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 about a 1News item reporting a leaked recording showed National MPs were ‘keen to pinch’ a Labour Party policy to improve financial conditions for retirement village residents ahead of the next general election. The complaint was that the item was unbalanced as neither the Retirement Villages Association (RVA) nor the sector were approached for comment regarding claims made in the item. The Authority found the focus of the 1News item was clearly political, highlighting the Government’s desire to address residents’ concerns before the next election, rather than claiming to be a balanced discussion of how retirement villages operate or the merits of Labour’s policy. In this context, the audience would not have expected a countering viewpoint to be presented from RVA or the sector.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1News, broadcast 24 July 2025, was introduced:

[A] leaked recording has revealed some National MPs are keen to pinch a Labour Party plan to improve the financial conditions for retirement village residents, and they’re worried they’ll lose the votes of senior citizens at the next election if they don’t do it soon. Here’s [Senior Political Reporter] with this exclusive report.  

[2]  The item began with commentary from the Reporter, a representative of the Retirement Village Residents Association (RVRA), an economic commentator and Labour MP Ingrid Leary, as follows:

Reporter:                               When Kiwis move into a retirement village, they pay a lot for the right to live there. But when they leave that home, it can take an age for them, or their families, to get that money back from the village.  

RVRA Representative:         We have examples that residents haven’t been paid out for up to two years, 27 months, in actual fact, just quite recently. Families left in financial limbo. Their families get stressed because they’re left with the end product of, ‘Gosh, when’s mum and dad’s estate money going to come so that we can pay for funeral expenses or estate purposes?’.

Economic commentator:     Now this is a function of the unique way that our system is set up, and it really does favour retirement villages.

Reporter:                               There's been a multi-year review running into retirement villages, but a Labour MP has put forward a member’s bill with a possible solution.

Ingrid Leary MP:                   Everybody would get their money back within three months. 

[3]  The item then moved to focus on the leaked recording of National Party MP Sam Uffindell speaking to National supporters about the Bill, with comments in response from Uffindell and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon:

Sam Uffindell MP:                 [Voice recording, and written onscreen, dated July 18] Ingrid Leary, who has quite cunningly put forward a member’s bill which would address some of this. And she’s savvy enough to have garnered up a lot of attention around retirement villages.  

Reporter:                                He went on to talk about how the Government needs to respond. 

Sam Uffindell MP:                 [Voice recording, and written onscreen, dated July 18] We need to arrest or take the key parts out of that that are workable and make sure we build that into something. But importantly, it needs to go through the House before the end of this term. Because if it hasn’t, we’re going to have a whole bunch of disgruntled people in retirement villages who all vote and all talk to each other about it and who will go, ‘Oh National hasn’t actually delivered, and Labour was going to do this.’ 

…

Reporter:                               We asked the MP about his comments today.

Sam Uffindell MP:                 I go around to a lot of the retirement villages in Tauranga, and I know [National MP] does in the Bay of Plenty, and you hear a lot about the concern from those residents there. We’re open to all good ideas out there, and New Zealanders would expect nothing less.  

…

Christopher Luxon:              We’ve been committed since before the election to continue the work around retirement villages and I’m proud of the work the ministers are doing.

[4]  The item concluded with a live cross between the 1News presenter and Senior Political Reporter:

Presenter:                              So [Senior Political Reporter], the way retirement villages are operating, clearly of some concern to the National Party.

Reporter:                               Well, it’s definitely on the National Party's radar. And as we heard there in that pretty frank recording, it’s also something that they see as a political risk as they head into election year next year. Now, elsewhere in that recording, Sam Uffindell, he said that the Government had actually been aiming to bring in legislation next term, but they’ve decided now that that’s unpalatable. So they’ve brought it forward to this term to try and deal with the issue … So it’s clearly quite a big deal for the Prime Minister and for the National Party and it’s likely we’re going to see action sooner now rather than later. Whether or not they adopt Labour’s idea, though, remains to be seen.  

The complaint

[5]  A strategy and communication company complained on behalf of the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand Inc (RVA) that the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  RVA ‘recognise that the story focused on the politics around the issue. However, both Ingrid Leary and the Retirement Villages Residents Association made a number of material claims about the retirement village sector… No opportunity was provided to the Retirement Villages Association to respond or put forward the sector’s perspective, despite it being the subject of the claims made. We believe this represents a lack of balance under the Code.’

b)  ‘…our concerns are focused on ensuring the sector has a fair opportunity to respond to a number of strong claims made in [the] piece, in line with the Broadcasting Standards Code of Balance.’ RVA identified three claims it believed ‘require a right of reply’:

i.  The comments made by the RVRA representative ‘create[d] the impression that significant delays are common. In fact, the average repayment time across the sector is around 5.5 months, largely reflecting current housing market conditions, given that most incoming residents need to sell their homes before entering a village.’

 ii.  The comments made by the economic commentator, including that the system ‘really does favour retirement villages’: ‘This generalisation overlooks recent analysis … in a report looking at 25 years of data from two very different villages [which] found that in both cases, it took more than 20 years before the villages broke even and returned the initial investment. This highlights that villages are long-term, capital-intensive operations, not cash-rich businesses, and is at odds with the suggestion that the system favours operators.’

 iii.  The reporter’s ‘paraphrasing’ — ‘There's been a multi-year review running into retirement villages, but a Labour MP has put forward a member’s bill with a possible solution [everybody would get their money back within three months]’ — suggesting Ingrid Leary’s ‘Bill offers a workable solution … mispresents the realities of the resident-funded model … the Bill appears to fundamentally misunderstand how retirement villages are funded and sustained.’ The ‘omission of this context [explaining how the model works] and the lack of a sector response compromised the piece’s balance’.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard for the following reasons:

a)  The 1News item was a political story with a focus on the actions of the different political parties. The broadcaster agreed this topic amounted to ‘an issue which is subject to the expectations of this standard’ and said significant viewpoints on this issue were adequately presented in the item, from Uffindell, Leary, and the Prime Minister.

b)  The RVRA representative and economic commentator interviewed ‘briefly provided comment on the issues which may be considered by any proposed legislation of the retirement village sector’, but the item was not ‘an in-depth investigation into issues affecting the sector’. TVNZ did not agree these issues were ‘discussed’ as defined by this standard, ‘noting that the Balance standard defines “discussion” to mean serious examination of an issue, rather than the issue being raised in a brief, or peripheral way, which the comments about the retirement home sector were’. In any case, responding to the specific claims raised:

i.  ‘it is not a controversial statement that some residents (or their estates) have to wait a considerable amount of time until they receive their capital sum repayment. There was no statement in the 1News story that this scenario occurred all the time, rather the comment simply reflects that it is possible; and has happened recently.’ As ‘there is no dispute’ that some residents have to wait a lengthy period before repayment,² ‘no balancing comment was required on this’.

ii.  The statement from the economic commentator was opinion and comment, and consistent with a Commission for Financial Capability | Te Ara Ahunga Ora white paper which states in its executive summary that ‘there are consumer issues with the framework reflecting the way the framework tends to favour commercial imperatives of operators’.³ Therefore TVNZ did not agree the commentator’s briefly expressed opinion was controversial or required balancing comments.

ii.  Leary’s comments about her member’s bill were ‘a brief description of the purpose of her bill and… not focussed on or discussed’. The issue in question, Uffindell discussing Labour Party policy, has been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it was reasonable to expect the audience to be aware of the existence of alternative viewpoints.⁴

Jurisdiction — the scope of the complaint

[7]  On referring the complaint to the Authority, the Executive Director of the RVA alleged the broadcast also breached the accuracy and fairness standards:

Accuracy

• ‘The broadcast contained specific claims and framing that were misleading or implications that residents are routinely disadvantaged,’ and ‘presented an inaccurate and partial picture of how retirement villages function’.
• RVA reiterated the three aspects raised in the original complaint that it considered amounted to ‘material inaccuracies’.

Fairness

• TVNZ’s decision ‘fails to acknowledge the central fairness and balance issue: the RVA was not asked to comment for the broadcast.’
• ‘By airing allegations without offering RVA or its members the chance to respond, the broadcast denied them fundamental fairness.’
• ‘The RVA, as the national representative body for the retirement village sector, was the appropriate organisation to provide the sector’s perspective.’
• ‘The story implied exploitative practices and dishonesty by operators while failing to engage with the RVA or any operator for a right of reply. This omission left viewers with the impression that the sector had no defence or explanation — an unfair and damaging portrayal’.

[8]  TVNZ submitted these standards were out of scope and should not be considered by the Authority as they were not raised in the original complaint, and it was expressly confirmed to the TVNZ Complaints Committee that the complaint was being made under the balance standard.

[9]  Under section 8(1b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. We do not, as submitted by the complainant, have ‘discretion to consider the full effect of a broadcast under any relevant standard, regardless of whether it was expressly raised in the initial complaint’. In limited circumstances, the Authority can consider a standard not explicitly raised in the original complaint where that standard can be reasonably implied into the wording of the complaint, and it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.⁵

[10]  We do not consider the wording of the original complaint reasonably triggered the accuracy or fairness standards. It was clearly framed as a complaint about ‘a lack of balance under the Code’ and identified ‘the Broadcasting Standards Code of Balance’. TVNZ’s Complaints Committee specifically sought, and received, confirmation the complaint was being made under the balance standard alone. RVA, in its correspondence with the Authority, also acknowledged the original complaint was under balance: ‘while our original complaint focused on a breach of the Balance standard, having reassessed the broadcast we respectfully submit that the Accuracy and Fairness standards were also breached’.

