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 comments made during Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB regarding the New Zealand Police’s decision to continue with charges against Ms Z, the woman involved in the Jevon McSkimming case. The complaint was that the comments – including labelling their relationship an ‘affair’, saying Ms Z was ‘not innocent’, and referencing ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’ – demonstrated classic ‘victim blaming’, minimised and misrepresented Ms Z’s experience, and were unbalanced and unfair. The Authority considered the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations, and any potential offensiveness or unfairness arising from some of the comments did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression or the public interest. The Authority also found the comments were either clearly opinion or not materially inaccurate and not required to be balanced in the context.  

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness 

The broadcast

[1]  The Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive show, broadcast on 13 November 2025 on Newstalk ZB, included the host’s regular opinion segment, Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan. In the segment, du Plessis-Allan talked about the decision of Police to continue with charges laid against the woman involved in the Jevon McSkimming case (former deputy commissioner for New Zealand Police).

[2]  By way of background, two days before the broadcast, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) published its first report on the matter, titled ‘Review of Police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming’.¹ It relates to a ‘series of complaints’ made by the woman, ‘Ms Z’, against McSkimming, in addition to ‘a series of anonymous emails [and social media comments] over a period of years […] of alleged incidents of sexual misconduct’.² Ultimately, the IPCA found ‘…several people within Police, predominantly within senior levels of Police National Headquarters, failed to take appropriate action when serious complaints were made against Deputy Commissioner McSkimming’.³ It also noted in the report that:⁴

Concerningly, some within Police failed to recognise that a possible victim of sexual assault, who had allegedly been told for years by a very senior Police officer that she would not be listened to (and that explicit images of her might be distributed) if she tried to complain, might present as a desperate person sending sometimes extreme and abusive emails in an attempt to be heard.

[3]  The relevant segment of the broadcast, presented by du Plessis-Allan, said:

So, it turns out the woman with whom Jevon McSkimming had an affair, whose warnings Police ignored and who Police charged instead of investigating Jevon McSkimming, is still facing charges. This is the news today. And the Police are having to defend this.

Now, the charges don’t relate to messages that she sent about McSkimming. Those charges have been dropped. They relate to the messages that she allegedly sent to another policeman – the officer who originally arrested her – and emails she allegedly sent to his wife.

Now, this is undoubtedly going to look bad for Police because it will look like they are still persecuting a victim, but how about we take the emotion out of it and look at it again. Just because Jevon McSkimming is a creep and clearly the villain of the story, doesn’t mean that she is necessarily innocent. I mean, look at the allegations. Allegedly emailing a police officer is one thing. Allegedly emailing his wife is something else. And this is after some pretty bunny-boiler behaviour including sending 300 emails to McSkimming and others over a series of years.

Now, there will be some people who have complete sympathy for her in this, who will say that the allegations show that she is a woman driven mad by being ignored and gaslit by the very people she was asking for help. And that may well be true, and I suspect that it is, and I feel sorry for her. And I feel sorry about the horrible situation that Jevon McSkimming, the absolute creep, has put her in. But I still don’t think it justifies alleged law-breaking as a response because that logic is the very same logic that is used by the soft judges who read cultural reports about offenders’ childhoods and then excuse them for what they did because of what was originally done to them when they were kids. Do you follow what I’m saying? Now, having said all of that, if you’re of the view that she only sent a bunch of emails, so who really cares – then why do we have the law? Now, that’s a fair debate. We can have a debate about that law because not everyone loves the Harmful Digital Communications Act. But if the law exists, and if you allegedly break that law, and the Police – despite realising how bad it will look for them to charge you – still choose to charge you, then isn’t there a case to answer?

The complaint

[4]  Alisdair Newton-Wade complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand due to its treatment of Ms Z and the host’s ‘victim blaming behaviour’.

[5]  The key points of complaint can be summarised as follows.

Offensive and disturbing content

[6]  The complainant considered the victim-blaming language and misrepresentation of Ms Z’s actions violated community standards of taste and decency.

[7]  ‘I do not believe that calling a victim of alleged sexual crimes a “bunny boiler” falls under robust debate.’

