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 that a 1News item on the government’s proposed amendments to expand citizen’s arrest powers, as part of its efforts to address retail crime, breached the balance standard. The complaint alleged the report ‘crossed the line’ into political bias by focusing on violent robberies and interviewees expressing concerns about increased danger and vigilantism, while failing to mention the proposed changes were intended to address incidents such as supermarket shoplifting. The Authority found the balance standard had not been breached as the item included significant perspectives on the government’s proposal, including comments from Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s announcement. It also noted the standard does not apply to the complainant’s concerns about bias.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1News on 26 February 2025 reported on the government’s proposal to expand citizen’s arrest powers, in response to retail crime. The item was introduced:

1News presenter: Members of the public and retailers could soon have beefed-up rights to make citizen's arrests as the government looks to clamp down on retail crime. The changes would allow Kiwis to detain an alleged thief at any time of day using restraints and reasonable force to hold them. But light on detail, there are widespread concerns the reforms will put more people at risk of injury, even death.

[2]  The item began with excerpts from an interview with a jewellery store owner who was the victim of a violent robbery; the store owner had tried to stop the offenders but was attacked with a hammer and suffered a fractured skull. The 1News reporter stated:

Reporter:     [The store owner] says more needs to be done to empower shop owners.

…

Now the government’s planning on giving retailers [like the store owner] and anyone else for that matter, more powers to intervene by widening the criteria for a so-called citizen’s arrest. Currently, the law is confusing. In most cases of retail crime, a member of the public can only legally detain an offender if it’s at night.

[3]  The item included comments about the proposal from Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith (who announced it), Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, CEO of the New Zealand Security Association, and the store owner. The following excerpts are relevant:

Goldsmith:       We’re going to change that [the ability to only detain offenders at night] so that citizen’s arrests can be made, and people can be detained, for any breaking of the Crimes Act at any time of the day.

Reporter:         The minister says the proposed changes would also allow people to use restraints and reasonable force.

Goldsmith:       Well, not necessarily a headlock or anything like that, it's just holding them steady and then the role is to call for the police and to hold them until such a time as that happens.

Reporter:         But many groups are raising concerns.

Hipkins:            Saying to people they should take the law into their own hands is inviting more violence, it's inviting more people being injured, it's effectively embracing vigilante justice.

Reporter:         The government says it wants to disincentivise retail crime, but there's concern over a lack of detail in the proposed changes.

CEO of NZ Security Association:         Issues like, for instance, use of handcuffs. We're not advocating for the use of weapons, but we believe it's very important we can use handcuffs as a last resort.

Reporter:         He says the public and even some security staff aren't sufficiently trained to detain offenders.

CEO of NZ Security Association:         And a lot of the public do not hold those skills, so there is a risk if it's not managed correctly.
                        …

Store owner:    If I know that I have a power that I can use, you know, an offender will come in with a bigger power. This time they came in with the hammer, next time they will come with a gun.  

[4]  The item concluded with a live cross to the reporter, as follows:

Presenter:        Some concerns, about an escalation in violence. What fears have retail NZ expressed?  

Reporter:         Well… first of all, I think it's worth noting this is the first set of proposed reforms from the government’s 3.6-million-dollar ministerial advisory group on retail crime, and already we’ve got so many groups coming out and saying, hang on, what is going on here?

As you mentioned, Retail New Zealand have come out saying the changes are dangerous and the majority of its members are strongly opposed. Also, the Employers and Manufacturers Association and First Union have also criticised the reforms. First Union has said it’s like using retail workers and others as, quote, ‘free cops’ so it does make you wonder who was actually consulted on these proposed changes.

Now we did put, I did put this to Minister Goldsmith today. He said a number of retailers were spoken to but he also noted that like all legislation this will have to go through the parliamentary process and everyone will have a chance to have their say when this gets to select committee, he said hopefully in a couple of months.

The complaint

[5]  Karl-Heinz Kammler complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• ‘First the reporter showed several clips of extremely violent robberies. After that, the people he interviewed chimed in by predicting mortal danger and vigilantism.’
• ‘In reality’ and ‘apparently unknown to the reporter’, ‘most likely… the law aims at the three women rolling their trolleys with $2,000 of merchandise past the cashier in broad daylight, and all the staff can do is noting the number plate. Absolutely no mention of this by the reporter, although TVNZ had reported this incident when it happened.’
• ‘There is a fine line where scrutiny of the government turns into political bias. In my view, the reporter has crossed that line.’

