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 Paddy Gower Has Issues segment on the price of butter in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complaint alleged the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards because it suggested supermarkets were responsible for increased butter prices yet presented no evidence proving this. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached. Sky Free presented significant viewpoints, including that of Woolworths, and gave various supermarkets an opportunity to comment. Additionally, the issue of butter prices was raised in a humorous manner, and audiences could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage. Under the accuracy standard, the Authority found viewers were also unlikely to be misled by this single item, in the context of the broadcast and given extensive media coverage of the subject.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The second item in the 19 August 2025 broadcast of Paddy Gower Has Issues was presented by Karen O’Leary and examined the price of butter in Aotearoa New Zealand. The item was approximately 15 minutes long, key excerpts of which are outlined below.

[2]  O’Leary interviewed a café owner and a dairy farmer:

Café owner:   Dairy. Dairy's our big issue. Like, it is the biggest cost for us in a product that we use all the time. Our scones especially use a lot of dairy. Butter and cheese are our biggest ones and the price increases in the last year have just been astronomical. 

O'Leary:         How much does it cost you to make a scone? 

Café owner:   It has certainly jumped and for us now, we need to charge $8.90 for a scone. 

O'Leary:         For a scone?

Café owner:   Which we would never do. 

O'Leary:         No.

Café owner:   We would never do. We're charging $6.50 at the moment.

O'Leary:         Yeah.

Café owner:   And that's about as much as we can push it. 

…

O'Leary:         [Voiceover] So, are farmers milking it? 

Farmer:          Well, we get $10 per kilo of milk solids at the moment. And so, if a [block of] butter is 500 grams, it'd be roughly $5 worth of our milk in that respect. 

O'Leary:         Yeah. How much do you actually pay for a block of butter? 

Farmer:          We're actually high butter users in our family, and we have to buy it as well and we'll watch the price go up. 

O'Leary:         I mean, do you get, kind of, mates rates? 

Farmer:          Oh, it'd be nice if Fonterra gave us one actually but no, no we don't. We buy butter the same way everyone else does.

O'Leary:         Can't you just make butter cheaper? 

Farmer:          Oh, it would be nice, wouldn't it? But look, you know, 95% of the milk that we sell goes overseas and so we're subject to the international prices, you know, via various auctions and the likes. We're not making a huge margin on this at all. We are making some profit this year, which is great. It allows us to pay off a little bit of debt and also provision for the years where we don't make so much money. 

…

Café owner:   The last year has been the toughest, like, it is so hard. And people do say that all the time, but like it is really– like it rules your life. You literally don't sleep.

O'Leary:         What do you want me to do about it?

Café owner:   The biggest thing for me is, if this is true and it should be that price, then like maybe there needs to be a bit more transparency. Because someone must be making money, or what's the point?

[3]  The item cut back to O’Leary in the studio giving a piece-to-camera:

[Café owner]’s seen his wholesale butter blocks increased by almost $6 in the last five years. So, what's caused the skyrocket? 

We can put some of the blame on the huge international appetite for our dairy products. This planet absolutely froths our dairy, with New Zealand butter heading all around the world every week. The price for Kiwi dairy products is set at the Global Dairy Trade auction, where butter is sold by the tonne every two weeks. Over the last year, the demand has increased and it's driving up the price. When big players like China and the Middle East are willing to pay a premium for our products, local prices are forced to keep up. With 95% of our dairy sold abroad, our domestic butter business has to barter with the big guns. The latest global dairy trade auction saw New Zealand butter sales average out at around $13,000 a tonne. Last year this figure was closer to $11,000. And in 2020, it sat at around $5,500. That's a 142% increase in five years. It's brutal for buyers, but as [farmer] knows, it's not bad news for our farmers. 

But shouldn't the country that produces the product get a discount? Well, often that's just it's a pipe dream. The Dutch are the fourth largest exporter of refined petroleum, but their petrol prices are amongst the highest in Europe. It's like Germans – they pay more for their domestically produced cars than foreign buyers do. And, even though Australia ships 60% of their beef offshore, it's around 15% cheaper for Aussies to buy Australian meat in the UK and Japan than it is at home. 

It turns out the system of capitalism is built in such a way that we can't get a discount on the products our own country makes. And look, I mean, I’m very good at my job, but I'm not sure that I can dismantle capitalism – not [in] the next 10 minutes of the show anyway. So, instead … there is one other thing that affects these prices, and it's called the supermarket duopoly. Paddy, I think it's time for a breakup. 

[4]  After a commercial break, O’Leary spoke to 2degrees founder and Monopoly Watch leader Tex Edwards, about the history of New Zealand’s grocery sector:

Gower:           Now, welcome back to Paddy Gower Has Issues, where Karen O'Leary has promised to lower the price of butter. And Karen, I'm gonna hold you to this. You're gonna do it by taking on the supermarket duopoly. How the hell is this gonna work?

O'Leary:         Well obviously I needed to find someone who's, you know, got actual experience of dismantling a duopoly. And so that's just what I did. I found someone who's basically a duopoly destroyer.

O'Leary:         Basically, I wanted to get to the bottom of this whole idea about the duopoly. How did we get into this mess? 

Edwards:        In 2006, there used to be three chains. There was Foodstuffs, Foodtown, and Countdown. And very weak competition law at the time enabled it to go from three supermarkets to two supermarkets. Fixing it requires [an] intervention and a breakup of the supermarket cartel. 

O'Leary:         So, it's like breaking up, like, a bad relationship. You [have] kind of gotta have an intervention and then you make them separate 'cause they're better off without each other. 

Edwards:        No, they're not better off. They’re enjoying fantastic profitability and globally unprecedented margins. 

O'Leary:         Well, that's just not fair though, is it? 

Edwards:        That's why you need to break up this unhappy consumer supermarket relationship. 

[5]  The broadcast cut to a segment of O’Leary opening her own supermarket called Countdown — ‘they've probably still got some old Countdown signs. They don't need Countdown anymore, do they? I could just get the old signs’. O’Leary’s “supermarket” was a trestle table on a busy Auckland street, where she proposed selling passersby one kilo blocks of butter for 12 dollars. Four members of the public participated in the segment.

[6]  In a voiceover, O’Leary said, ‘My supermarket is a success! What does Tex [Edwards] think?’:

Edwards:        It's a fantasy, respectfully, that you could create any competition price impact with one, two, ten or even fifty supermarkets. This is a scalable industry, and all the market power sits at the distribution centre.

O'Leary:         Right.

Edwards:        Our organisation thinks that circa 120 to 140 supermarkets need to be transferred to a third operator.

O'Leary:         Yes.

Edwards:        They can still own that supermarket. It just has to operate through a third distribution system.

O'Leary:         [Voiceover] It's not the first relationship I've had to break up, but I might need a hand.

[7]   Back in the studio, O’Leary said:

Well, yeah, I mean obviously we put it to Foodstuffs, and we put it to Woolworths. You know, would they actually be happy, you know, having someone else entering the market? Would they be happy if the government actually took some action and did something about it? Foodstuffs, well they didn't get back to us. But basically, in a statement, Woolworths said breaking up the grocery sector would be an unprecedented step. Risks and costs would be significant, which would result in higher prices.

[8]  After a segment where O’Leary plays a game of ‘Duopoly’ with two children, ‘a fake game based on Hasbro's real game, Monopoly, which is actually super fun and awesome for the whole family’, she interviews Finance Minister Nicola Willis:

O'Leary:         And you know what? This game is a true reflection of how hard it is to be a supermarket shopper in New Zealand at the moment. And basically, what you're saying, and what I've heard you say, is that you are gonna help to change this.

Willis:             Yeah, I want this board to have more choices on it so that you don't always just land on Pak N' Save, Woolworths or New World. What we know for Costco when it opened up in Auckland, they observed that prices for the surrounding supermarkets came down because suddenly the supermarkets were worried people will all go and shop there, so we've got to do a better job. So I want that.

O'Leary:         I feel like there [are] a lot of supermarkets already. Could we not make these guys — your Woolworths and your Foodstuffs, right — have to give away some of their supermarkets to a new owner and who'd got all their food from a different distributor or whatever, and so then that competition would actually be alive and well?

