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 Checkpoint item reporting on concerns from Auckland florists about changes to the operation of the city’s major flower supplier, United Flower Growers (UFG). UFG complained the report inaccurately stated all florists had elected to remain anonymous, was unfair to UFG by inadequately reflecting its response to the concerns raised, and was unbalanced, in breach of the accuracy, fairness and balance broadcasting standards. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate to say all florists elected to remain anonymous, and UFG was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the broadcast, satisfying the requirements of the fairness and balance standards.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item during the 15 September 2025 broadcast of Checkpoint on RNZ National reported on concerns from Auckland florists about changes to the operation of the city’s major flower supplier, United Flower Growers (UFG). A written article on the story was also published on RNZ’s website.¹

[2]  The broadcast item was introduced:

‘You’d be hard-pushed to find a happy florist.’ That from Auckland flower sellers who say all is not rosy in their industry right now. Since the city’s major flower supplier, United Flower Growers, went exclusively online, florists say there have been a raft of problems. The florists spoken to by Checkpoint also feel their concerns are being ignored, but fear that if they speak out against UFG, they will be blacklisted. The CEO for United Flower Growers says his organisation has done nothing wrong. But all the florists in [reporter’s] report fear their business will be at risk if they speak out, so they’ve elected to remain anonymous.

[3]  The item featured comment from four Auckland florists, who were not named. Three of the florists had their own voices featured, while one had their comments re-voiced.

[4]  The florists raised concerns about UFG moving its flower auctions online (meaning they were unable to check the flowers before purchasing), the quality of the flowers supplied, flowers turning up that ‘aren’t necessarily the same as the ones pictured’, and UFG’s move from Mt Wellington to East Tamaki (described as ‘a longer trip for the majority of Auckland’s florists’). As a result of the move, the reporter noted ‘with further to go to collect their flowers, [the florists] say they struggle to get back to their shops in time to fulfil their orders’, and some have had to hire extra staff or pay couriers to pick up the flowers.

[5]  The reporter stated for one pair of florists, ‘there have been problems with nearly all of their purchases.’ The pair spoke about an incident where they had bought flowers at a Monday auction and returned them on the Thursday as they were bad quality. They said when they checked the auction later that afternoon, the flowers were back up for sale.

[6]  The reporter stated:

While UFG says it doesn’t have a monopoly over the industry, florists feel they have no choice but to use their services. Their only other option would be to buy from wholesalers or directly from growers, which is both more expensive and often doesn’t provide flowers in the quantities the florists need.

[7]  Some of the florists indicated they had attempted to raise their concerns with UFG but nothing had been done, describing a ‘culture of fear’ in the industry:

Florist 1:         […] We’re a key part of the equation. And for a key part of that equation to feel scared and to feel intimidated and to feel there’s no choice is a pretty bad situation. And a fundamentally screwed model.

[…]

Florist 2:         I’m trying, trying to speak out. It’s really hard when you’re in an industry where it’s so suppressive and you can’t express your views openly.

[8]  UFG’s comment was included at the end of the item:

Reporter:        UFG Chief Executive Pete Brown says there’s been good reasons for the changes that have been made.

Brown:           Every change that we’ve made is with the best intentions for the industry and the succession of this business and we’ve communicated that and we have had those conversations.

Reporter:        As for why the florists say they’re scared of speaking out, he says he’s unsure and in fact it’s UFG that has been targeted.

Brown:           They expect to be able to see the product. They expect to be able do all these things, but then they expect to get the cheap price as well. And I think you’ve had a company that’s been bullied probably for a number of years by a select few people maybe, and as a result, I think UFG offers a fairer deal to the marketplace now and a better service than it did a few years ago.

Reporter:        But many florists fear that if nothing is changed in the industry, their businesses may not bloom for much longer.

The complaint

[9]  UFG complained the broadcast breached the accuracy, fairness and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Its arguments under each standard are set out below.

Accuracy

[10]  The broadcast claimed all florists spoken to had elected to remain anonymous, however UFG had been in direct communication with two of the florists featured in the broadcast, who advised they had been prepared to go on the record. UFG questioned whether Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) had encouraged any florists to remain anonymous. This inaccuracy served to sensationalise the story and cause reputational harm to UFG.

Fairness

[11]  The item did not include much of the comment made by UFG ‘both in person and in writing’ in response to the allegations, including that their buyer numbers continue to grow, and that no customer had ever been blacklisted unless they were in breach of their credit terms or ‘engaged in hate speech’. Additionally, treating the florists anonymously prevented UFG from being able to properly challenge their claims.

Balance

[12]  The item was ‘very one-sided’. While UFG has nearly 500 customers, RNZ only spoke to about 5-10 who were ‘all referred by one another’. RNZ ‘could have contacted florists at random from across the country to obtain a more balanced perspective’.

