, they're steadily recruiting. In October 2023, at the time of the election, there were just shy of 9,300 gang members, according to Police. This month the new record, there are now more than 10,000.

Mitchell [to Reporter]:          We are going after the gangs; we're making their life as difficult as possible.

Reporter:                               Why are the numbers going up then if you're making life as difficult as possible?

Mitchell:                                 We're not going to reverse what happened under six years of the Labour Government. You saw a huge increase.

Reporter:                               This is about what's happening under your watch, right? Not about the previous Government.

Mitchell:                                 No, no, I'm explaining to you, we're not going to reverse what happened under a previous Labour Government in six years, where you saw a massive increase in gang numbers.

Reporter [voiceover]:           Insisting it's good news that gang numbers are rising more slowly than they were.

Mitchell [to Reporter]:          We're definitely heading in the right direction.

Reporter:                               Shouldn't they be falling though? Shouldn't the overall numbers be falling? If you're bringing in good policies—

Mitchell:                                 Well, they are, they are.

Reporter:                               —they've gone up 700.

Mitchell:                                 Well, we've stopped. We've stopped the rate of increase.

Dr Jarrod Gilbert:                 We can't identify the gangs anymore because insignia has been banned. So, perversely, we may see the numbers come down on this list. It's not reflective of anything on the street, except gangs have become more invisible.

…

Hon Ginny Anderson:          These numbers show that Christopher Luxon has failed to make things better. We have more new gang members than more new police under his watch.

Reporter [to Luxon]:             Are you concerned with the prevalence of New Zealand gangs?

Luxon:                                    Um, well, again, you know, what we've been working hard on is to smash up the gangs. You know, they're one quarter of one percent of the population driving 25 percent of our violent crime.

Reporter:                               The smashing's not going very well.

Luxon:                                    I'm proud of the progress that we've made — I mean, putting the gang patches in place, many people said it couldn't be done — but we've got to keep smashing them up.

Reporter:                                The Police say that they're making twice as much money as they were a year ago through methamphetamine. I mean, you're not smashing them.

Luxon:                                    Well, there's no doubt about it, methamphetamine is um — we've got challenges around border, around through the Pacific in particular.

…

Anderson:                              Not only have gang numbers increased but methamphetamine levels have skyrocketed under their watch.

Reporter:                                And the meth trade is now one of three drivers for people to join gangs.

Gilbert:                                   A sense of family, a sense of brotherhood, particularly if your family has been deficient in those areas … a second one I think is a sense of status, and in recent times there's a third one perhaps and that's a potential source of income, primarily through the drug trade.

Reporter:                               Whatever the reason, the National Gang List continues to be used as political ammo.

The complaint

[3]  GT complained the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

• The segment on the growth of gang numbers ‘continually showed’ old footage of gang behaviour and the public wearing of gang insignia.
• ‘These behaviours have now been banned by the Government and the regulations are being strictly enforced.’
• The use of this material created a false impression of the current situation which ‘would have encouraged such behaviours and gang recruiting’. Older viewers may have been frightened by it and ‘gang members or potential gang members excited by it’.
• The footage, which TVNZ indicated was from 2019 and 2023, bore no relationship to the story since the depicted behaviours were not ‘the current drivers for gang membership that were discussed in the audio of the item’.
• ‘It seemed to be deliberately used by TVNZ to try and embarrass the Government.’
• Studies show that ‘visuals are more impactful than audio content’. They would have shifted focus away from the audio and the actual issue of increasing gang membership and left an overriding impression ‘that the illegal activities were still frequently occurring’.
• TVNZ’s approach was negligent and irresponsible from a news outlet.

The broadcaster’s response

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

• The broadcast did not promote or encourage gang activity. The footage was generic, contextual and protected under the Gangs Act 2024 exemption for news reporting.
• The report was a legitimate piece on gang numbers and political responses, showing perspectives from across the political spectrum. While the segment did not cover every angle in detail, audiences encounter a range of perspectives through ongoing 1News coverage of gangs.
• The footage, though historical, was recognisable to viewers, regularly used in previous reports, and illustrated the issues gangs are associated with.
• The item focused on rising gang membership and political accountability, not enforcement of the Gangs Act 2024.
• TVNZ also pointed to government, police and academic sources showing gang behaviour remains prevalent, membership has risen substantially, and organised crime threats have increased in recent years.  Linking gang growth to methamphetamine use was relevant.
• TVNZ rejected claims the footage exaggerated the situation or embarrassed the Government, arguing television is an audio visual medium where both images and audio matter. The visuals would therefore not unduly frighten or mislead viewers, particularly given the item’s clear focus on statistics and politics.