Willis:             Yeah, well, look. That's something that we are looking at, is would the benefits of that for you, the shopper — because that's where it all has to end — be enough to outweigh the costs of that. So, I am I'm looking at that, is that an option.

[9]  In a piece-to-camera, O’Leary said, ‘Costco didn't want to comment, neither did Aldi, Lidl, or Coles. But why do we need an international solution to a homegrown problem? I've set my sights on a smaller player — and it's open night and day.’ She then interviews the General Manager of Night ‘n Day about the company’s prospects of breaking up the supermarket duopoly. The segment ends with Night ‘n Day announcing a limited time promotion of 20,000 blocks of butter for $6.50 each.

The complaint

[10]  Jeff Paulin complained the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  ‘The first part of the butter segment was fine, exploring the factors influencing the price of butter. The second part of the segment then [became] an attack on the supermarkets.’

b)  ‘The reporting by implication suggested that somehow the supermarkets were responsible for the increases in butter prices, although no evidence for this was presented as part of the story.’ ‘This is despite a reported story quoting the Foodstuff[s] North Island CEO that supermarkets were selling some butter products at a loss.’

c)  The segment was ‘biased and unbalanced. There was no attempt made to present any feedback from the supermarkets and no evidence presented that the supermarkets are [controlling] or influencing the price of butter.’

[11]  On referral to the Authority, the complainant added:

a)  No evidence was presented that ‘supermarkets can influence the international price of butter, which effectively flows through to the domestic price of butter’.

b)  Sky Free Ltd (Sky Free) claimed the broadcast pointed to supermarkets as one factor in determining the price of butter. ‘I don’t agree with this statement and believe that introducing this assumption was a cheap shot at the supermarkets without any evidence being provided to support that assumption.’

The broadcaster’s response

[12]  Sky Free did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons.

Balance

[13]  ‘The price of butter in New Zealand is currently a controversial issue of public importance, and the issue was discussed in this Broadcast.’

[14]  ‘The New Zealand supermarket duopoly has globally unprecedented margins, and ultimately, the supermarkets determine the final shelf price for butter. The duopoly issue was presented as one factor, amongst several others, contributing to the high price of butter here. The issue has attracted significant commentary in recent years and has been widely reported this year as the price has reached record highs.’

[15]  The broadcast ‘presented sufficient viewpoints on the focus of the issue under discussion’. It included comments from:

a)  Tex Edwards of Monopoly Watch, ‘who provided viewers with the historical context for the current supermarket duopoly in New Zealand’;

b)  Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who presented ‘her perspective on the duopoly and how it affects consumers’; and

c)  Woolworths. Foodstuffs were also approached for comment but did not respond.

[16]   The broadcast ‘formed part of the wider societal conversation about the price of butter and the supermarket duopoly.’ Balance can be achieved within the period of current interest. ‘We maintain that balance can and will be achieved within the period of interest, which we consider is in fact still ongoing.’

[17]  ‘[V]iewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed about these issues in coverage by ThreeNews and other media outlets’.

[18]   Commentary issued by the Authority on the balance standard says it ‘rarely upholds complaints under the balance standard that a broadcaster is only presenting a particular point of view if the topic has been widely discussed elsewhere from a variety of perspectives.’

Accuracy

[19]  The complainant did not indicate ‘any specific facts presented in the programme’ they considered were inaccurate.

[20]  Sky Free did not identify any material errors of fact and did not consider the overall broadcast gave viewers a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

The standards

[21]  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.

[22  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• 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

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

[24]  The right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information, is the starting point in our consideration of complaints. Our role is to weigh 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.⁵

[25]  For the reasons set out below, we have concluded viewers would not have been misled or left uninformed by this broadcast. We have not identified any harm arising from the broadcast which would outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to receive the information broadcast.

Balance

[26]  There are two steps in the assessment of whether a broadcast breached the balance standard:⁶

a)  whether the standard applies — ie whether a news, current affairs or factual programme ‘discussed’ a ‘controversial’ issue ‘of public importance’; and

b)  whether the broadcaster sufficiently presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances.