[11]  Further, we do not consider these standards are necessary to properly consider the complaint, noting:

• TVNZ responded to RVA’s concerns about the retirement villages model being ‘misrepresented’ within the bounds of the balance standard, submitting the claims made in the item were not ‘controversial’ (pointing to supporting evidence) and therefore did not necessitate a right of reply.
• The fairness standard applies only to individuals or organisations ‘taking part or referred to’ in the broadcast so it cannot be applied in this instance to neither RVA (which did not take part and was not referred to) nor the broader sector (which is not an ‘organisation’ for the purposes of the standard).

[12]  Accordingly, our determination below is limited to the balance standard.

The standard

[13]  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.⁶ The standard states:⁷

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.

Our analysis

[14]  We have watched 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

[16]  Political speech, which was the main feature of this 1News broadcast, carries high value and public interest meaning a correspondingly high level of harm is required to justify limiting that speech. We have found no harm of the manner alleged in the complaint, that outweighs the value and public interest in the item or justifies our intervention.

Balance

[17]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.

[18]  The broadcast reported a leaked recording of a National MP allegedly ‘keen to pinch’ a Labour Party policy to improve financial conditions for retirement village residents — so as not to lose their votes at the next election. TVNZ accepted this constituted a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied, and we agree.

[19]  We also agree the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to include significant viewpoints on this political issue, from Sam Uffindell MP (National), Ingrid Leary MP (Labour), and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

[20]  The complainant’s concern is that TVNZ did not seek comment from RVA or another representative of the retirement village sector.

[21]  The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced or in some cases negated where the programme’s introduction and presentation make it clear the programme is:⁹

• not intended to be a balanced examination of an issue
• approaching an issue from a particular perspective, or
• narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger, complex matter.

[22]  This broadcast did not purport to provide a balanced examination of retirement village operations or viewpoints surrounding the ‘multi-year review’ of retirement village legislation. It did not delve into the merits of Leary’s member’s bill, nor of residents’ concerns about their financial conditions.

[23]  The broadcast was narrowly focused on the political aspect: how National and the Prime Minister viewed this as a political risk going into next year’s general election if they did not address residents’ concerns before then, and Uffindell’s desire to ‘pinch’ Labour’s policy on this, or at least the ‘workable’ parts, within the current term of government.

[24]  The viewpoints or claims RVA takes issue with briefly provided context to those concerns, but they were not the focus of the discussion. RVA was not mentioned in the broadcast.

[25]  In this context and given the political focus, the audience would not have expected a countering viewpoint to be presented from RVA or the sector in relation to how retirement villages operate, residents’ concerns or details of the member’s bill. Nor would viewers be left unable to form an informed and reasoned opinion on the broadcast topic, particularly since further reporting on it was readily available elsewhere,¹⁰ along with further information about the review of the Retirement Villages Act.¹¹

[26]  We find no breach of the balance standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

John Gillespie
Acting Chair
3 December 2025     

Appendix

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

1  Retirement Villages Association’s original complaint – 25 and 27 July 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 22 August 2025

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

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 17 September 2025

5  RVA’s further comments – 22 September 2025

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 30 September 2025

7  RVA’s further comments – 6 October 2025

8  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 14 October 2025

¹ Susie Staley declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Citing Ministry of Housing and Urban Development | Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga, “Review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003: Options for change”, Discussion Paper August 2023, at 207: ‘The Retirement Villages Association has indicated that over 75 percent of units are relicensed within six months of being vacated and 90 percent within nine months. However, some former residents or their estates have had to wait over 12 months to receive their capital sum repayment and in extreme circumstances they have had to wait over two years. This can cause significant financial and emotional stress for former residents and their families.’
³ Commission for Financial Capability Te Ara Ahunga Ora, “White Paper - Retirement Villages Legislative Framework: Assessment and Options for Change 2020”, Executive Summary
⁴ Citing the Authority’s guidance Complaints that are unlikely to succeed: ‘Balance standard requirements reflect the current media landscape with information and opportunities to learn about different politicians and perspectives typically available from multiple sources. Audiences are not dependent on any one programme for all of their political information/analysis.’
⁵ Attorney-General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Guideline 5.4
¹⁰ For example, see Tom Day “People will be disgruntled – leak of National MP talking up Labour policy” RNZ (online ed, 24 July 2025); and Sarah Curtis “Pressure mounts on National over Labour retirement bill” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 30 July 2025)
¹¹ For more information, see Ministry of Housing and Urban Development | Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga “Retirement Villages Act, regulations and codes” (5 March 2025) <hud.govt.nz>