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 Mother’s Day profiling a women’s duck shooting group in the Hawke’s Bay. The complaint alleged the tone of the item was disrespectful to wildlife including native wildlife, through irreverent comments such as describing duck shooting as ‘fun’ and good for ‘mental health’, which was ‘deeply offensive’; and it lacked balance and accuracy by not telling the other side of the story from the growing number of people who oppose duck shooting, or providing broader context about wildlife decline including among the four native species that are ‘allowed to be shot’. The Authority found the item was clearly framed as a light-hearted human-interest story rather than an in-depth exploration of a controversial issue requiring balancing viewpoints. Its tone and content were unlikely to disproportionately disturb or offend most viewers, in the context. The complainant’s objection to the framing of a story about duck shooting, which is a lawful activity in New Zealand, is a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and does not raise issues of harm that justify restricting freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy 

The broadcast

[1]  A Mother’s Day item on 1News on 11 May 2025 featured a women-only hunting group during the duck shooting season in Hawke’s Bay. It was introduced:

Today’s about our mums, and according to Fish & Game, more and more of them are dusting off the camo and heading out to shoot some ducks. Now a group of Hawke’s Bay shooters have created their own women’s club. With the season in full swing, [reporter] caught up with them.

[2]  The item included the following comments from women in the club and the reporter:

Interviewee 1:                        As a mum of five, it’s great to be able to get out, and for the mental health,  outside and, yeah, with a great group of people, that we just have a huge laugh.

Reporter:                                A chance to check in with and encourage one another.

Interviewee 2:                        I just love that it gets me out of my comfort zone. It actually helps to build a lot of confidence and, yeah, just gives you that satisfaction when you can actually go and get something yourself.

Reporter:                               Fish & Game, the organisation that monitors the duck shooting season, says it’s seen huge growth in the number of women not only picking up the sport but winning more and more events.

Interviewee 3:                        I think, you know, from being kind of a male-dominated sport, it’s awesome to see the women being empowered to get out there and hunt.

…

Reporter:                               Now the ladies cater to every need, including this camouflage long drop which also is used as a maimai hut, so the ladies are ready for every shot [reporter mimics being on alert looking for ducks, while sitting on the long drop].

Interviewee 1:                        Sit down and shoot from the throne. … We get into quite a bit of deer shooting in off season as well, as we like to slay some turkeys. So, this [pointing to slogan on their customised clothing] is just ‘girls on the hunt for good meat’– we try to chuck some puns in there wherever we can, ’cause everything’s light-hearted.

Reporter:                               Once a successful shot is made, they pluck and butcher the ducks on site, taking pride in providing for their family from sky to plate.

[Accompanied by shots of dog swimming with dead duck in its mouth (five seconds’ duration) and someone placing a knife to begin cutting open a duck (two seconds).]

Interviewee 3:                        Yes, definitely, from start to finish.

Interviewee 1:                        Having these girls come in, and then with little to no experience at all, but they were all real keen – keen’s the thing that you need.

…

Interviewee 1:                        [Shown taking duck from dog’s mouth and holding it up to camera] And there you have it. Do an interview and you get a duck.

The complaint

[3]  Paul Judge complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons.

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[4]  ‘It displayed animal cruelty, with a person holding up a dead duck to the camera… a paradise shelduck which are native species endemic to New Zealand… and many people think should be protected under the Wildlife Act 1953.’

[5]  ‘The whole tone of the story was disrespectful to our wildlife’, with ‘irreverent and contemptuous’ comments such as describing duck shooting as ‘fun’ and beneficial for ‘mental health’, which was ‘deeply offensive’ to anyone who values an animal’s life. ‘Even the reporter took part in this obscene display of irreverence by sitting on a makeshift long drop and ‘making a humourous shooting action’.

Balance / Accuracy

[6]  The complainant submitted there is increasing opposition to duck shooting as a sport and support for it to be banned. Viewers were not told that: all species of waterfowl in Aotearoa New Zealand are in decline, four species of waterfowl allowed to be shot are native species, and duck shooting in some parts of Australia has been banned due to public pressure and unacceptability of it as a ‘sport’. ‘The other side of the story — cruelty to ducks — was not shown.’

[7]  Overall, the item ‘perpetuated an outdated, violent tradition… and shows a failure to keep pace with current thinking and environmental realities and a shift in public values.’ Judge questioned why TVNZ ‘persist[s] with the outdated practice of presenting the violent activity of duck shooting as a ‘fun’ and ‘family’ activity’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[9]  TVNZ noted duck hunting is legal in Aotearoa New Zealand in season; ducks are game birds and hunting these birds requires a special licence. It maintained the story would not ‘offend or disturb a significant number of viewers in the context of screening’:

• 1News is aimed at an adult audience and differing attitudes must be considered: ‘the feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot dictate what can be broadcast.’
• The focus of the story was signposted from the start so viewers could decide whether they wished to view such material or not.
• It is socially acceptable to hunt meat and eat it [in Aotearoa New Zealand] and none of the material, including footage of someone holding a dead duck, was overtly gruesome or inappropriate in the context of a 6pm news bulletin.
• The item was consistent with the kind of topics often featured on the news and the tone typical of the approach expected by viewers.

Balance

[10]  TVNZ acknowledged broader ethical debates around duck hunting but said this item did not qualify as a discussion of a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ as it was ‘a human-interest story, focusing on a group of mums who have created their own duck hunting club’. ‘This is not an issue which required balancing material or other viewpoints to be included.’

Accuracy

[11]  There was no allegation in the complaint that any material point of fact in the item was inaccurate.

The standards

[12]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (standard 1) is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.¹ The standard states:²

• Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:
  • the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
  • the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[13]  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.

[14]  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.

Our analysis

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

[16]  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 We find no such harm in this case for the reasons below.