[27]  An issue ‘of public importance’ is something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, New Zealanders. A ‘controversial’ issue is an issue of topical currency which has generated or is likely to generate conflicting opinion, or about which there has been ongoing public debate. Brief news reports, programmes clearly focussed on a particular perspective, or personal or human-interest stories may not amount to a discussion.⁷

[28]  We consider the price of butter in New Zealand is a controversial issue of public importance. The Authority has also previously recognised Paddy Gower Has Issues as a news and current affairs programme.⁸ Accordingly, the balance standard applies.

[29]  The second step is to determine whether Sky Free adequately presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances.

[30]  Guideline 5.4 states the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced or negated where:

• The issue is raised only in a brief, humorous or peripheral way.
• The audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.⁹

[31]  The segment was put forward as an ‘investigation’ into New Zealand’s high butter prices. However, noting its light-hearted and humorous tone, viewers were unlikely to have the same expectations of its content as they would of a serious investigative piece by an experienced journalist. Examples of the broadcast’s light-hearted tone include:

a)  numerous light-hearted comments and questions about how O’Leary is going to achieve her mission to ‘lower the price of butter’, implying her goal is unrealistic and comical

b)  O’Leary, at the end of her piece-to-camera about export-based pricing, concluding ‘the system of capitalism is built in such a way that we can't get a discount on the products our own country makes’ and ‘I'm not sure that I can dismantle capitalism’, before turning to the supermarket duopoly¹⁰

c)  O’Leary setting up her own supermarket, and calling it ‘Countdown’ since Woolworths Group ‘don’t need Countdown anymore, do they? I could just get the old signs’

d)  the game ‘Duopoly’

e)  O’Leary ultimately achieving her goal through a limited time and quantity offer, of 20,000 blocks of butter for $6.50 each.

[32]  The balance standard reflects New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available from sources on a vast range of topics. As outlined in the Code commentary, balance complaints will rarely be upheld given the proliferation of information available to today’s audiences.¹¹

[33]  The price of butter in New Zealand was and continues to be widely discussed. Stuff,¹² Radio New Zealand,¹³ The New Zealand Herald,¹⁴ The Press,¹⁵ The Guardian¹⁶ and other news outlets¹⁷ covered the subject in the months preceding and following the broadcast. The day after this broadcast aired, Stuff reported that Night ‘n Day lost around $3 on every $6.50 block of butter sold in the 20,000-block promotion.¹⁸ It is therefore reasonable to expect audiences to be aware of significant viewpoints on the factors contributing to the price of butter in New Zealand.

[34]  Various perspectives on the relevant issue were also presented in the broadcast, including from:

a)  the café owner

b)  a farmer

c)  Tex Edwards, leader of Monopoly Watch and founder of 2degrees

d)  four different street interviewees

e)  Finance Minister Nicola Willis

f)  Night ‘n Day’s General Manager.

[35]  Woolworths and Foodstuffs were also offered the opportunity to comment on the supermarket duopoly and whether it should be broken up. While Foodstuffs did not provide comment, the broadcast included Woolworths’ perspective on the cost implications of breaking up the grocery sector for consumers. Costco, Aldi, Lidl, and Coles were also approached for comment but did not respond.

[36]  Guideline 5.3 stipulates the balance standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance.

[37]  Finally, the complainant suggested the broadcast was biased. We note the balance standard does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias.¹⁹

[38]  For the above reasons, we find no breach of the balance standard.

Accuracy

[39]  The complainant said the broadcast suggested supermarkets were responsible for the increases in butter prices, despite no evidence being presented for this during the story and ‘a reported story quoting the Foodstuff[s] North Island CEO that supermarkets were selling some butter products at a loss’.

[40]  It is not for the Authority to determine the extent to which particular factors contribute to the price of butter in New Zealand. To do so would overstep our role and area of expertise.²⁰ However, we have considered whether the broadcast would have left viewers with a materially misleading impression of supermarkets’ contribution to butter pricing — and have found it would not. 

