BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint that interviews on The Detail discussing a ‘power imbalance’ between retirement village operators and residents breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The complainant alleged the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair as it did not provide an alternative perspective from a retirement village operator or the industry, and the statement, ‘operators are just sitting on the weekly fee’, was inaccurate. The Authority found the broadcast was signalled as coming from a particular point of view and viewers were unlikely to expect a countering perspective in the broadcast. The Authority also found the alleged inaccurate statement was clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and was not materially misleading. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 8 September 2025 broadcast of The Detail included an item discussing a ‘power imbalance’ between retirement village operators and residents. It started by discussing a Retirement Commission Disputes Panel case about a permanent alcohol-free retirement village policy:

Happy hours are now permanently alcohol-free at [a Retirement Village] after a Christmas Day barbecue that may or may not have breached the village rules… But residents said subsequent communications from village management, accusing them of boastfulness and bullying, exposed them to ill treatment and distrust. It was elder abuse and they wanted an apology.

…

Look, in the grand scheme of things, this case is not a big deal — but it has highlighted issues of imbalance between retirement village owners and their residents.

[2]  The segment included interviews with representatives from Consumer NZ and the Grey Power New Zealand Federation Inc (Grey Power), as well as sound bites from a representative of the Retirement Villages Residents Association (RVRA), a 1News reporter and the Retirement Commissioner.

[3]  The 24-minute broadcast covered a range of topics exploring potential ‘power imbalances’ between retirement village operators and residents. They included the Christmas Day drinking incident, occupational rights agreements, chattel repair obligations, repayment timeframes, and the politics and attitudes around the Retirement Village reforms.

[4]  The following excerpts are relevant:

The Detail host:         When it comes to retirement villages, residents versus owners. Is there too much power in the hands of the owners of retirement villages?  

Consumer NZ:           Yes is the simple answer. And I think that I'd add further that there are plenty of residents who go into a retirement village with their eyes open. They fully understand what they're signing up to. And for those residents, there shouldn't be any surprises. Everything is, you know, as they've understood it. But there are a plenty of examples of residents who assume things will be similar to, you know, what it was like when they owned their house freehold…

The Detail host:         And this is the rub, isn’t it? Because you would have thought, as happened in December 2023 with these residents, that you would be able to gather at a barbecue common area and have a few beers on Christmas Day without getting told off as if you're a toddler.

Consumer NZ:           Well, you'd think that but actually, having looked at the industry a fair bit, there are lots of kind of arbitrary bans on things that, yeah, you think you'd be able to do… Unfortunately, here, … you’ve got rules in place that in some instances are there to protect the well-being of residents but in other cases are there to protect the liability of the operator, and unfortunately those rules sometimes will place restrictions on your personal freedoms as a resident.

The Detail host:         And I guess if you know that, that's OK. You're still willing to buy into that.

Consumer NZ:           That's your choice, yeah, and you should be able to… So, I want to be really clear: we appreciate that some people are more than happy to live under the conditions that are placed on them by retirement village operators. It's not for me personally and I wouldn't want my elderly mother living in these conditions because frankly there is an imbalance of power, and in my mind many of the occupational rights agreements that I've seen have fundamentally unfair contract provisions in them…

…

RVRA:                        [Soundbite] It's really concerning that the agreements that residents sign when they enter these facilities are fundamentally unfair in some cases.  

Consumer NZ:           But there are definitely people out there who are happy to live under those conditions — and all power to them because the retirement village industry is one of the most efficient house builders in New Zealand. They have helped us through restrictions on housing supply by creating new dwellings for people and freeing up general housing stock in the market for other buyers. You know, that's a good thing. We need more housing in this country. So, I wouldn't criticise them for that.

[5]  In discussing occupational rights agreements, Consumer NZ gives a ‘small’ and a ‘big’ example of the ‘power imbalance’.

Consumer NZ:           So, something really small that really irks people who are living under an occupational rights agreement is that typically the village operator retains ownership of the chattels that are in your villa. So let's use an oven as an example. The facility owns the oven, but if the oven breaks, you as the resident are responsible for repairing that. Often you can only use the authorised repairer that the operator nominates, and typically with a cost premium added in.

                                    … 

Then at the other end, probably the most egregious example of unfair terms is capital payback periods. So, let's use that example where one partner needs to move into hospital-level care… The whole process of getting your money out minus, of course, any capital gains — because it should be widely known, for the most part, you will not get any capital gains on a villa…

But the period of time it takes the operator to sell your villa once you've moved out can stretch into the years. And we've seen terrible examples of people who desperately need to get their capital sum out but are left waiting.  

1News reporter:        [Soundbite] Consumer NZ says an 80-year-old widow was left in financial limbo when she gave her retirement village notice she was moving out of her villa. More than a year later, the villa still hasn't sold and she's continuing to be charged her weekly fees and has not received her payback.

Consumer NZ:           …[I]f you owe money to the facility and you haven't paid it, late payment penalties and interest can apply to those payments in some instances. And I would caveat here: I am generalising across agreements. It's not all retirement villages that have all aspects of what I'm talking about here.

