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 Seven Sharp item which featured presenter Hilary Barry accompanying an entertainer and keen hunter on a seasonal duck shooting trip to mark the hunter’s appointment as the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand. The complainant considered the item offensive in showing animal cruelty and disrespect for wildlife, inaccurate in stating ‘only introduced species’ are hunted in Aotearoa New Zealand (noting the patron shot a native paradise shelduck), and failed to reflect alternative perspectives on the cruelty and ecologically harmful effects of duck shooting. The Authority found the segment was a human-interest piece focused more on the patron than hunting and was consistent with the style and tone of Seven Sharp; viewers would not have been unduly surprised or disturbed by the content. Nor would viewers have been materially misled by the patron’s reference to ‘introduced species’ in the context of the piece. The human-interest focus on the new patron of Fish & Game meant the item did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue, so the balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 29 May 2025 broadcast of Seven Sharp featured presenter Hilary Barry joining a New Zealand entertainer during duck shooting season, to acknowledge her appointment as the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand and to highlight the increase in women fishers and hunters. The segment included the following, relevant for the purposes of this complaint:

Jeremy Wells:                       We’ve all heard of Fish & Game, it’s the organisation that’s responsible for managing game bird hunting, freshwater fishing in New Zealand.

Barry:                                     They’re entering a new era after appointing their first ever patron… She’s an avid fly fisher and hunter and decided to take this newbie on a trip to her mai mai.

…

Patron:                                   …the great thing is that more and more women are deciding to be duck-shooters, because it’s, you know, a time for the girls to get together… Everybody’s doing camo. You could be on the Paris catwalk with this outfit… So we’re just going to give you a little bit of a face camo and a hat, and then we’ll be off to the pond.

…

Barry [Voiceover]:                 Getting my makeup done by [the patron] wasn’t on my bingo card today. …

[To patron] You’re enjoying this.

Patron:                                   Yeah, this is fun. It’s good.

…

Patron:                                   [Sitting together in mai mai named after Barry] The thing about duck shooting is that you learn patience, and you learn to sit, and you learn to enjoy. You just look around and you think, wow, this is so gorgeous.

Barry:                                     Well, it is beautiful. I mean, it’s beautiful here. …

Patron:                                   Because, you know, it’s not all about hunting. It’s all about being out in the wilds. And there’s things that I think about. There’s four – I call it the 4-H club for me. And it’s health, hopes, hunting, and happiness. And they are really important to me. So, our bag limit today is eight ducks each because it’s not a huge area and… it maintains the ducks.

Barry:                                     So, we’re gonna get eight each today?

Patron:                                   Um, no. We might get a cup of tea. We're going to put two cartridges in — one there, and one there… And now we’re safe, okay? Now we're waiting for ducks.

…

Barry [Voiceover]:                You can see why [the patron] loves it and why she wants to encourage others.

Barry [to the patron]:           Now, for the first time ever, Fish & Game has got its patron — their first patron…

Patron:                                   Yeah, pretty exciting, isn’t it? … And to be ‘patron’ means that you’re passionate about something, you know. That you really want to… promote it and enjoy it yourself. And so, it was… a good feeling.

Barry:                                     What’s the message you want to get across about hunting and fishing?

Patron:                                   Well, one of the big things is conservation. You know, a lot of people don’t know about the amount of conservation that hunters do in this country. And also, all of the animals that are hunted in New Zealand are introduced species and they must be maintained. You know, we must always maintain introduced species because we want all the native animals and birds to… be happy and have their habitat.

Barry:                                     Would you like to see more women get into it?

Patron:                                   Well, actually, more women are getting into it, especially fly fishing and duck shooting. And I think, you know, women are starting to say, I want to be the one that, you know, provides the food on the table when I go hunting… And a lot of women out there are really good shots now, you know. They’re patient. They’re a little bit more patient than the boys. So, I think it’s really important that women… are… really recognised as part of the hunting and fishing fraternity in New Zealand.

…

Barry:                                     [Fires gun] Sheepers, I see what you mean, [laughing] when you said don’t let go of the gun.

Patron:                                   Okay, how did that feel?

Barry:                                     Brilliant! That was brilliant!

Barry [Voiceover]:                Brilliant but unsuccessful. Let’s see how it’s really done.

                        …

Patron:                                   [Fires gun] I think we got one.

Barry:                                     I think you did.

Patron:                                   I think we got one. Fetch it out, Rosie [the dog]… Bring it here. Good girl. Good girl!

It’s so important that we do have this amazing country and we have amazing hunting in New Zealand. And we want to maintain it and keep it for the next generation.