Other

[13]  Responding to RNZ’s comment that there was a significant power imbalance between the florists and UFG, UFG said, ‘There is no power imbalance. We have several wholesale competitors in Auckland where these florists can shop for the same products […] So fear of being blacklisted is not credible especially given we have no track record of doing this to people that speak out.’ UFG requested RNZ take the broadcast and associated article down off its website.

The broadcaster’s response

[14]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint, for the following reasons.

Accuracy

[15]  In relation to the statement, ‘all the florists in [reporter’s] report fear their business will be at risk if they speak out, so they’ve elected to remain anonymous,’ RNZ advised:

We have requested and reviewed the reporter’s internal notes […] They confirm the decision [to treat the florists anonymously] was mutual and risk-based. RNZ is satisfied that, after discussing the potential risks of speaking out, “a mutual decision was made…for them to remain anonymous.” The fact that a florist initially volunteered to go on the record is irrelevant if the final editorial decision, in mutual consultation with the source, was to protect them. The final action – the granting of anonymity – was accurate and ethically justified.

Fairness

[16]  RNZ said, ‘The Fairness standard requires RNZ to deal fairly with UFG, but we must also balance that with the public interest in the story and the protection of vulnerable sources.’ It said it had dealt fairly with all parties and given UFG a ‘generous right of reply’.

Balance

[17]  The broadcast was structured as a challenge/response. RNZ was satisfied significant viewpoints were represented:

• ‘…when a story addresses a significant power imbalance, the requirement for balance is not a mathematical exercise in “both-sidesism”.’²
• ‘…individual florists dealing with a dominant entity like [UFG] are in a position of significant vulnerability. Reporting on their concerns from their perspective is a legitimate exercise in public interest journalism.’

Jurisdiction – scope of complaint

[18]  After referring its complaint to the Authority, UFG sought to raise arguments under the accuracy standard that were not explicitly raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster.

[19]  The concerns related to alleged inaccurate statements made in the broadcast by the reporter and the anonymous florists, such as ‘You’d be hard-pushed to find a happy florist,’ florists were scared they might be blacklisted if they spoke out, the warehouse in East Tamaki was ‘a longer trip’ for the majority of Auckland florists, and the ‘flowers that turn up aren’t necessarily the same as the ones pictured’.

[20]  The Authority has previously allowed complainants to raise new arguments on referral, where the arguments are ‘more detailed arguments in respect of the standards that have already been raised’.³ In an analogous case addressing the raising of new standards on referral, the High Court has found:⁴

…it is permissible [for the Authority] to fill gaps… or cross boundaries between Code standards… but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint.

[21]  While noting UFG had stated they were concerned the broadcast was ‘full of inaccuracies’ in their original complaint, as these were not explained any further, we find the additional arguments raised on referral cannot ‘reasonably be interpreted as falling within the wording of the original complaint’,⁵ and we do not address them in our decision.

The standards

[22]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ The standard states:⁷

• 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.

[23]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁸ The standard states:⁹

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

[24]  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.¹⁰ The standard states:¹¹

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

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

[26]  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.¹²

Accuracy

[27]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[28]  The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹³

[29]  UFG considers it was incorrect for the broadcast to have stated all florists elected to remain anonymous. UFG received an email from two of the florists involved, who advised ‘when we spoke to the media, we were happy to go on the record. It was their decision to keep our comments anonymous…’

[30]  The relevant statement in the broadcast was, ‘all the florists in [reporter’s] report fear their business will be at risk if they speak out, so they’ve elected to remain anonymous.’

[31]  We consider this statement was a material point of fact. The florists’ fear of speaking out, resulting in their request for anonymity, was a leading and material aspect of the story.

[32]  After receiving the complaint referral, we requested further information from RNZ on whether all of the florists had in fact requested anonymity. RNZ provided the reporter’s notes from her discussions with the five florists she spoke to for the story, regarding the question of anonymity. The notes outline the reasons why each florist elected to remain anonymous. In the interests of source confidentiality, we do not go into further details of the content of these notes.

[33]  In providing these notes, RNZ submitted ‘it would be counter-intuitive and contrary to standard journalistic practice to anonymise a source who had clearly agreed to be identified. Identifying sources enhances both credibility and impact, and would have occurred had such agreement been given.’

[34]  We have no reason to doubt the information provided by RNZ or the correspondence sent to the complainant. While the circumstances suggest some form of misunderstanding may have occurred, based on the evidence provided by RNZ we are satisfied it was not materially inaccurate to say all of the florists elected to remain anonymous for fear their business would be at risk.