…

The Detail host:         So, all this time, while they’re waiting for it to be sold, are they still paying their rent?

Consumer NZ:           In some cases, yeah, they’re still paying their weekly fees. So, they’re paying their weekly fee to support an unoccupied villa that they’re not in.

The Detail host:         Which gives no incentive for the village owner to actually sell it in a hurry.

Consumer NZ:           Well, that’s the suspicion in some cases — and certainly in some cases there’s, you know, as you can see in the dispute that’s given rise to this episode, there can be real bad blood between management and residents and so, it's very easy for a resident to jump to the assumption that the operators are just sitting on the weekly fee and then they're not making every effort to sell the property. It could just be that the market's slow. It could be that the villa has been occupied for 10 years and actually needs to be refreshed before someone's going to buy it. All of those things take time and all the while that's happening the resident doesn't get their money back and also has to continue to pay their weekly fee in some instances.

                        …

They [smaller operators] are really relying on selling that villa before they can repay the residents. So I do get that there are genuine reasons for villages acting in the way that they do.

[6]  Next, Consumer NZ discussed the need for reform and a better disputes system in relation of the Christmas dispute incident:

Consumer NZ:           So, there’s probably lessons for everybody in this dispute…

                        …

I think the dispute that gave rise to this episode is a great example of how this system's not really working particularly well for residents — and even the operator, to be honest. I mean, having read through the decision, it references the costs that the operator was put to. And let's keep this in context. A group of residents allegedly got together and had a few beers in the common area at Christmas time over a barbecue… Which they denied — so yeah, to be very clear, those are allegations. So let's imagine that did happen. The fact that a dispute like that got all the way to this panel and probably cost tens of thousands of dollars is ludicrous. This is something that should be able to be resolved with a bit of polite communication.

The Detail host:         Yeah, and all the residents wanted, I think, was an apology, which makes it even more crazy…

But I think what you were saying before though, doesn’t it shoot home to that basic idea of having respect for elderly people instead of treating them like sort of inmates or assets?

[7]  Grey Power was then interviewed about the decision process of entering and moving into a retirement village.

[8]  The segment concluded with Consumer NZ calling for reform of industry regulation and the following statement:

And look, we need to keep it in perspective. At Consumer NZ, we don't get lots of communication from people going, ‘Just wanted to get in touch to tell you how much I love living in my retirement village, and everything's great’, right? We hear from people who are having conflict and that we have to keep perspective that this industry would have fallen over by now if they weren't offering a service that people wanted and were satisfied with. So, you know, we're not throwing shade at the entire industry, but there are aspects of it that could quite easily be made fairer for all parties without tipping the commercial model on its head.  

The complaint

[9]  The Retirement Village’s Association of New Zealand Inc (RVA) complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

Balance

a)  ‘No representative from the sector, such as the Retirement Villages Association or an operator, was included in the broadcast.’

b)  ‘Counterbalance to critical content was mostly absent, inadequate or unclear. There was no explanation of how New Zealand retirement village business model works or the measures the sector is already taking to address some of the issues raised.’

c)  The last time RNZ covered this issue was on 25 July 2025 and RNZ only included the RVA perspective ‘later that morning after the RVA pressed RNZ to be included’. The Detail episode ‘repeats this pattern: no industry perspective was sought or included’.

d)  ‘The Detail podcast is enduring content. Listeners accessing it months later will hear only one perspective.’

Accuracy

e)  ‘The statement that “operators are just sitting on the weekly fee” is inaccurate and misleading. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the retirement village business model. Weekly fees cover ongoing services such as staff, maintenance, insurance, and amenities. They are not “profit” that operators simply “sit on”.’

f)  ‘By presenting this characterisation as fact, the programme gave listeners a materially misleading impression of how retirement villages are funded and operated.’

Fairness

g)  ‘This sector, and by association the Retirement Villages Association, was clearly identifiable and repeatedly portrayed in pejorative terms:

i)  “treated like toddlers”

ii)  “like being in a student hostel”

iii)  “like inmates”

iv)  “operators are just sitting on the weekly fee”

v)  “residents are an input into the model”.’

h)  RNZ did not contact RVA for comment.

i)  ‘While the programme occasionally acknowledged that “some people are happy” and “not all villages are the same,” these caveats did not meaningfully counterbalance the negative framing.’

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

a)  ‘The programme explicitly stated that the issue was based on a single complaint and made multiple references to the fact that the great majority of rest home residents are happy.’

b)  ‘The programme also included a range of viewpoints from other significant parties…’

c)  ‘The BSA affords broadcasters considerable freedom to explore a particular angle of a controversial issue, and in this case, the programme was clearly signalled as focusing on the issue of power imbalance.’

Accuracy

d)  ‘The programme included the opinion and analysis of the CEO of Consumer NZ, the Retirement Commissioner, and the President of the Grey Power Federation. RNZ is entitled to rely on the expertise of these individuals and to broadcast their views, which were presented as their professional opinions on a matter of public interest.’ (RNZ’s emphasis)

Fairness

e)  ‘As the programme did not mention the Retirement Villages Association, nor was it a direct subject of the report, the Fairness standard is not engaged in this instance’.