[8]  ‘It is reasonable to assume that within this audience are people who have suffered similar crimes and victimisation. It is not good enough to say that the bulk of people will be unaffected, when it is this very attitude that has led to the IPCA’s findings and subsequent consequences.’

[9]  Regarding the reference to ‘cultural reports’, the complainant said, ‘I’d like to see some examples of who these soft judges are, the specific cultural reports, the specific offenders she is talking about […] I would also very much appreciate knowing specifically what cultures she is referring to here. I would hate to think that she is indulging in any kind of veiled racism…’

Balance

[10]  ‘Given the amount of media attention currently focused on Jevon McSkimming, I argue this standard has been far exceeded’ (ie that the matter must be an issue of public importance).

[11]  ‘I argue that such a misleading and misrepresentative viewpoint disables the audience from being able to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.’

[12]  Additionally, describing anyone as a ‘bunny boiler’ is ‘so harmful as to be indefensible regardless of any kind of context. There simply is no balance to insults.’

Accuracy

[13]  ‘To the best of my knowledge, [Ms Z] has not been found guilty of any crime. By definition, the claim that she was not innocent is misleading and inaccurate.’

[14]  ‘I again point to the description of “woman with whom McSkimming had an affair”. At best, this omits the incredibly important context that said woman made multiple complaints of sexual misconduct...’

[15]  ‘I also posit that the description of “bunny boiler behaviour” is inaccurate.’

Fairness

[16]  In response to the segment’s title (‘Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: The woman in the Jevon McSkimming saga wasn’t innocent here’), the complainant said, ‘[I]nnocent of what exactly? From the byline alone the article casts a poor light on her.’

[17]  ‘I would argue someone who has charges filed against her and spent years fighting for her claims of sexual misconduct to be heard, is about as vulnerable an individual as one might find.’

The broadcaster’s response

[18]  NZME Radio Ltd (NZME) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Offensive and disturbing content

[19]  Newstalk ZB ‘is a station focused on news and talkback programming, targeted at adults aged 40 to 59 years old’.

[20]  ‘Heather is known for holding strong, provocative opinions, and listeners expect robust debate and controversial or unpopular opinions.’

[21]  ‘We do not consider Heather’s broadcast breached this [the standard’s] threshold – Heather was entitled to discuss the charges that the woman involved is facing and to explore whether alleged lawbreaking can be justified.’

Balance

[22]  ‘Heather acknowledges [Ms Z] is a victim and suggests she may have been “driven mad by being ignored and gaslit by the very people that she was asking for help”. On the other hand, Heather questions whether alleged lawbreaking can be justified…’

[23]  ‘She frames these issues as “…a fair debate”. In our view, the broadcast offers a fair voice to alternative viewpoints, as required by the BSA.’

Accuracy

[24]  The accuracy standard ‘does not generally apply to talkback programmes. In any event, it does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as comment or opinion.’

[25]  ‘Heather’s broadcast was presented as opinion, using phrases such as “I suspect”, “I don’t think”, “I feel”,’ with reference to the title of the segment [Perspective with Heather…]. In that context, Heather was entitled to adopt a stance and express her views, including choosing which points to address or not.’

[26]  Responding to the referral, NZME acknowledged ‘the phrase “bunny boiler behaviour” may be emotive and could be perceived as insensitive for some’, however NZME reiterated it was used as part of du Plessis-Allan’s opinion and was not a statement of fact.

[27]  Regarding the reference to the ‘affair’, du Plessis-Allan provided context in the same sentence, noting Ms Z’s warnings were ignored and she was charged instead of McSkimming being investigated.

[28]  The title of the online article was not part of the broadcast.

Fairness

[29]  ‘Heather acknowledged [Ms Z] as a victim and expressed awareness of, and sympathy for, her circumstances...’

[30]  ‘…Heather gave a fair voice to alternative viewpoints and framed the issues as a fair debate, consistent with expectations of talkback.’

[31]  NZME considered it struck an appropriate balance between treating Ms Z fairly and the broadcaster’s freedom of expression and public interest (citing guideline 8.1, the nature and audience expectations of the content as talkback radio, the public significance of the broadcast, public interest in discussing whether alleged lawbreaking could be justified, and that du Plessis-Allan contextualised the comments and acknowledged sympathy for Ms Z’s circumstances).

