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 National Party election programme that alluded to a reduction in crime rates under its leadership, which the complainant said was inaccurate. The Authority considered two statements made in the broadcast: ‘When National took over, our country was in bad shape,’ and, ‘By fixing the basics, inflation, mortgage rates and crime are all down…’ The Authority found the first statement was clearly an expression of the National Party’s opinion and political advocacy – and accordingly, the accuracy standard did not apply to it. The Authority considered the second statement was one of fact but that the National Party had reasonable basis for the claim, and reasonable viewers interpreting the statement in the context of an election campaign were unlikely to have been misled. 

Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy)

The broadcast

[1]  A National Party election programme was broadcast on 4 October 2026 at 6.55pm on TVNZ 1. The voiceover said:

When National took over, our country was in bad shape. By fixing the basics, inflation, mortgage rates and crime are all down, while the economy and education are on the up. There’s more to do but together, we’re building the future.

[2]  As the voiceover said, ‘When National took over, our country was in bad shape,’ footage showed three people in hoodies graffitiing a brick wall in a rubbish-strewn lot and then running away to the sound of police sirens.

Overview – Election Programmes

[3]  During the election period, the Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice applies to election programmes which are broadcast for a political party or candidate. This year, the election period runs from 4 October 2026 until 11.59pm on 6 November 2026, the day before polling day. 

[4]  Generally, broadcasting complaints will first be determined by the broadcaster. However, the Broadcasting Act 1989 requires that complaints about election programmes must come directly to the Authority for determination. This is so any concerns about programmes that may influence voters can be determined swiftly.

[5]  When we receive a complaint about an election programme, we seek submissions from the complainant, the broadcaster, and the political party. We also seek to determine the complaint under a fast-track process. We thank the parties involved in this matter for their timely responses to our request for submissions.

The parties’ submissions

The complaint

[6]  Wayne Neely complained the broadcast breached standard E1 (election programmes subject to other codes) of the Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice, in respect of the accuracy standard (standard 6) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. 

[7]  The complainant considered the programme contained ‘false information’. It was incorrect to suggest crime rates were higher under the most recent Labour Government, or that the National-led Government had fixed crime, when crime rates have been ‘bad’ under the current National-led Government.

The National Party’s response

[8]  The National Party responded to the complaint with the following information, in support of the advertisement’s assertions that New Zealand was ‘in bad shape’ when the current National-led Government ‘took over’, and that crime rates have decreased during the Government’s term:

a)  ‘In the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey (NZCVS) there were 148,000 victims of violent crime. This is 37,000 fewer victims of violent crime than the baseline (which is when National was elected).’¹

b)  ‘Ram raids are down 85 per cent under the National Government.’²

c)  ‘Violent crime is obviously the big one’, as compared with non-violent crime. The National-led Government ‘set a target to reduce violent crime by 20,000 by Dec 2029’ – a target it is ‘way above’.³

The broadcaster’s response

[9]  TVNZ did not make submissions in response to the complaint. It is common for submissions on election programme complaints to be received from the party and not the broadcaster. This is appropriate given the condensed timeframes for resolution and the requirement that complaints are referred directly to the Authority.

The standards

[10]  Under standard E1 (election programmes subject to other codes), all other standards in the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand apply except for the balance standard (standard 5).⁴ The complainant nominated the accuracy standard (standard 6) as being breached. 

[11]  The purpose of the accuracy standard is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ It 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

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

Right to freedom of expression and political speech

[13]  The starting point in our consideration of any election programme complaint is the right to freedom of expression – specifically, the importance of political speech, which includes the right of broadcasters, political parties and candidates to impart ideas and information, and the public’s right to receive that information. This is an important right in a democratic society and is particularly important in the lead-up to a general election, when political parties and candidates are seeking to influence voters, and audiences are seeking information to make informed voting decisions.⁷

[14]  Given the high value placed on political speech in the lead-up to an election, a correspondingly high threshold must be reached to conclude an election programme has breached the Election Programmes Code – ie the harm caused or potentially caused by the programme must be great.⁸

[15]  In this case and for the reasons outlined below, we have not identified any harm justifying our intervention.

Standard E1: Other standards – Accuracy

[16]  Guidance to the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards states the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion (rather than statements of fact).⁹

[17]  Specific guidance on applying the accuracy standard in an election context is provided in guideline E1b to the Election Programmes Code. The following guidance is relevant in considering the complaint before us:

• The assessment of whether any election programme statement amounts to a material point of fact or is misleading will be guided by how a reasonable viewer or listener would interpret it in the context of an election campaign (ie would a reasonable viewer or listener interpret the statement literally or as a transparent promotion of party/candidate policies or encouragement to vote a particular way).
• The assessment of whether the accuracy requirements have been met will be undertaken on a statement by statement basis (and then in the context of the programme as a whole).
• The following contextual factors may be relevant:
  • the use of shorthand or hyperbole for advocacy effect
  • whether the relevant statement related to an election issue or party policy that viewers or listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of (lessening the chance of being misled).