[6]  On referral to the Authority, Kammler also nominated the fairness standard, stating, ‘In fairness, the reporter should have mentioned [the] most likely application of the law’. He considered this was another example of TVNZ’s reporting being ‘skewed against the government and its members’ and crossing the line from scrutiny of government into ‘political bias’.

[7]  Under section 8(1b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. However, in limited circumstances, the Authority can consider a standard not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.¹

[8]  The fairness standard is concerned with ensuring individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast are treated fairly. We do not consider the wording of the original complaint, ‘There is a fine line where scrutiny of the government turns into political bias. In my view, the reporter has crossed that line,’ can reasonably be interpreted as alleging a breach of the fairness standard or unfair treatment of a particular individual or organisation. Accordingly, the fairness standard is outside the scope of our decision. In any event, we note the Authority’s guidance on Complaints Unlikely to Succeed is clear there is a very high threshold for unfairness to a politician, political party or the government in the context of news reporting scrutinising their actions or political policy, due to high public interest in such matters and the public nature of their roles.

The broadcaster’s response

[9]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) found no breach of the balance standard, for the following reasons:

• ‘The Committee disagrees the specific scenario mentioned [three women rolling their trolleys with $2,000 merchandise past the cashier] amounts to a “significant” view in the sense envisaged by this Standard.’
• A range of significant perspectives on this issue were included in the report, such as those of a jewellery store owner, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, opposition leader Chris Hipkins, and the CEO of the NZ Security Association.
• ‘The Committee is satisfied that these inclusions comfortably satisfied the expectations of the Balance Standard. Other perspectives are available in surrounding media and viewers have agency to apprise themselves of such views in the fulness of time.’

The standard

[10]  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.

Our analysis

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

[12]  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.⁴

[13]  The balance standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁵

[14]  This broadcast discussed the government’s proposed law changes to expand citizen’s arrest powers. The broadcaster accepted this constitutes a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applies, and we agree, noting the concerns expressed by some in the item about the lack of detail in the proposals and the potential for increased risk to public safety.

[15]  The next question is whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints on this issue.

[16]  We are satisfied TVNZ met the requirements of the balance standard by including an adequate range of significant perspectives from Minister Goldsmith who announced the proposals, the Leader of the Opposition, a store owner, the NZ Security Association and Retail New Zealand, among others (transcribed above in paragraphs [2]-[4]).

[17]  The complainant’s view on whom the proposed law changes were targeted at reflects their own understanding of the objectives of the government proposal and their personal preference for this to be mentioned in the item.⁶ We agree with the broadcaster the specific scenario described in the complaint is not a ‘significant viewpoint’ on the issue that the broadcaster was obliged to include. Further, as noted by the broadcaster, ‘The information provided by the minister in the report [made] it clear the proposed law would apply in a far broader set of circumstances, including violent robberies such as those described in the report. The minister explained it would mean “people can be detained for any breaking of the Crimes Act at any time of the day”.

[18]  Finally, in response to the complainant’s concern the reporting style and inclusion of specific footage in the segment amounted to ‘political bias’, we note the balance standard does not require news to be presented impartially or without bias.⁷ Where reasonable opportunities to present alternative viewpoints are given – which occurred here – perceptions of ‘bias’ in a broadcast will not result in a breach of the balance standard.⁸

[19]  In these circumstances, we find no harm under the balance standard that outweighs the public interest in reporting on the government’s proposal and reactions to it, or the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
26 May 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Kammler’s original complaint – 27 February 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 21 March 2025

3  Kammler’s referral to the Authority – 24 March 2025

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 26 March 2025

¹ Attorney-General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62].
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 5.1
⁶ Section 5(c)of the Broadcasting Act 1989 states that complaints based merely on a complainant’s preferences are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure 
⁷ See Garrett and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-079 at [19] and Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁸ Carran and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-125 at [18]