The standards

[32]  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.⁵ The standard states:⁶

• 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.

[33]  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.⁷ The standard states:⁸

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.

[34]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁹ The standard states:¹⁰

• 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.

[35]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹¹ The standard states:¹²

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

[36]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[37]  We have also considered the important right to freedom of expression, which is our starting point. Our task is to weigh the value and public interest in the broadcast against the actual or potential harm that may be caused by that broadcast, either to individuals or to New Zealand society generally. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.¹³

[38]  The freedom to express opinions, and the richness of debate it enables, is an important component of a democratic society. In this case, du Plessis-Allan was giving her ‘perspective’ on the news Police had decided to proceed with charges against Ms Z under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, and the optics of that given the circumstances surrounding McSkimming. News about McSkimming and the allegations against him carried significant public interest. The segment was clearly positioned as du Plessis-Allan’s opinion, and audience expectations that she and other Newstalk ZB hosts will offer strong views are well established.

[39]  In this context and given the subject matter, we consider the segment carried high value as an exercise of freedom of expression, and high public interest, which would mean a correspondingly high level of actual or potential harm is necessary to restrict that speech.

[40]  The harm alleged by the complainant is that through ‘victim-blaming, minimising and misrepresentation’ of Ms Z’s circumstances and the allegations against McSkimming, the segment violated community standards of taste and decency, was unbalanced, was inaccurate, and was unfair to Ms Z as the victim of alleged sexual crimes.

[41]  Assessing the segment as a whole and its overall impact, we considered the host’s delivery was sufficiently moderate and measured to mitigate any potential offensiveness or unfairness arising from some of the comments. We concluded the broadcast did not reach the threshold justifying regulatory intervention, given the high public interest in the topic and the importance of the right to freedom of expression. The complaint is therefore not upheld.

[42]  We explain our reasons for these findings below.

Offensive and disturbing content

[43]  This standard recognises that talkback is a robust, opinionated environment, where hosts are afforded some latitude to make provocative or controversial comments in the interests of generating robust debate about issues of public interest.¹⁴ Past decisions have also found the expression of opinions, even if controversial or ‘unpopular’, is protected by the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.¹⁵ However, the principles of freedom of expression do not amount to a licence or a free pass given to broadcasters, to offend accepted norms of good taste and decency.¹⁶

[44]  We have considered whether the broadcast overall was acceptable, applying the standard and guidelines, or whether it went too far and crossed the line of what was acceptable.

[45]  The crux of the complaint is that du Plessis-Allan’s comments amounted to ‘victim blaming’ and minimised and misrepresented Ms Z’s experience, including by: failing to mention (as reported by the IPCA) that Ms Z had never accepted it was a mutually consensual relationship, instead calling it an ‘affair’; suggesting she was ‘not innocent’; describing her behaviour in sending 300+ emails as ‘some pretty bunny-boiler behaviour’. The complainant also raised the comparison of Ms Z’s situation with the ‘logic’ of ‘soft judges’ reading cultural reports and letting offenders off because of what happened to them when they were younger.

[46]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns, and that others in the audience may similarly have been offended by parts of this broadcast.

[47]  However, it is well established by past Authority decisions that content that some find offensive, challenging or inappropriate is not, in itself, enough to reach the high threshold necessary to breach the standard. Context is crucial in assessing potential harm under the offensive and disturbing content standard. In addition to the high public interest in the subject matter, Newstalk ZB is aimed at an adult target audience, aged 40 to 59 years old, and the expectations of that audience are well-established:

a)  Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive is a talkback radio show focused on news and the presenter’s opinions on current affairs.

b)  Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan is a daily opinion segment by the host, sharing her thoughts on the key issue of the day.

c)  Du Plessis-Allan is known for holding strong, provocative opinions, and described as ‘assertive, direct and opinionated’ with a ‘straight down the middle approach’.¹⁷

d)  Audiences of Newstalk ZB also generally expect to be exposed to controversial or unpopular points of view, in the interests of generating robust discussion and debate.