Offensive and disturbing content

[17]  We acknowledge the complainant’s genuine concerns about animal welfare, including of our native wildlife in Aotearoa New Zealand, and some people’s opposition to duck shooting.

[18]  However, while the complainant found the imagery and tone of this broadcast personally offensive, the offensive and disturbing content standard sets a high threshold, requiring content to ‘seriously violate community norms’ or ‘disproportionately disturb’ audiences.[8] 

[19]  We do not consider the item would have had that effect, in the context of an unclassified 6pm news bulletin targeted at an adult audience and for which adult supervision is expected.

[20]  Duck shooting is a legal activity in Aotearoa New Zealand, widely known to occur during a specific season. The complainant advised some native species, including the native paradise shelduck shown in the item, are allowed to be shot, although the complainant advocates for the law being changed in that regard.

[21]  The Authority has consistently found — including in determining previous complaints from this complainant on similar issues — that hunting is a reality of life in Aotearoa New Zealand⁹ and the depiction of hunting footage is generally acceptable provided it does not depict undue cruelty.¹⁰

[22]  As the broadcaster said, this was a human-interest story focused on women, some of whom are mothers, describing their experience being part of a women-only hunting group. The subject matter was clearly signposted. Viewers could reasonably expect from the introduction that the story may include images of duck shooting or dead ducks, giving them a chance to decide whether to continue watching or to exercise discretion.

[23]  The tone was light-hearted, focusing on their camaraderie and the women’s personal enjoyment of the opportunity to get outside, socialise, support each other and provide for their families through hunting — rather than being ‘disrespectful’ to wildlife generally. One interviewee commented, ‘As a mum of five, it’s great to be able to get out… [for] mental health… outside and with a great group of people, we just have a huge laugh’. She did not say taking an animal’s life was beneficial for mental health, as suggested in the complaint.

[24]  The footage in the item did not ‘depict undue cruelty’ and was not graphic or gratuitous. There were only brief shots of a dog retrieving a dead duck from the water, the women beginning to prepare the ducks for eating, and one of the women taking the dead duck from the dog and holding it up to camera. None of the footage showed ducks being shot, dying or in distress.

[25]  Although, as stated in the complainant’s submission, societal attitudes toward hunting and wildlife protection may be shifting, there is public interest in programmes that inform audiences about aspects of New Zealand life, including hunting. While not everyone agrees with it, the programme shed light on an outdoor pursuit practised by many New Zealanders,¹¹ during the permitted season, and the growing number of women participating.

[26]  In these circumstances, we do not find any harm under this standard which would justify restricting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

Balance

[27]  A number of 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.¹²

[28]  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.¹³

[29]  Although duck shooting attracts some opposition,¹⁴ it remains a culturally embedded and legally sanctioned tradition in many parts of rural Aotearoa  New Zealand.¹⁵ We agree with the broadcaster that, because this story was a human-interest piece about a group of duck-hunting women/mothers, not an exploration of the broader ethical debate around duck shooting, it did not trigger the requirement to include alternative viewpoints or the additional context the complainant wished to be included. The light tone, visual focus on friendship and food preparation, and the humorous moment with the reporter in the long drop, reinforced this was not a serious journalistic investigation into a polarising issue. The audience would not have expected to hear countering viewpoints in this context.

[30]  We find no breach of the balance standard.

Accuracy

[31]  The complaint did not point to any specific factual error, but it could be read as alleging the item was misleading by omission because it ‘failed to acknowledge the increasingly large number of people now appalled by and opposed to duck shooting and failed to give the other side of the story, that duck shooting is immensely cruel and studies show one in four ducks die a slow death.’

[32]  We accept the broadcast did not identify the duck species shown in the item or acknowledge the native status of some legally hunted birds. However, we are satisfied viewers would not have been misled by the omission of information the complainant wished to be included, given the nature and context of the item.

[33]  The item was clearly framed as a human-interest profile on a women’s duck shooting group, linked with Mother’s Day, and reported that ‘according to Fish & Game, more and more of them [women/mothers] are dusting off the camo and heading out to shoot some ducks.’ There is no suggestion this was inaccurate, ie increasing numbers of women are registering for the hunting season. The focus of the item was the women’s personal experiences and enjoyment of getting together. The item did not purport to give a detailed factual background on duck hunting, its impact on duck species or its status in other countries.

[34]  We do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
23 September 2025

Appendix

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

1  Judge’s original complaint – 20 May 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 16 June 2025

3  Judge’s referral to the Authority encl Stuff article by Judge (dated 17 May 2021) – 9 July 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 22 July 2025

5  TVNZ reiterating response/signalling unlikely to make further comment – 15 August 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
² Standard 1, 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 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁹ See Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-027 at [13] citing Andersson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2016-043 at [20]; Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-108 at [13]; and Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2016-068 at [12]
¹⁰ See Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-027 at [13] citing Feral and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No 2014-143 and Boyce and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No 2015-103; and Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-108 at [13]
¹¹ Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-018 at [16]
¹² Guideline 5.1
¹³ Guideline 5.1
¹⁴ Paul Judge “Duck shooting season: A licence to kill our endangered species” Stuff  (online ed, 17 May 2021)  Animal Justice Party press release “Duck shooting is Not Tradition – It’s Time Aotearoa Faced the Truth” Scoop (online ed, 28 April 2025) SAFE “As bird shooting season opens today in Aotearoa, it's time to question a tradition that no longer aligns with our values” Facebook post (3 May 2025) <facebook.com/SAFEnewzealand>
¹⁵ “Duck hunting season off to a cracking start” Farmers Weekly (online ed, 5 May 2025) <farmersweekly.co.nz> Ziming Li “Everything you need to know about the game bird hunting season” RNZ (online ed, 26 March 2025)