Barry:                                     [Pouring cups of tea] Oh, this is the best bit, isn't it?

Patron:                                   Yeah, this the best bit.

…

Barry:                                     [To Wells in the studio] And you can come and visit my maimai too, if you want.

Wells:                                      Will there be guns?

Barry:                                     Yeah, definitely.

Wells:                                     No, thanks.

The complaint

[2]  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

[3]  The item showed ‘animal cruelty’, with the patron ‘holding up a dead native paradise shelduck to the camera after she had shot it’. The tone was ‘disrespectful to our wildlife, including natives’ and displayed ‘irreverent and contemptuous attitudes’ towards animals, particularly the ‘laughing and “fun” aspects of killing animals’. It is troubling that a ‘beloved NZ icon… was involved in the segment, which ‘normalised’ animal cruelty under the guise of entertainment’.

Balance

[4]  The item:

• failed to mention an increasingly large number of people are ‘appalled by and opposed to duck shooting’ and that ‘duck shooting is banned in parts of Australia… due to public pressure over unacceptable cruelty’
• failed to give the other side of the story about duck shooting as a ‘sport’ that is immensely ‘cruel’
• portrayed duck shooting as a ‘fun, family activity and opportunity for comedy’ while failing to address growing public concern or opposition which is ‘irresponsible’.

[5]  The complainant, however, acknowledged Jeremy Wells’ ‘brilliant reaction’ and sending ‘the right message’ by refusing to be involved in any future hunting trip as there would be ‘guns there’.

Accuracy

[6]  The patron claimed ‘all animals hunted in NZ were introduced species’ but was then shown ‘killing a female native paradise shelduck (pūtangitangi) – an appalling contradiction that would go unnoticed by many viewers’.

[7]  The item ‘failed to inform viewers four species of waterfowl allowed to be shot… are native species endemic to New Zealand’ and omitted relevant context about population decline. There was no attempt to present the other side of the story, including environmental threats such as habitat loss and over-hunting. Omission of this information ‘misled the public about the true state of waterfowl and their treatment’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Offensive and disturbing content

[9]  The broadcast may not have appealed to all viewers, particularly those who oppose duck hunting, but the subject matter was consistent with audience expectations for Seven Sharp. Duck shooting is a legal and accepted activity in New Zealand, and viewers were given a clear understanding of the upcoming topic so they could make an informed decision about whether to continue viewing.

[10]  Past decisions of the Authority recognise that hunting and preparing animals for food is a reality of life in New Zealand, and hunting footage will generally be acceptable so long as it does not show undue cruelty.¹

[11]  There was no animal cruelty displayed in this item. It did not include any material likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards, in the context of a news and current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience.

Balance

[12]  The segment was about the appointment of the first patron of Fish & Game and duck hunting was incidental. The topic of her appointment is not a controversial issue of public importance as envisaged by the standard. Duck hunting is legal and socially acceptable in New Zealand and further information on this topic was not required under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[13]  The patron’s reference to ‘introduced species’ captured a wider group of animals than just ducks, hunted in New Zealand. However, TVNZ acknowledged paradise ducks are an endemic species which can be hunted in season, so the patron’s comment – only ‘introduced species’ are hunted in New Zealand – was incorrect in relation to this species. Nevertheless, TVNZ did not consider this was material to viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole, which was more focused on her recent appointment, so there was no breach of the standard.

The standards

[14]  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.² The standard states:³

• 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.

[15]  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.⁴ The standard states:⁵

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.

[16]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ The standard states:⁷

• 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

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

[18]  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

Offensive and disturbing content

[19]  We acknowledge the complainant’s genuine concerns about animal welfare and public opposition to duck shooting, and that the complainant found the imagery and tone of the item personally offensive.

[20]  However, the standard is not designed to prevent the broadcast of material that some may find challenging or offensive. It sets a high threshold, requiring content to ‘seriously violate community norms’ or ‘disproportionately disturb’ the general audience.⁹

[21]  Duck shooting is a legal activity in Aotearoa New Zealand, widely known to occur during a specific season.¹⁰ Coverage of it, even when upbeat, does not automatically render the broadcast offensive simply because some people object to it or hunting generally. We do not agree the item ‘displayed animal cruelty’, was ‘disrespectful’ to wildlife or was otherwise likely to disproportionately offend or distress the audience, in the context.

[22]  The story was framed around a well-known personality, her appointment as the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand, rural lifestyle and personal traditions. The story took a light-hearted tone, focused on personal enjoyment. Regular viewers of Seven Sharp expect informal, personality-driven stories with occasional humour and rural subject matter. The story and tone were consistent with well-established audience expectations of the programme.

