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 under the balance and accuracy standards about two RNZ National news bulletins reporting on comments by Magma Healthcare Director Dr Simon Snook about the increase of abortions in 2024. In both broadcasts, Dr Snook attributed the increase in abortions to the increased availability of abortion services. The complainant alleged the broadcasts were unbalanced as they only featured Dr Snook’s comments and Snook’s description of abortions as ‘care’ was inaccurate. The Authority found the brief, straightforward items did not amount to ‘discussions’ of a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for the purposes of the balance standard. It also found Dr Snook’s use of the term ‘care’ was unlikely to mislead the audience.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The complaint concerned two RNZ National news bulletins on 3 January 2026 at 11am and 12pm midday. Both items included brief reports about the 2024 abortion statistics, focused on the increase of abortions in Aotearoa New Zealand, with comments provided by Magma Healthcare Director Dr Simon Snook.  

11am broadcast

[2]  The 11am bulletin included a 44-second segment about the 2024 NZ abortion statistics:

RNZ presenter:          A sexual and reproductive health specialist is calling for more funding for abortion services. Figures show the number of abortions has increased by 37% over the past five years. There were around 13,000 in 2019 compared with nearly 18,000 in 2024. Magma Healthcare director Simon Snook believes it is linked to the launch of the National Abortion Telehealth Service in 2021.

Dr Snook:                   What could be better I think is greater availability of local abortion providers. Primary care, midwives and that sort of thing can provide abortions locally for their local clients but there is a real lack of funding for them to deliver that care.

RNZ presenter:          Simon Snook says the termination of a pregnancy should be free.

12pm broadcast

[3]  The 12pm bulletin included a 46-second item on the topic:

RNZ presenter:          A sexual and reproductive health specialist says a rise in abortions is largely due to improved access to services. The number of abortions carried out in 2024 was 18,000, 37% up on 2019. Magma Healthcare Director Simon Snook says the increase is linked to improved accessibility, particularly following the launch of the National Abortion Telehealth Service in 2021.

Dr Snook:                   So, I think what you're seeing now is probably people who previously would have wanted an abortion and couldn't get one, are now getting it. So, I think what we're probably seeing now, is that we are getting the abortion numbers correct for the country's need. 

RNZ presenter:          In March 2020, law changes decriminalised abortions and reduced barriers to access. 

The complaint

[4]  Right to Life New Zealand Inc complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

Balance

a)  The only person invited to make comment was Dr Snook, a practitioner who provides abortions.

b)  No one opposed to ‘the violence of abortion’ was invited to comment.

c)  ‘The broadcaster claims that the balance standard does not require every news item on a controversial subject to be a mini-debate. However, it does require that there should be an opportunity for an opposing view on the issue to be broadcast within a reasonable time of the broadcast.’ Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) had not recently provided an opportunity for a ‘pro-life’ speaker to be heard.

Accuracy

d)  The broadcast referred to abortion as ‘care’ when it is the ‘violent termination’ of a child’s life.

e)  The item ignores the truths that human life begins at conception – an ‘established scientific fact’ which was accepted by The Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion in their 1977 report – and that ‘every unborn child is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation’.

f)  Abortion is also ‘violence inflicted on the mother’ who could be ‘wounded spiritually, psychologically, emotionally and physically’.

g)  There is nothing in the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 referring to abortion as ‘care’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

a)  ‘The Balance standard applies to “controversial issues of public importance” […] [T]he specific focus of this report was the delivery of medical services and the impact of telehealth on access.’

b)  ‘Dr Simon Snook was interviewed as the Director of Magma Healthcare […] He was included to provide expert context on why the data had changed – specifically, the rise in medical abortions…’

c)  ‘In this instance, the story was a factual report on statistical trends and healthcare infrastructure. Requiring an anti-abortion perspective in a story about ultrasound costs or telehealth logistics would, in our view, deviate from the report’s specific focus on health service administration.’

Accuracy

d)  ‘Under the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, abortion is managed as a health issue. RNZ’s use of “care” and “healthcare” reflects the current legal and medical framework in New Zealand.’

e)  ‘Beliefs regarding the point at which human life begins, or the moral status of the unborn, are matters of personal, philosophical, and religious conviction. The absence of these perspectives in a report focused on health service statistics does not constitute a factual inaccuracy.’

The standards

[6]  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.

[7]  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

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

[9]  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.⁵

Balance

[10]  The first step is to consider whether the balance standard applied to the broadcasts. 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’.⁶

[11]  The complainant objected to the omission of a ‘pro-life’ perspective from the broadcasts. However, the broadcasts did not discuss arguments for and against abortion. They reported the 2024 New Zealand abortion statistics and Dr Snook’s comments about the linkage between increasing abortion numbers and the ‘improved access to services’ such as ‘the launch of the National Abortion Telehealth Service in 2021’. We are not satisfied this limited topic constitutes a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ to which the standard would apply.

[12]  In any event, listeners would not have expected to be presented with differing perspectives on abortion in the context of such segments. The broadcasts were straightforward reports, lasting less than one minute each. The Authority has recognised the brevity of such broadcasts means they do not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard.⁷

[13]  Therefore, the balance standard does not apply.

Accuracy

[14]  The complainant considered the reference to abortion as ‘care’ was inaccurate.

[15]  The only reference to abortion as ‘care’ was in the 11am broadcast: ‘…there is a real lack of funding for them [primary care/midwives] to deliver that care.’ (emphasis added)

[16]  RNZ’s audience are very unlikely to be misled by this. We note the term ‘abortion care’ is used by multiple agencies and organisations involved in New Zealand health care, including:

a)  Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora⁸

b)  the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora⁹

c)  Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa¹⁰

d)  DECIDE.¹¹

[17]  Abortion has also been an ongoing topic of public discussion and debate for decades. In these circumstances, Dr Snook’s use of the term ‘care’ is unlikely to confuse listeners about the nature of the abortion procedure.

[18]  The complainant’s desire for inclusion of the information described in paragraph [4] amounts to a matter of personal preference regarding what the broadcaster should cover, rather than an issue of inaccuracy. As recognised in s 5(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, such matters are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure. The omission of the perspectives the complainant identified did not create any misleading impression.

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  Right to Life NZ’s original complaint – 5 January 2026

2  RNZ’s decision – 20 January 2026

3  Right to Life NZ’s referral to the Authority – 8 February 2026

4  Right to Life NZ’s further comments – 14 February 2026

5  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 2 March 2026

¹ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>
⁸ Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora ”Abortion care” <healthnz.govt.nz>
⁹ Abortion Services Aotearoa New Zealand: Annual Report (Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora, 2025) at 2
¹⁰ Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa “Abortion” <sexualwellbeing.org.nz>
¹¹ DECIDE “Home” <decide.org.nz>