[18]  The complainant considered the programme incorrectly suggested crime rates were high under the previous Labour Government when crime rates have been ‘bad’ under the current National-led Government, and that it was inaccurate to say the current Government has ‘fix[ed] crime’. We consider two statements made in the broadcast are together relevant in considering this complaint. They are:

a)  ‘When National took over, our country was in bad shape.’

b)  ‘By fixing the basics, inflation, mortgage rates and crime are all down…’

[19]  In our view, the first comment is readily identifiable as the National Party’s opinion and political advocacy. Accordingly, the accuracy standard does not apply.

[20]  The statement can be seen as a political criticism of the state of the country under the previous Labour Government, to advocate for the subsequent actions of the National-led Government. Whether or not New Zealand ‘was in bad shape’ is a matter of perspective. It is a contestable claim about which others may hold a different view, indicating the statement is opinion.¹⁰ ‘Bad shape’ is also broad and imprecise. 

[21]  The implication from the corresponding footage – that of people graffitiing a wall and subsequently fleeing to the sound of police sirens – could reasonably be that ‘[w]hen National took over’ from the previous Labour Government, crime was at least an issue in New Zealand. Even in this context, ‘bad’ is a relative term that requires subjective analysis.¹¹ We also note our analysis at paragraph [23] below, whereby NZCVS data indicates violent crime levels have decreased during National’s term and after the end of the previous Labour Government’s term, since October 2023. In any event, the footage was clearly a visual aid to the programme’s messaging and promotion of its party. Most viewers would have understood it as such.

[22]  Turning to the second statement, we do not consider it can reasonably be interpreted as suggesting the National Government has ‘fix[ed] crime’. The programme instead claimed ‘crime’ is ‘down’. We consider this statement to be one of fact, to which the accuracy standard applies – but we do not consider it is misleading. 

[23]  In response to the complaint, the National Party pointed to NZCVS data which estimated the annual number of violent offending victims was 148,000 (rounded, as of May 2026). This figure is around 37,000 less than the baseline measurement from October 2023.¹² In other words, NZCVS figures indicate that as of May 2026, there are roughly 37,000 fewer victims of violent crime than when Labour left office. 

[24]  We recognise the nuance involved in measuring and interpreting crime statistics as well as the NZCVS’s possible limitations in this context, including comparing the survey’s quarterly datapoints with its annual datapoints.¹³ However, the NZCVS is published by the Ministry of Justice and has been described as one of, if not the ‘most comprehensive measure available for household and personal crime’.¹⁴ We therefore consider the National Party has reasonable basis for its claim that ‘crime [is] down’, in reliance on an official and recognised dataset. 

[25]  We also recognise the broadcast referenced ‘crime’ as being down generally, without specifying this related to violent crime or property crimes such as ram raids. We do not consider the audience would have been misled by the lack of distinction here. By their nature election programmes often use shorthand statements for advocacy effect, and the audience is likely to be aware of how political parties focus on particular statistics to promote their policy work.

[26]  Overall, we do not consider reasonable viewers interpreting the statement in the context of an election campaign would have been misled.

[27]  We therefore find no breach of the accuracy standard, under standard E1.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
12 October 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Neely’s complaint – 4 October 2026

2  TVNZ advising no comment – 5 October 2026

3  The National Party’s response to the complaint – 6 October 2026

¹ Citing Ministry of Justice “NZCVS Violent Crime Releases” <justice.govt.nz>
² Citing New Zealand Government “Fewer victims of crime, more police on the beat” <beehive.govt.nz> 
³ Citing Ministry of Justice “Reduced violent crime” <justice.govt.nz> 
⁴ Standard E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code, Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice 2023
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice 2023 at 1
⁸ Guideline G1a: Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice 2023
⁹ Guideline 6.1: Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁰ See Sime and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-127 at [15]
¹¹ See Sime and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-127 at [15]
¹² Ministry of Justice “Violent Crime May 2026: NZCVS 12-months-to-May 2026 update” <justice.govt.nz>; and Derek Cheng “Violent crime and the ‘highly victimised’ on the rise as election looms” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 1 October 2026)
¹³ Emma Ricketts “The Government says violent crime is down. Is it right?” Stuff (online ed, 24 November 2025); Alice Neville “The Beehive is lauding a big drop in violent crime. But what do the stats really say?” The Spinoff (online ed, 17 April 2025); Chelsea Daniels “Why is violent crime rising across most of New Zealand? – The Front Page” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 2 October 2026); and Russell Palmer and Lillian Hanley “Violent crime data raises more questions than answers – Labour” RNZ (online ed, 16 April 2025)
¹⁴ Emma Ricketts “The Government says violent crime is down. Is it right?” Stuff (online ed, 24 November 2025); and Chelsea Daniels “Why is violent crime rising across most of New Zealand? – The Front Page” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 2 October 2026)