The standards

[11]  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.² The standard states:³

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.

[12]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁴ The standard states:⁵

• 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.

[13]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁶ The standard states:⁷

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

Our analysis

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

[15]  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.⁸

Balance

[16]  Several 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’.⁹

[17]  An issue of public importance is something that would have significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public. A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion, or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁰

[18]  This broadcast reported on issues associated with retirement village operation and regulation. We agree with the complainant’s assertion this constitutes a controversial issue of public importance, so the balance standard applies.

[19]  The next question is whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view. A key consideration is what the audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.¹¹

[20]  Under guideline 5.4, the requirement to present significant viewpoints is likely to be reduced, or in some instances negated, where it is evident from the programme’s introduction and the way the programme is presented that it is approaching the issue from a particular perspective. In such circumstances, the audience is less likely to interpret the programme as reflecting on other relevant perspectives.

[21]  We do not consider the balance standard was breached in this case:

a)  The programme did not purport to examine the issue from the perspective of both retirement village operators and residents. It was focused on exploring some of the current issues in the sector, prompted by the recent Retirement Commission Disputes Panel case.

b)  The programme’s introduction clearly signalled the focus of the segment.

c)  The interviews were with representatives of Consumer NZ and Grey Power. Consumer NZ is an organisation ‘dedicated to finding out the truth’ about certain products and services in New Zealand.¹² Grey Power is ‘recognised as the prime organisation that represents older people in New Zealand’.¹³  

d)  Throughout the broadcast, Consumer NZ caveated their responses by providing nuanced, arguably positive, views of retirement village operators, which we consider was sufficient to signal the existence of alternative perspectives on the issues discussed. These statements include:

i)  ‘…but there are definitely people out there who are happy to live under those conditions — and all power to them because the retirement village industry is one of the most efficient house builders in New Zealand.’

ii)  ‘And I would caveat here: I am generalising across agreements. It’s not all retirement villages that have all aspects of what I’m talking about here.’

iii)  ‘So I do get that there are genuine reasons for village’s acting in the way that they do.’

iv)  In relation to the Christmas party dispute discussed, ‘so there’s probably lessons for everybody in this dispute…’ and, ‘I think the dispute that gave rise to this episode is a great example of how this system’s not really working particularly well for residents and even the operator…’

e)  In this context, reasonable listeners would not have expected to hear views from retirement village operators, stories about positive retirement village experiences or details regarding village business models or measures currently underway to address issues.

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

Accuracy

[23]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead. To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.¹⁴

[24]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.

[25]  The complainant alleged the statement, ‘operators are just sitting on the weekly fee’, was inaccurate and misleading as it created a ‘materially misleading impression of how retirement villages are funded and operated’ where these weekly fees ‘cover ongoing services’ and are not ‘profit’.

[26]  However, the broadcast did not suggest operators were ‘just sitting on the weekly fee’. The phrase appeared in this context (emphasis added):

…there can be real bad blood between management and residents. And so, it's very easy for a resident to jump to the assumption that the operators are just sitting on the weekly fee and then they're not making every effort to sell the property. It could just be that the market's slow. It could be that the villa has been occupied for 10 years and actually needs to be refreshed before someone's going to buy it. All of those things take time.

[27]  Speculation about what some may assume amounts to analysis, comment or opinion, rather than a factual matter to which the accuracy standard might apply.

[28]  To the extent any reference to ‘sitting on the weekly fee’ might demonstrate a misunderstanding of the retirement village business model, when such fees cover services, this is not material in the context of the broadcast. In any event, the language used was informal and, in our view, offered no clear picture of the model’s operation (one way or the other).

[29]  We consider, within this context, reasonable viewers were not likely to be materially misled on the ‘way retirement villages are funded and operated’.

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

Fairness

[31]  The complainant suggests the broadcast treated the ‘sector, and by association the Retirement Villages Association’ unfairly. However, the fairness standard only applies to people or organisations referred to in a broadcast. The sector is not ‘a person or organisation’ and the Retirement Villages Association was not referred to. Accordingly, the fairness standard does not apply.

[32]  In any event, given our above findings, we do not consider any industry participant was unfairly treated in the broadcast.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

John Gillespie
Acting Chair
17 December 2025 

Appendix

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

1  RVA’s original complaint – 15 September 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 18 September 2025

3  RVA’s referral to the Authority – 26 September 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 7 October 2025

5  RVA’s further comments – 15 October 2025

6  RNZ’s further comments – 21 October 2025

7  RVA’s further comments – 4 November 2025

8  RNZ’s further comments – 6 November 2025

9  RVA’s further comments – 9 November 2025

10  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 11 November 2025

¹ Susie Staley declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Guideline 5.1
¹⁰ Guidance 5.1
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹² “About us – Who we are” (2025) Consumer <consumer.org.nz >
¹³ “A voice for all New Zealand seniors” (2025) Grey Power New Zealand Federation Inc <greypower.co.nz>
¹⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]