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard (standard 3) is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not be likely to promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour taking into account the context and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control.

[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 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.

[8]  We consider the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour and accuracy standards most relevant to the concerns identified by the complainant. However, we have briefly addressed the balance standard at paragraphs [21]–[22].

Our analysis

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

[10]  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.⁷

[11]  By examining the ‘record high’ levels of gang membership, the effectiveness of government policy on gangs and the factors contributing to the increase in gang membership, we consider this broadcast carried significant public interest. For the reasons further outlined below, we have not identified a correspondingly high level of harm that justifies limiting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[12]  This standard does not stop the depiction or discussion of illegal or antisocial behaviour. It is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine or promote disobedience of the law or serious antisocial activity. Broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous may have this effect.⁸

[13]  Context is crucial in assessing a programme’s likely practical effect. In the context of this programme, we do not consider the likely impact of the visual content was to encourage illegal or antisocial behaviour:

a)  The item was a news report focused on increasing gang membership. 

b)  The emphasis throughout was on statistics and policy implications, not on celebrating or glamourising gang activity.

c)  The broadcast highlighted the Government’s objectives to:

i)  ‘go after’, ‘clamp down on’ and ‘smash up’ the gangs

ii)  be ‘tough on crime’

iii)  make ‘their life a misery’ and make it ‘really uncomfortable to be a gang member in New Zealand’.

d)  The footage served as a visual illustration of gang activity. The broadcast did not suggest it was recent, or that the Government’s ban on wearing patches and insignia was not generally being observed.

[14]  We acknowledge Dr Gilbert identified some benefits of gang membership: ‘A sense of family, a sense of brotherhood, particularly if your family has been deficient in those areas … a second one I think is a sense of status and in recent times there's a third one perhaps and that's a potential source of income primarily through the drug trade’. However, even with this context, we consider the relevant footage was highly unlikely to encourage TVNZ’s audience towards gang membership or other antisocial activity.

[15]  For these reasons, we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Accuracy

[16]  The complainant’s concern under accuracy, is that the relevant footage created a false impression of the current situation — in particular, that the activities depicted (eg wearing of patches/insignia) were still frequently occurring.

[17]  The footage was included in the item as a visual illustration of the item’s subject matter. It did not amount to a ‘material point of fact’ for the purposes of the accuracy standard.⁹ The question is therefore whether the footage was materially misleading, by giving viewers a ‘wrong idea or impression of the facts’.¹⁰

[18]  We do not consider the footage created any misleading impression:

a)  No comment was made about the footage.

b)  The item’s narration and structure made clear the display of gang patches and insignia in public is now illegal, whilst focusing on rising membership numbers, the methamphetamine trade and political accountability, not on the specific behaviours depicted.

c)  The associated audio included no suggestion the new legislation restricting patches and insignia was not being observed.

d)  The use of archival footage is a common editorial convention in news, even if the images were not instantly recognisable as historical footage.

[19]  In the circumstances, the audience was likely to understand the footage served only as background visuals for the report. Its use was unlikely to mislead reasonable viewers regarding current gang activity. 

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

Balance

[21]  The balance standard is directed at ensuring competing viewpoints about significant issues are available. However, the complaint in this case was not about the omission of significant perspectives on a controversial issue of public importance. It related to the potential misleading and other effects of content which was in the broadcast – ie TVNZ’s choice of accompanying visual footage. Accordingly, the balance standard does not apply.

[22]  In terms of the complainant’s suggestion the relevant footage seemed to have been deliberately used to embarrass the Government, that is not an issue addressed by the balance standard and, in any event, there was no evidence to support such a conclusion.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 October 2025  

 
Appendix

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

1  GT’s original complaint – 29 July 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 21 August 2025

3  GT’s referral to the Authority – 21 August 2025

4  GT’s additional comments – 1 September 2025

5  TVNZ’s further comments – 15 September 2025

6  GT’s response – 17 September 2025

7  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 18 September 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
² Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
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 Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁹  For similar findings, see Mooney and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-099 at [11]; and Balfour and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-040 at [55] and [56]
¹⁰ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand