BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item on the Government’s rejection of an application to officially change the town of Russell to its original name, Kororāreka. The complainants alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older… always white’ was racist and ageist; the accuracy of the same statement was ‘questionable’; and the item was unbalanced, biased and unfair by only including interviews with people who supported the name change. The Authority found: the interviewee’s comment was clearly opinion and did not reach the threshold for finding it denigrated any section of the community; the broadcast was clearly framed as being from the perspective of community members disappointed by the decision and it was sufficient under the balance standard to acknowledge the existence of the alternative perspective through comments from the Minister of Land Information about his decision not to change the name; and the issue has been the subject of other coverage by the broadcaster and elsewhere, meaning the likelihood of any real harm or the audience being left uninformed was reduced, and did not outweigh the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. 

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness 

The broadcast

[1]  An item during 1News on 24 May 2025 reported on the decision of the Minister of Land Information, Hon Chris Penk MP to retain the township name Russell, rejecting a proposal by the New Zealand Geographic Board to officially restore its original name, Kororāreka. The item was led by a 1News Māori Affairs Correspondent who highlighted disappointment from local hapū including historical context, views favouring the Māori name and Minister Penk’s explanation of divided public opinion. The item in full is as follows:

Newsreader:                          Some locals in the historic Northland town of Kororāreka remain defiant, saying they’ll still call it by its Māori name even though an application to have it changed officially has been rejected. The local hapū has been fighting to have it changed from ‘Russell’ for years and are shocked by the move to not allow it. Māori Affairs correspondent […] reports.

1News Correspondent:        The name Kororāreka might not be Russell’s official name, but it’s the first one visitors see when they arrive here by boat.

Marae Spokesperson:          It was a name that our tūpuna gave to this whenua here.

1News Correspondent:        It means ‘sweet little penguin’, and it’s a name locals know well.

Local Business Owner:        On our signs… there’s a penguin there, there’s a reason the penguin’s there. I’m disappointed. That’s the real name. Should be back here.

1News Correspondent:        But a five-year fight by the local hapū for it to officially replace the name Russell has failed.

Minister Penk:                       But it seemed to me there wasn’t a sufficient weight of evidence or feeling to justify a change from the current status quo.

1News Correspondent:        That’s despite just over half of the 1800 submissions received supporting the move.

Minister Penk:                       There was, you know, a split view in terms of whether we should proceed with the name change.

Tourism operator:                 My forebears came here to the wider Bay of Islands area 200 years ago in 1811. It was called Kororāreka then. It’s a perfectly good name.

Reporter 2:                             What do you prefer?

Interviewee 1:                        Oh, Kororāreka.

Reporter 2:                             Why?

Interviewee 1:                        It’s a nicer name. It rolls off the tongue.

Interviewee 2:                        I prefer the indigenous name, yes.

Reporter 2:                             Why?

Interviewee 2:                        Well, they were here first!

Interviewee 3:                        It was a norm when they changed Mount Egmont to Mount Taranaki. I mean, who remembers it now as Mount Egmont? Probably no one.

1News Correspondent:        A dual Māori–English name was another option on the table but also rejected.

Minister Penk:                       Ultimately, I decided that the current practice, which is of course that people locally are welcome to refer to what is Russell as Kororāreka, can continue to do so and there’s nothing to stop them doing that.

Interviewee 4:                        There’s still a lot of people who want it to be Russell. They’re usually older. They’re always white.

1News Correspondent:        And the name will stay that way for now.

Reporter 2:                             Does this change how you’ll refer to the town?

Marae Spokesperson:          Never. We can’t, you know, it’s there. It’s embedded in who we are.

The complaints

[2]  David Oxton and Raewyn Jarvis complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons, summarised under the standard most relevant to each point.

Discrimination and denigration

[3]  Oxton considered the ‘disgruntled’ interviewee’s comment dismissing the decision as ‘being made by or for old white people’ was ‘clearly a racist point of view which wouldn’t be tolerated if it was said in the reverse.’ ‘Imagine the outcry in New Zealand if a news broadcast referred to Māori senior citizens as “old black people”.’

[4]  Jarvis also considered the interviewee’s comments were discriminatory and ‘arguably racist and ageist’. ‘Had anyone opined “Well they would vote that way ‘cos they’re mostly older and they’re ALL brown skinned” there would (rightfully) be a hue and cry about it.’

Balance

[5]  Oxton considered the item was unbalanced as ‘[n]o [people in favour of the] status quo (keeping the name Russell)… were interviewed, only people who wanted the change.’ The story was framed to suggest the result was ‘wrong’ and ‘against all popular opinion’. Oxton said, ‘I’m becoming used to TVNZ journalists imposing their unbalanced views on national issues.’

[6]  Jarvis considered the report was ‘biased’ as every interviewee was in favour of the name change, ‘despite us being told that the vote to change was a near 50/50 split’. The broadcaster ‘cherry-picked’ interviewees to ‘only give one side of the argument’.

[7]  Responding to the broadcaster’s decision pointing to other coverage on this topic, Jarvis argued it should not drop its standards on a particular broadcast on the assumption that viewers must be aware of all the issues that encompass a particular story because it has been reported on elsewhere.

Accuracy

[8]  Jarvis questioned whether the interviewee’s comment, those who want to keep the name Russell are ‘usually older… always white’, is ‘even true’, asking whether those who counted the ‘vote’ were charged with capturing the age and ethnicity of every submitter, and noted the ‘questionable accuracy’ of the item. Jarvis noted no credentials were given for this or any of the other individuals who gave their views.

Fairness

[9]  Oxton made no specific arguments under this standard in the original complaint, but on referring it to the Authority said the item was unfair by supporting the views of those against the Minister’s decision while not seeking out any views from those who supported retaining the name Russell. It was also ‘very unfair and misleading’ to highlight one person’s opinion belittling the decision as being made by or for ‘old white people’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Discrimination and Denigration

[11]  The story accurately and fairly reported the Minister’s decision and local reaction. The comment complained about, ‘They’re usually older. They’re always white’, was clearly attributed to a member of the public and ‘amounts to this person’s opinion on the demographic who did not support the name change’; it was ‘simply expressed as a statement of opinion, without invective or anger’. The comment provided ‘valuable insight for the viewer’ as an example of local sentiment. TVNZ also noted ‘many of the commentators in the news item supporting the name change appear to be from the demographic described [in the comment] (older/middle-aged Pākeha people).’

Balance

[12]  Significant viewpoints were adequately represented through comments from a range of local residents. The viewpoint that the name change was not required was included in the story, including through comments from the Land Information Minister who provided information about the number of submissions and the general tenure of these. The reporter also provided information about the number of people against the name change, including that ‘just over half of the 1800 submissions received supported the move’.

[13]  TVNZ rejected the suggestion of bias, stating the item met journalistic standards for news reporting and reaction coverage and the absence of interviewees who supported the decision was not material to viewer understanding of the issue, which had been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage.

Accuracy

[14]  The interviewee’s comment was clearly an expression of opinion and the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.

Fairness

[15]  This standard is designed to protect people and organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. The complainant ‘has not made an allegation in this regard’. No breach of this standard was identified.

The standards

[16]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[17]  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.³ The standard states:⁴

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.

[18]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ The standard 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.

[19]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁷ The standard states:⁸

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

Our analysis

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

[21]  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 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.⁹

Discrimination and denigration

[22]  Where discrimination and denigration complaints are concerned, the importance of freedom of expression means that:

• A high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to conclude a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in contravention of the standard.¹⁰
• The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material that is factual or a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion.¹¹
• Comments will not reach the threshold for finding they encouraged discrimination and denigration simply because they are critical of a particular group, because they offend people or because they are rude.¹²

[23]  The comment, ‘They’re usually older. They’re always white’, was a genuine expression of opinion by one member of the public featured as part of a broader story about community reactions to the Minister’s decision, with a particular focus on the perspective of those ‘disappointed’ by that decision.

[24]  While some viewers may have been affronted by the comment or found it rude or offensive, the Authority has previously recognised that ‘the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in the way that they choose, so long as standards are maintained’ and no undue harm is caused.¹³ The comment was an expression of the individual’s own frustration and disappointment. It was clearly linked to ‘a lot of people who [still want the name] to be Russell’ and could not reasonably be described as malicious or as inciting hatred against all ‘older’ and/or ‘white’ people as sections of the community.

[25]  The Authority has previously held there was no breach of the standard in relation to similar comments in news and current affairs coverage, finding: ‘You can’t have two white guys… at the top in this day and age’ was a genuine expression of a political editor’s opinion regarding diversity in government;¹⁴ and ‘how bad is the problem… of pale, male and stale’ was a question posed during an interview on a matter of significant public interest.¹⁵ In both cases the Authority concluded the comments did not meet the high threshold required to justify restricting the right to freedom of expression.

[26]  Given the context, nature and tone of the comment in this case, within a news item in the public interest, we find it similarly did not meet that threshold. We do not uphold the complaints under this standard.

Balance

[27]  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.¹⁶

[28]  The broadcaster accepted the Russell/Kororāreka naming debate is such an issue, which was discussed in this item, and we agree. It concerns history, identity, colonisation and government decision–making, and has clearly generated ongoing public debate and differing views.¹⁷ The wider movement to restore Māori place names also adds to its significance.¹⁸ Therefore, the balance standard applies.

[29]  However, the balance standard does not require news, current affairs and factual programmes to be presented impartially or without bias. Within the limits established by this standard, broadcasters are free to promote or challenge particular ideas, philosophies, or people.¹⁹ Further, where a report is clearly framed as reflecting one side of a debate, or is narrowly focused on a single aspect,²⁰ the obligation to present other perspectives is likely to be reduced or in some cases even negated.²¹

[30]  Here, the introduction signalled the story would highlight disappointment from the local hapū and others opposing the Minister’s decision not to change the town’s name, as well as signalling it was presented from a ‘Māori affairs’ perspective and centring the story in te ao Māori: 

Some locals in the historic Northland town of Kororāreka remain defiant, saying they’ll still call it by its Māori name even though an application to have it changed officially has been rejected. The local hapū has been fighting to have it changed from ‘Russell’ for years and are shocked by the move to not allow it. Māori Affairs correspondent […] reports.

[31]  With that framing, although the item did not feature community voices supporting the Minister’s decision, we consider the item adequately acknowledged the existence of the other perspective and the reasons supporting his decision, through the following comments: 

• ‘Just over half of the 1800 submissions received supported the move.’ (reporter; indicating just under half opposed it – ie, almost a 50/50 split)
• ‘It seemed to me there wasn’t a sufficient weight of evidence or feeling to justify a change from the current status quo.’ (Minister Penk)
• ‘There was, you know, a split view in terms of whether we should proceed with the name change.’ (Minister Penk)
• ‘I decided that the current practice, which is of course that people locally are welcome to refer to what is Russell as Kororāreka, can continue to do so and there’s nothing to stop them doing that.’ (Minister Penk)

[32]  Additionally, the broadcaster provided examples of stories indicating this debate has been covered across 1News, Te Karere, Breakfast, Re:News and other media over a two-year period and around the time of the 1News broadcast, reporting on the Minister’s decision.²²

[33]  For these reasons, we find no breach of the balance standard. 

[34]  Responding briefly to the complainants’ allegations of ‘bias’ and that the Māori Affairs correspondent and the reporter conducting the vox pops, imposed their own views, describing the issue as a ‘personal hobby horse’ and claiming, ‘one reporter’s bias was on full display’, we note:

• There is no evidence the Māori Affairs correspondent was advancing a personal agenda. She did not appear onscreen, and the community interviews were conducted by another reporter. 
• Māori perspectives have historically been underrepresented in New Zealand media. The inclusion of Māori journalists and the centring of te ao Māori perspectives in contemporary coverage represents a necessary shift toward greater plurality in all public life. In this context, the decision to frame this story from the perspective of Māori affected by the Minister’s decision contributes to achieving balance over time, rather than detracting from it.²³

Accuracy

[35]  The focus of Jarvis’s original complaint under this standard was the interviewee’s comment (‘They’re usually older. They’re always white’), questioning whether it was ‘even true’ and noting no credentials were given for any of the interviewees.

[36]  As we have said above, the comment was clearly distinguishable as the interviewee’s personal opinion and views on the demographic who may have opposed the name change. The accuracy standard applies only to statements of fact, not to comment, analysis or opinion.²⁴ We consider it would have been clear to the audience that the interviewee was expressing one view, as a ‘disappointed’ member of the public, rather than suggesting demographic information had been collected from every submitter opposed to the name change.

[37]  In any event, the Minister clearly described the submissions as showing a ‘split view’ and the broadcast conveyed the Minister’s reasoning in three separate clips, emphasising he did not consider there was significant weight of evidence to justify a change. In this context, the omission of further detail about the demographics of submitters did not render the item misleading or inaccurate.

Fairness

[38]  Oxton’s concerns under this standard relate primarily to the selection of interviewees, the overall framing of the broadcast and the inclusion of the comment about ‘older…white’ people. The complainant did not identify an individual or organisation alleged to have been treated unfairly, so this standard does not apply.

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

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:

Oxton 

1  Oxton’s original complaint – 24 May 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision on Oxton – 18 June 2025

3  Oxton’s referral to the Authority – 2 July 2025

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 3 July 2025

Further information requested from TVNZ

5  TVNZ providing further information on related broadcasts – 18 July 2025

Jarvis

6  Jarvis’s original complaint – 13 June 2025

7  TVNZ’s decision on Jarvis – 9 July 2025

8  Jarvis’s referral to the Authority – 28 July 2025

9  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 30 July 2025

10  Jarvis’s further comments regarding other coverage – 1 August 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁸ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ Guideline 4.2. See also Oluwole and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-023 at [9]
¹¹ Guideline 4.2
¹² Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹³ For example, Barclay and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-003 at [12]; and Cant and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-030 at [18] 
¹⁴ Samson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-010
¹⁵ Thomas and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-063
¹⁶ Guideline 5.1
¹⁷ Guideline 5.1
¹⁸ Recent or ongoing examples include the adoption of dual names for Aoraki/Mount Cook; the reinstatemenmt of Whanganui, correcting its previous spelling; the renaming of Gisborne to Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, currently under consultation, and public debate around Mount Egmont/Mount Taranaki
¹⁹ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14; Ellis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-083 at [22]
²⁰ Gibbs and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-081 at [16]
²¹ Guideline 5.4
²² Peter de Graaf “Decision stalls on Russell’s possible name change to Kororāreka” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 22 July 2024); “Proposal to change Russell’s name to Kororākreka declined” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 23 May 2025); Carin Copek “Russell or Kororākreka? An official name is decided” Stuff (online ed, 23 May 2025); “Saying no to Kotorāreka/Russell name change could be a missed opportunity – Editorial”, NZ Herald (online ed, 4 June 2025); “Bid to change Russell’s name to Kororāreka declined” Otago Daily Times (online ed, 23 May 2025); Land Information New Zealand | Toitū Te Whenua (last updated 23 May 2025) “Place name proposal – Kororāreka” <linz.govt.nz >; and Annemarie Quill “The towns battling over English or Māori names” Te Ao Māori News (online ed, 20 October 2024)
²³ University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau (26 May 2025) “Taking the mic: Māori and Pacific voices in the media’ Pacific Health Dialog <auckland.ac.nz>; and New Zealand on Air | Iriangi te Motu (March 2022) “Te Tiriti Framework for News Media” <nzonair.govt.nz> at [C. Societal Accounabilities page 18]
²⁴ Guideline 6.1