BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision] 

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an interview with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Q & A was unbalanced. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply to the concerns raised, the broadcaster’s decision had adequately responded to the concerns and the complaint related to matters of editorial discretion and personal preference. The Authority considered, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

Declined to determine (section 11 (b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance

The broadcast

[1]  The final episode of Q & A for 2024 featured a 30-minute interview with Prime Minister (PM) Christopher Luxon.

[2]  The interview canvassed the PM’s first year in office which included discussion about unemployment, economic growth, the Treaty Principles Bill, Māori-Crown relations, wealth disparity and climate change.

[3]  The interview included some robust debate about these issues in which both participants often interrupted and spoke over each other as in the extract below (interruptions are shown in italics):

…

Tame:                You're the CEO. You're the guy with the 100-day plans. [and I'm fixing] You're the guy who said we're going to turn the economy around. [and we are and isn't it great] The truth is that under your leadership, the forecasts have continued to deteriorate [but isn't it great…]

Luxon:            …that we've actually lowered inflation, food inflation, rents are stable, rents are stable [Well I mean like I said]

Tame:             Like I said, every comparable country in the world [mortgage rates are coming down] has lowered inflation.

[talking over each other indecipherable]

Luxon:            Mortgage rates coming down in the way that they have, after you know 12 rate rises, we've got three rate cuts.

Tame:             Wasn't it great that the previous government was bringing down inflation as well? Wasn't it great that every single comparable economy [can I just say to you] around the world.

Luxon:            If you carried on spending as the previous government did, you wouldn't have seen inflationary interest rates come down this year.

…

Treaty Principles Bill/Crown-Iwi Relations
…

Tame:             Sorry, you haven't answered the question. The question is what kind of leader makes a decision to support a bill knowing that it will contribute to worsening relations with New Zealand's indigenous people?

Luxon:            What I'd say to you, Jack, is it's a leader who actually formed a government because the New Zealand people delivered an outcome through an MMP system. And we have to do compromise. And you may not like it, and I'm sure David Seymour doesn't like it because he wanted a full national referendum.

Tame:             No, I'm not sure about that.

Luxon:            I don't like it. I don't like it because I don't like the bill at all. I don't think it's the right way to deal with race relations in this country. We came to a compromise.

 …

Tame:             The reason this is important is because it says so much about your negotiation skills, but also your character as a leader. You consciously agreed to a policy which you knew would worsen relations with Crown and iwi in New Zealand.

…

The complaint

[4]  Maria Hamilton complained the interview breached the balance standard for reasons summarised below:

• Tame questioned Luxon’s character and it is ‘ridiculous and damaging’ to question the character of the Prime Minister based on a deal made in an MMP environment with a minor party.
• It damages the public’s respect for elected MPs and many voters choose who to vote for based on watching such interviews.
• ‘There must be balance, and all interviewees must be treated the same, regardless of the interviewer’s political preferences.’
• Previous interviews Tame conducted with politicians were ‘soft’ by comparison.
• If ‘inflammatory’ language is used with one interviewee, it should be used with all.
• Broadcasters should not ‘push their own political ideology onto the viewing public’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• Questioning the character and integrity of elected officials is an essential role of the media.
• The interview was with Mr Luxon alone and viewers could not reasonably have been expected to be presented with a range of perspectives on all the issues.
• The interviewer interrupted Mr Luxon repeatedly in a bid to get direct answers to questions which is not unusual in the context of a political interview.

Outcome: Decline to Determine

[6]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises the Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

[7]  In this case, the Authority considers it is appropriate to exercise its section 11(b) discretion on the following grounds:

• The balance standard does not apply to the concerns raised. Its purpose is to ensure the availability of significant perspectives when a controversial issue of public importance is discussed. It does not require:
  (a)  all interviewees to be treated the same; or
  (b)  such programmes to be presented impartially or without bias.
• It is Tame’s job to challenge the Prime Minister. It is not evidence of his personal political views. 
• Concerns regarding damage to the Prime Minister’s reputation are more appropriately addressed under the fairness standard, which the complainant asked us not to consider.¹
• The complaint does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards which have not already been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s response.
• The complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference.

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine the complaint under s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 April 2025  

 
Appendix

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

1  Hamilton’s original complaint – 5 December 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision – 16 January 2025

3  Hamilton’s referral to the Authority – 20 January 2025

4  TVNZ’s comments on referral – 18 February 2025

5  Hamilton’s further submissions – 26 February 2025

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 26 February 2025

7  Hamilton clarifying standard – 27 February 2025

¹ We would not have upheld a fairness standard complaint in these circumstances in any event for reasons set out in our ‘Complaints that are unlikely to succeed’ guidance under ‘Fairness applied to politicians/public figures’ (Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>)