[41]  Through O’Leary’s piece-to-camera (see paragraph [3]), the broadcast clearly indicated the central factor driving up butter prices is export-based pricing. O’Leary said, ‘capitalism is built in such a way that we can't get a discount on the products our own country makes’ and turns to discuss the supermarket duopoly because ‘I'm not sure that I can dismantle capitalism — not [in] the next 10 minutes of the show anyway’. In other words, the broadcast shifted to focus on something the New Zealand government can control: the country’s supermarket duopoly. 

[42]  There are conflicting views on the extent to which the supermarket duopoly contributes to high butter prices. However, many agree the duopoly plays at least some role.²¹

[43]  The broadcast did not attempt to quantify the supermarket duopoly’s contribution to high butter prices. It was presented as just one of several factors contributing to high butter prices, the main factor being export-based pricing. Additionally, as discussed at paragraph [33], the rising price of butter was widely reported across other national media.

[44]  In this context, the likelihood of a listener being misled by this single item, taken in isolation, was significantly reduced.²² We therefore have identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention and, accordingly, do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard. 

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
25 February 2026  

 
Appendix

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

1  Paulin’s original complaint – 26 August 2025

2  Sky Free’s decision – 11 September 2025

3  Paulin’s referral to the Authority – 25 September 2025

4  Paulin’s further comments – 2 October 2025

5  Sky Free’s confirmation of no further comments – 5 November 2025

6  Sky Free's submissions on reasonable efforts - 17 December 2025

7  Sky Free's correspondence with Foodstuffs - 16 January 2025

8  Sky Free's correspondence with Woolworths - 20 January 2026

¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 5.1
⁷ Guideline 5.1
⁸ Alexander and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-076 at [13]; GE Free NZ in Food & Environment Inc and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision 2023-115
⁹ Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁰ For a similar finding, see Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-042 at [29]
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² Michael Daly “Convenience store network says it lost about $3 on every $6.50 block of butter it sold” Stuff (online ed, 20 August 2025); and Bridie Witton “Blame supermarkets for high butter prices, not Fonterra, says Nicola Willis” Stuff (online ed, 24 July 2025) 
¹³ Giles Dexter “'Butter is expensive right now. There's no getting away from that' - Finance Minister Nicola Willis” RNZ (online ed, 23 July 2025); Susan Edmunds “Should Kiwis pay the high price for NZ dairy that overseas buyers will?” RNZ (online ed, 18 June 2025); and Morning Report “Supermarkets aren’t moving fast enough to lower dairy prices, says Federated Farmers dairy chair” RNZ (online ed, 18 July 2025)
¹⁴ Vera Alves “Explainer: Why have New Zealand butter prices gone up – and when will that change?” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 23 July 2025)
¹⁵ Blayne Slabbert “Who is to blame for soaring butter prices?” The Press (online ed, 22 July 2025)
¹⁶ Eva Corlett “Butter madness: New Zealanders turn to churning as price of dairy staple soars” The Guardian (online ed, 6 June 2025)
¹⁷ See, for example: Alan Renwich “Butter wars: ‘nothing cures high prices like high prices’ — but will market forces be enough?” The Conversation (online ed, 25 July 2025); and Alice Peacock “Dairy price pain for consumers with more ‘sticker shock’ ahead” newsroom (online ed, 17 March 2025)
¹⁸ Michael Daly “Convenience store network says it lost about $3 on every $6.50 block of butter it sold” Stuff (online ed, 20 August 2025)
¹⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²⁰ For a similar finding, see McGlone and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-074 at [18]
²¹ See, for example: Morning Report “Supermarkets aren’t moving fast enough to lower dairy prices, says Federated Farmers dairy chair” RNZ (online ed, 18 July 2025); Blayne Slabbert “Who is to blame for soaring butter prices?” The Press (online ed, 22 July 2025); Bridie Witton “Blame supermarkets for high butter prices, not Fonterra, says Nicola Willis” Stuff (online ed, 24 July 2025); Alan Renwich “Butter wars: ‘nothing cures high prices like high prices’ — but will market forces be enough?” The Conversation (online ed, 25 July 2025)
²² For a similar finding, see Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [17]