[48]  Weighing these factors, within the context of du Plessis-Allan commenting on a live issue of legitimate public interest, we reached the view that the segment did not go beyond audience expectations of this radio station or the host. Listening to it as a whole and evaluating its overall likely impact, we also do not consider it would have disproportionately offended or distressed the audience or seriously violated community standards of taste and decency.

[49]  The tone was measured and moderate. It was not malicious towards Ms Z, rather posing questions about the merit and optics of the Police’s decision to proceed with charges against her. Strong comments were made about McSkimming being ‘the villain’ and having put Ms Z in the situation she was now in (facing charges), and acknowledging sympathy for Ms Z.

[50]  In line with our reasons below under the accuracy standard, although we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns about describing the relationship as an ‘affair’ (given Ms Z had not accepted the relationship was mutually consensual), the single use of this term would not in our view have disproportionately offended the general audience, in the context.

[51]  Similarly, we do not consider the host’s proposition that Ms Z was ‘not innocent’ – which du Plessis-Allan contextualised by explaining the Police’s decision to proceed with charges against her for harassing a police officer and his wife – seriously threatened norms of taste and decency or would be unduly offensive to Newstalk ZB’s audience, in the context.

[52]  We acknowledge one or two of the comments – referring to ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’ and drawing a comparison with ‘soft judges’ using cultural reports to excuse offenders – would likely have offended some listeners, and that the complainant found this language objectionable.

[53]  The ‘bunny boiler’ comment in particular (defined as ‘a woman who is emotionally unstable, obsessive and potentially vengeful towards male romantic partners’¹⁸) and the surrounding commentary was insulting towards Ms Z and would be considered by some to be inappropriate in the circumstances.

[54]  Nevertheless, in the context, including the high level of public interest, these aspects did not reach the high threshold required to find a breach of the standard. The overall effect of the segment was, in our view, to convey a genuine expression of opinion on a high-profile story and issues carrying significant public interest. It was in keeping with what listeners of Newstalk ZB and du Plessis-Allan expect, in the interests of generating discourse and debate.

[55]  In these circumstances, we do not consider the broadcast caused harm under this standard at a level that would justify regulatory intervention or limiting freedom of expression.

Balance

[56]  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’.¹⁹

[57]  The broadcast discussed the decision by Police to proceed with charges against Ms Z, as well as the broader McSkimming case. These issues can reasonably be considered controversial and of significant interest and concern to the New Zealand public. The standard therefore applies.

[58]  However, the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where:²⁰

• It is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way in which the programme is presented that:
  • the programme is not claiming, or intended, to be a balanced examination of an issue
  • the programme is signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective
  • the programme is narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.
• The audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.
• In the context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented.

[59]  Applying these factors, we are satisfied there was no breach of the balance standard in this case. This is because:

a)  The nature of the segment – a regular opinion piece approximately two minutes long, comprising the host’s ‘perspective’ on her chosen topic of the day – made it clear this was the perspective and opinion of du Plessis-Allan only. In this instance she gave her thoughts on the news relating to Police continuing charges against Ms Z. It did not purport to be an in-depth or balanced examination of the merits of the charges against either Ms Z or McSkimming.

b)  In this context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented.

c)  Du Plessis-Allan acknowledged the ‘horrible situation that Jevon McSkimming, the absolute creep, has put [Ms Z] in’ and expressed sympathy for her, saying she felt sorry for her and suspected it was true she had been ‘driven mad’ by being ignored (with reference to Ms Z’s behaviour). She also referred to how ‘bad’ it would look for the Police to continue with the charges and that Police were ‘having to defend’ their decision in this regard.

d)  The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest.²¹ We note as the charges against Ms Z were active at the time of broadcast, and developments in the story have been and continue to be widely reported on, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints on the topic.

[60]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard. The complainant’s concerns about a ‘misleading and misrepresentative viewpoint’ and the use of the phrase ‘bunny boiler’ are more appropriately captured under the other nominated standards, as a question of whether the host’s comments were misleading, offensive or unfair.

