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 Hon Erica Stanford MP’s use of her personal email account for ministerial business. The item included analysis and commentary from 1News’ Political Editor, which the complainant considered was targeted against the Coalition Government and unbalanced. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as the item included significant relevant perspectives regarding Stanford’s actions and the matter had been broadly reported on. It also found there was no evidence of bias and robust political commentary is expected from reporters in the Political Editor role.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  The 5 May 2025 broadcast of 1News included an item about Hon Erica Stanford MP’s potential breach of the Cabinet Manual through using her personal email for government business. The 5.41-minute item was the first segment of a two-part investigation by 1News’ Political Editor Maiki Sherman.

[2]  The newsreader introduced the segment:

We begin tonight with an exclusive investigation that's raising concerns about a government minister's use of her personal email account. 1News has learnt Minister of Education and Immigration Erica Stanford has been using her Gmail account for official government business. This includes forwarding pre-budget announcements to her personal email before they were publicly announced last year. In response to queries, the Minister says she occasionally did this for the purpose of printing documents. But we've uncovered she's also replied to people on multiple occasions using her personal email. Parliament's computer system even raised red flags over Stanford's forwarding emails from her personal to her work account. Here's Political Editor Maiki Sherman with more exclusive details and reactions.

[3]  Sherman interviews a law professor from the University of Otago:

Sherman:       The Education Minister all smiles yesterday launching a new online parent portal for schools … But it's feedback to the Minister's private email account that's raising eyebrows. 1News can reveal dozens upon dozens of emails between the Minister and members of the public discussing policy ideas, including independent reviews. It raises questions of a possible breach of the Cabinet Manual, which states, ‘As far as possible, Ministers should not be using their personal email account to conduct ministerial business’.  

Professor:      Minister Stanford does seem to have used her personal email for quite a number of purposes where it's not clear why she didn't use her ministerial email instead.

                        …

Sherman:       That includes sensitive Budget documents. Last year, Erica Stanford announced a $53 million education investment on TVNZ's Q&A … But almost 24 hours prior, the top-secret Budget details were forwarded to the Minister's private Gmail account.  

Professor:      Putting that sort of information out onto an external email source raises security questions because we all know that email is hackable and outside of government accounts are more easily hacked than government ones are.

[4]  Sherman described ministerial content in Stanford’s personal email account, including an email suggestion about student classroom behaviour in New Zealand to which Stanford responded using her personal account.

[5]  The segment outlines a statement by Stanford, and the Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon’s response to questions on the issue:

Sherman:       In a statement, the Minister said where necessary she had forwarded these emails to her ministerial email or ministerial staff to be actioned or be included in official information, stating there were also problems installing a parliamentary printer in her electorate office.

Luxon:            Well, there may well be if it's printing purposes, if … there's technical reasons. As I understand it, in her case, it's actually been about printing challenges. 

            …

Sherman:       [To Luxon] Are you comfortable with how often Erica Stanford is using her personal email to conduct ministerial business?  

Luxon:            Well, again, my office has spoken with her. I understand it's been very few occasions.

Sherman:       These two folders contain hundreds and hundreds of pages, emails and documents, all relating to Erica Stanford's private Gmail account.

[To Luxon] Does that sound like very limited instances?

Luxon:            Well, again, as I said, I'm very relaxed about it. The reality is, you know, she's received unsolicited emails, she has had printing issues, she had tech issues.

Sherman:       Issues now putting the spotlight on the Minister.  

[6]  To conclude the segment, Sherman stated:

Well, look, there's no denying this is a very messy situation for Erica Stanford. The Cabinet Manual rules, they are clear. She should have been doing everything in her power to avoid using her private Gmail account. And while we have received those explanations around printing issues and unsolicited emails, in her statement, the Minister also acknowledged that some of the people contacting her were her own contacts, people that she had built relationships with over the years. Certainly, that's how many of the emails are read. Now 1News has also been told by the Minister's office that in March, an automatic reply had been added to the Minister’s personal Gmail account, redirecting the public back through to official channels, her official parliamentary email, but it's equally worth noting that's when - in March - some of the questions were being asked under the Official Information Act in regards to this story. Now, with hundreds of pages involved, you can expect there'll be plenty more questions tomorrow, including criticism, as we've heard today from Chris Hipkins from the Labour Party.  