[23]  The item contained no graphic or gratuitous imagery. The moments showing a dead duck in a dog’s mouth as it retrieved it from the water, and the patron holding the duck up to camera, were extremely brief — a total of eight seconds within a nine-minute item. The predominant visual focus was on the patron’s and Barry’s interactions.

[24]  The positive portrayal of duck hunting and the brief footage of a dead native paradise shelduck may have been offensive to some viewers. However, applying the standard and given the nature and tone of the item, we find no harm justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. We do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Balance

[25]  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.¹¹

[26]  We agree with the broadcaster that this was a human-interest piece about the appointment of the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand, which Seven Sharp marked by sending Barry on her first–ever duck shoot. Although duck shooting attracts some opposition,¹² the item made it clear to viewers it was from the perspective of the first ‘patron’ of Fish & Game New Zealand, described by her as suggesting a passion for, and wish to promote, the organisation. It focused on the rapport between the patron and Hilary Barry, the benefits of being outdoors and taking time to reflect. As such, it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance triggering the requirement to present alternative viewpoints. Nor would viewers have expected to be presented with the viewpoints the complainant wished to see included – opposition to duck shooting or commenting on its ‘cruelty’ or ‘ecologically harmful’ impacts – in this context.

[27]  We note, however, as the complainant did, the exchange between Hilary Barry and Jeremy Wells at the conclusion of the item which subtly signalled an alternative viewpoint when Barry asked Wells if he would visit her maimai:

Wells:                Will there be guns?

Barry:                 Yeah, definitely.

Wells:                No thanks.

[28]  This brief exchange signalled Wells’ personal discomfort with guns and by association, the activity of hunting. Though not a formal counterpoint, it acknowledged not all New Zealanders support duck shooting or gun use.

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

Accuracy

[30]  The complainant’s main concerns under this standard were that:

• The patron incorrectly claimed ‘all animals hunted in NZ are introduced species’ but was then shown ‘killing a female native paradise shelduck (pūtangitangi/pūtakitaki) – an appalling contradiction that would go unnoticed by many viewers’.
• The item ‘failed to inform viewers four species of waterfowl allowed to be shot… are native species endemic to New Zealand’ and omitted relevant context about population decline. Omission of this information ‘misled the public about the true state of waterfowl and their treatment’.

Native paradise shelduck

[31]  TVNZ acknowledged the patron’s statement that ‘all of the animals that are hunted in New Zealand are introduced species’ was factually incorrect in relation to the species of duck shown, as the paradise shelduck (pūtangitangi/pūtakitaki) is endemic to New Zealand.¹³

[32]  However, the accuracy standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹⁴

[33]  Even if the patron’s statement was incorrect when juxtaposed with the footage of this particular species — which both the complainant and the broadcaster appear to accept was a native species endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand — when viewed in the broader context of the broadcast, we agree with the broadcaster the type of programme and the overall angle meant viewers were unlikely to have been misled in any material way.

[34]  The comment was made during a light-hearted, entertainment-focused segment featuring banter between the patron and Hilary Barry, lasting more than nine minutes. It was not a news or current affairs item where viewers would reasonably expect carefully researched information about wildlife or Aotearoa New Zealand’s hunting laws. The patron’s surrounding remarks indicated she was expressing her understanding or belief about hunting’s purpose, and referring to all native species, not just ducks. In any event, viewers were given sufficient context throughout the item to appreciate the duck retrieved was a species which, as the complainant acknowledges, can be legally hunted in Aotearoa New Zealand — even if it is endemic.

Omission of further context 

[35]  The story did not make factual claims about the ethics or sustainability of duck shooting. It presented one, clearly signalled perspective — the appointment of a patron to, and promotion of Fish & Game New Zealand — without implying this was the full picture. While the complainant would have personally preferred further information about the ecological context and calls by some for legal protections to be strengthened in relation to some waterfowl species, these omissions were not material to viewers’ understanding of the item given its nature and focus. The audience would not have expected detailed or authoritative statements about ‘the true state of waterfowl’, which species are native, which are introduced, or what is permitted under the Wildlife Act 1953.

[36]  For these reasons, we find no breach of 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 – 3 June 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 1 July 2025

3  Judge’s referral to the Authority – 23 July 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 30 July 2025

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

¹ Feral and Mediaworks TV Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-143; Andersson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2016-043; Alexander and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-080
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁵ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁰ Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai “Game bird licences and permits” <doc.govt.nz>
¹¹ Guideline 5.1
¹² 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>
¹³ Department of Conservation | Te Papa Atawhai “Birds A-Z” <doc.govt.nz>
¹⁴ Guideline 6.2