Accuracy

[61]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not usually apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact, however, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure opinions are not materially misleading or based on erroneous fact.²² An opinion is someone’s view; it is contestable and others may hold a different view.²³ A fact is verifiable, something that can be proved right or wrong.²⁴ Sometimes, it can be difficult to make this distinction, and we have regard to factors such as: the language used; the type of programme (eg talkback can involve discussion of factual matters but is generally recognised as a robust environment focused on the exchange of opinions); the role of the person speaking; and the subject matter.²⁵

[62]  The accuracy standard further recognises in respect of talkback radio:²⁶

Talkback programmes will not usually be subject to the accuracy standard. However, the accuracy standard may apply where, for example:

• the host makes an unqualified statement of fact
• analysis, comment or opinion presented by the host is materially misleading.

[63]  Alongside the general ‘misleading and misrepresentative viewpoint’ about Ms Z throughout the broadcast and explained in the complainant’s submissions at paragraphs [12]–[14], the complainant alleged the following statements breached the accuracy standard:

a)  The title of the segment, ‘Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: The woman in the Jevon McSkimming saga wasn’t innocent here’.

b)  ‘So, it turns out the woman with whom Jevon McSkimming had an affair…’ (emphasis added)

c)  ‘…this is after some pretty bunny-boiler behaviour including sending 300 emails to McSkimming and others over a series of years.’ (emphasis added)

The title of the segment

[64]  The complainant identified the subheading of the corresponding online piece, which was not part of the broadcast and is therefore outside the Authority’s jurisdiction.

[65]  However, du Plessis-Allan did say within the broadcast item, ‘Just because Jevon McSkimming is a creep and clearly the villain of the story, doesn't mean that [Ms Z] is necessarily innocent.’ (emphasis added)

[66]  We consider this was distinguishable as du Plessis-Allan’s opinion and commentary on the Police’s decision to proceed with charges against Ms Z, rather than a statement of fact. While we acknowledge the complainant’s argument that Ms Z, in a legal sense, ought to be ‘innocent until proven guilty’, we consider du Plessis-Allan was expressing her own analysis and subjective judgement of the situation – that Ms Z, through her actions, was not ‘necessarily innocent’, which others may well disagree with – rather than making a factual statement about her innocence in a legal sense. Listeners were unlikely to be materially misled in any event, by the host offering this perspective.

[67]  We find no harm in this respect that outweighed the host’s right to freedom of expression.

Reference to the ‘affair’

[68]  We consider the phrase, ‘the woman with whom Jevon McSkimming had an affair’, represented a matter of fact, as opposed to analysis or opinion, meaning the accuracy standard applies.

[69]  The complainant considered it inaccurate and misleading to state it was an ‘affair’ due to ‘the omission of the incredibly important context that said woman made multiple complaints of sexual misconduct’ and that the IPCA report states Ms Z had never accepted it was a ‘mutually consensual’ relationship.

[70]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns about the nature of the relationship and Ms Z’s account of it. However, we do not consider the single reference to the ‘affair’ in this segment was materially inaccurate or misleading.

[71]  In the IPCA report issued the day of the broadcast, the relationship between Ms Z and McSkimming (who was married at the time) is repeatedly referred to as an ‘affair’, through witness accounts.²⁷ Widespread coverage by other outlets also referred to the ‘affair’, while reporting on the various allegations against McSkimming in depth²⁸ – reducing any risk of the audience being misled by this particular comment, even without further details of the alleged sexual crimes.

[72]  We find no breach of the accuracy standard on this point.

Reference to Ms Z’s ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’

[73]  The relevant phrase, ‘some pretty bunny-boiler behaviour’ was a descriptor, and du Plessis-Allan’s subjective analysis and commentary on the situation – which others may disagree with. It is not a statement capable of being assessed for factual accuracy, and not our role to determine whether Ms Z’s behaviour might accurately be described as ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’. Du Plessis-Allan’s choice of phrase in this regard is better addressed under the other standards, as an issue of whether it was unduly offensive or unfair to Ms Z.