The complaint

[7]  Matthew Newman complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  Television New Zealand Ltd’s (TVNZ) choice to ‘open with this issue and then commit … 7/8 minutes … is outrageous’.

b)  The broadcast ‘comes across as anti-government, and pre planned with the purpose to undermine the public’s confidence in the Coalition Government’.

c)  While some alternative viewpoints were provided, the overall tone was one of ‘scandal’ and suggested the government was ‘yet again performing poorly’.

d)  ‘Under successive political editors … the tone and content is relentlessly negative.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  TVNZ agreed ‘the questions about Erica Stanford’s decision to use her private Gmail account for Parliamentary business’ is a controversial issue of public importance.

b)  ‘Significant viewpoints were included in the reporting from Christopher Luxon, Erica Stanford, [Otago University law professor] and the Political Editor.’

c)  ‘… the issues in question have been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.’

d)  TVNZ did not agree the broadcast was biased but noted the standard does not require impartiality or lack of bias.

e)  ‘For completion we do not agree that the length of the story can be said to indicate bias. This is an editorial decision which 1News is entitled to take and story length is not an issue which is regulated by programme standards.’

The standard

[9]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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

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

[11]  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.³

[12]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.⁴

[13]  The broadcast discussed Stanford’s use of her personal email account for ministerial business. TVNZ accepted this constitutes a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applies, and we agree.

[14]  The next question is whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints on this issue. As the issue is the focus of a serious, investigative piece, it is reasonable to expect significant points of view to be presented.⁵ However, the standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance.⁶ The complainant did not identify alternative perspectives which he considered were missing, though we are satisfied the broadcast presented significant viewpoints on the issue:

a)  Commentary on Stanford’s actions and the dangers of minister’s using their personal email was provided by a law professor from the University of Otago.

b)  Stanford’s statement on the issue was included and referred to the printing issues behind some of her Gmail use, acknowledged some of the people contacting her were ‘her own contacts, people that she had built relationships with over the years’ and indicated relevant emails had been sent to her ministerial email for action.

c)  The Prime Minister’s response to questions on the issue was included, stating it had been ‘about printing challenges’, that he was ‘very relaxed’ and that action had already been taken (his office had spoken to her).

d)  The broadcast also stated an automatic reply had been added to the Minister’s personal Gmail account in March, redirecting the public to official channels.

[15]  In any case, the issue of Stanford’s use of her personal email account for ministerial business was broadly reported,⁷ and the standard does not require significant viewpoints to be presented in a single broadcast if ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other coverage’.⁸

[16]  Finally, the complainant said Sherman’s tone and content was ‘relentlessly negative’ and suggested the length and prominent placement of the broadcast was ‘pre planned to undermine the public’s confidence in the Coalition Government’. We note there was no evidence to support any bias of this nature. Viewers would expect robust political commentary from reporters in the Political Editor role,⁹ and the amount of time a broadcaster spends on a particular report and its placement in the bulletin are matters of editorial discretion which cannot be resolved by a complaints procedure.¹⁰

[17]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the balance standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 July 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Newman’s original complaint – 5 May 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 28 May 2025

3  Newman’s referral to the Authority – 29 May 2025

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 19 June 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Guideline 5.1
⁵ Guideline 5.4
⁶ Guideline 5.3
⁷ Jo Moir and John Gerritsen “Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop join Erica Stanford in admitting they used personal emails” RNZ (online ed, 6 May 2025); Julia Gabel “National minister Erica Stanford admits using personal email for work purposes not best practice” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 6 May 2025); and “Erica Standford inviting security risks by using personal email address, Labour leader says” RNZ (online ed, 6 May 2025)
⁸ Guideline 5.4
⁹ For a similar finding, see Chapel, Garbutt & Hopcroft and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-042 at [20]; and Woods and Mediaworks TV LTD, Decision No. 2015-062 at [12]
¹⁰ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 5(c)