[74]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[75]  The fairness standard²⁹ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured or referred to in a broadcast.³⁰ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[76]  A consideration of what is ‘fair’ in each case, and the threshold for finding unfairness to an individual, takes into account factors including:³¹

a)  The nature and source of the content: This was an opinion segment from a well-known talkback radio host, broadcast live and locally produced by NZME.

b)  The nature and level of vulnerability of the individual (eg the threshold for finding unfairness will be higher for a public figure, politician, or organisation familiar with dealing with the media): As noted by the complainant, Ms Z was particularly vulnerable. She had become a figure of interest to the public due to the McSkimming case but was not a ‘public figure’ in the same way as a politician or indeed, McSkimming in a high-profile role.³²   

c)  The public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech: As we have said, the broadcast and subject matter carried high public interest and value.

d)  The target and likely audience, and audience expectations: We have noted already that Newstalk ZB has an adult target audience, which expects the expression of strong, sometimes controversial opinions on topical issues.

[77]  We also noted that, in typical cases, a key principle of the fairness standard is that where a person or organisation referred to in a broadcast might be adversely affected, that person should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, prior to the broadcast.³³ However, given Ms Z’s vulnerability, her name suppression, the active charges against her, and the nature of the segment as comprising only du Plessis-Allan’s opinion, this was not a programme where Ms Z would have been offered, or was likely to take up, an opportunity to comment in her defence.

[78]  We therefore considered whether, overall, the segment gave rise to unfairness to Ms Z that would outweigh the public interest in the subject matter or the host’s right to express her opinions on it.

[79]  As we have said in relation to other standards, this segment was an opinion piece from du Plessis-Allan’s perspective. While clearly controversial, the broadcast was within audience expectations of her and Newstalk ZB. Evident in the wide media coverage of this ‘scandal’, there was high public significance in the broadcast. Du Plessis-Allan presented an alternative viewpoint to an ongoing matter prompted by the news ‘Police had – despite knowing it would look bad – decided to proceed with the charges against Ms Z’. Du Plessis-Allan made strong comments condemning the actions of McSkimming and acknowledged Ms Z as a victim for whom many would have ‘complete sympathy’.

[80]  In these circumstances, we do not consider the segment would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of Ms Z, or that it was likely to cause harm great enough to justify a limitation on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

[81]   Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the fairness standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
22 April 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Newton-Wade’s original complaint – 19 November 2025

2  NZME’s decision – 17 December 2025

3  Newton-Wade’s referral to the Authority – 22 December 2025

4  NZME’s response to the referral – 22 January 2026

5  Newton-Wade’s further comments – 28 January 2026

6  NZME’s confirmation of no further comments – 2 February 2026

¹ “Review of Police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming” (Independent Police Conduct Authority I Mana Whanonga Pirihimana Motuhake, 11 November 2025)
² As above, at [1]-[2]
³ As above, at [13]
⁴ As above, at [212]
⁵ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁶ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁸ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁰ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹² Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 3
¹⁴ Guideline 1.2: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
¹⁵ For example see, YS and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-011 at [15]-[17], Singh and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-089 from [7]; and Dempsey and 3 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-047 at [17]
¹⁶ For a similar discussion see Blissett and Radioworks Ltd, Decision No. 2012-006 at [16]
¹⁷ “Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive” (accessed 4 February 2026) Newstalk ZB <newstalkzb.co.nz>
¹⁸ Leila Latif “Fatal Attraction and the endurance of the ‘bunny boiler’, dating culture’s most toxic stereotype” BBC (online ed, 27 April 2023)
¹⁹ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²⁰ Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²¹ Guideline 5.2: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²² Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²³ Collier and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-107 at [8]
²⁴ As above
²⁵ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
²⁶ Guideline 6.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²⁷ “Review of Police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming” (Independent Police Conduct Authority I Mana Whanonga Pirihimana Motuhake, 11 November 2025) at para [25]-[28], and [43]-[46]. We also note the IPCA’s second report on the matter, released on 3 March 2026, continued to refer to the ‘“clandestine” affair’.
²⁸ For example, see Justin Hu “Timeline: How the Jevon McSkimming scandal unfolded over nine years” 1News (online ed, 12 November 2025); Sam Sherwood “Jevon McSkimming accuser faces charges of harassing another police officer” RNZ (online ed, 13 November 2025); and Tim Murphy “When the law is an ass, somebody’s got to kick it” Newsroom (online ed, 17 November 2025)
²⁹ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³⁰ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
³¹ Guideline 8.1: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
³² For a similar finding see Aranyi & Others and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-036 at [12]-[13]
³³ Guideline 8.4: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20