Fairness

[35]  Under the fairness standard, individuals and organisations have the right to expect they will be dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. In assessing fairness, this right is weighed against broadcasters’ right to freedom of expression and their role in disseminating information in the public interest.¹⁴

[36]  The complainant’s key concerns under the fairness standard are that the broadcast did not sufficiently represent UFG’s comments in response to the concerns raised by the florists, and that treating the florists anonymously prevented them from being able to properly challenge their claims.

[37]  A consideration of what is fair, and the threshold for finding unfairness to an individual or organisation, may take into account the following factors:¹⁵

• the nature of the content (eg news and current affairs, political content, factual, dramatic, comedic or satirical)
• the source of the content (eg whether the content was locally produced by or on behalf of the broadcaster, or sourced overseas)
• the nature of the individual or organisation (eg the threshold for finding unfairness will be higher for a public figure, politician, or organisation familiar with dealing with the media, as opposed to an ordinary person with little or no media experience)
• whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individual or organisation
• whether any critical comments were aimed at the participant in their business or professional life, or their personal life
• the public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech.

[38]  If a person or organisation referred to or portrayed in a broadcast might be adversely affected, that person or organisation should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before the broadcast. What is ‘fair and reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances.¹⁶

[39]  Given the concerns raised about UFG by florists, the broadcast was likely to adversely affect UFG, and it was important to adequately convey its response to the concerns.

[40]  After careful consideration, we concluded the broadcast did not breach the fairness standard with respect to UFG, for the following reasons:

a)  RNZ gave UFG the opportunity to comment in advance of the broadcast both in a written statement and an approximately 30-minute interview. We reviewed UFG’s written statement and interview, and consider despite the florists being treated anonymously, UFG was given sufficient indication of the nature of their concerns. While UFG has argued the anonymity prevented it from being able to properly challenge the florists’ claims, it was able to respond in general terms, and we do not consider this resulted in any unfairness to UFG.

b)  UFG’s response to the concerns was included at the end of the broadcast, which conveyed its perspective on key issues raised by the florists, including: the changes made were in the interests of the industry and the sustainability of the business; the concept of getting goods at a cheap price required some sacrifice; UFG does not have a monopoly over the industry; and how UFG was unsure why people were scared to speak out. The excerpts of the reporter’s interview with Brown which were included in the broadcast reflected the overall tenor of his comments.

c)  We acknowledge further aspects of UFG’s response could have been helpful to include in the broadcast, such as the point that most florists were already buying remotely before the auction went online-only, and the nature of their business being a ‘platform’ rather than retail or wholesale. However, we consider the broadcast included sufficient comment from UFG and any possible harm did not reach the threshold for finding unfairness.

d)  There was public interest in the broadcast, which allowed small businesses to voice concerns about their major supplier, where they perceive ‘they have no choice but to use their services’. We note, in 2017, the Commerce Commission investigated an unapproved merger between UFG and FloraMax, which provided competing flower auction services.¹⁷ The Commerce Commission found the merger would likely substantially lessen competition, but took no further action.¹⁸ While we understand UFG disagrees that it holds a monopoly or that it is in a position of power, in circumstances where many florists rely on their price point and availability of flowers, it is of public interest to allow these concerns to be aired. UFG’s view that it does not hold a monopoly over the industry was included in the broadcast.

[41]  We are therefore satisfied UFG was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment as part of the broadcast. Noting UFG’s response to the concerns was sufficiently conveyed, we do not consider the audience would have been left with an unfairly negative impression of UFG. While including some other points raised by UFG in its written statement and interview with the reporter may have helped its case to some extent, any omissions did not reach the threshold for finding unfairness requiring regulatory intervention or justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Balance

[42]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the balance standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.¹⁹

[43]  The broadcast was a piece of investigative journalism discussing changes made to UFG’s Auckland operation. This is clearly a controversial issue among Auckland florists. We consider it discussed issues of broader public interest as well, ie concerns regarding alleged intimidation and other actions of a large supplier impacting smaller New Zealand businesses. The standard therefore applies.

[44]  The next question is whether the broadcaster sufficiently presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances.²⁰ The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance. Broadcasters should give a fair voice to alternative significant viewpoints, taking into account the nature of the issue and coverage of that issue.²¹

[45]  A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective (eg where a significant perspective is presented with limited coverage or in a manner which undermines its validity).²²

[46]  In the context of a broadcast focused on concerns from florists about changes to UFG’s business operation, UFG’s viewpoint was clearly significant. In line with our finding under the fairness standard, we consider UFG’s perspective in response to the concerns was adequately conveyed. While UFG’s rebuttal was given less time than the florists’ concerns, their perspective was nevertheless given a ‘fair voice’. We do not consider the audience was likely to have been misinformed by the way UFG’s perspective was presented. Nor were other perspectives, such as that of other florists around the country who use UFG’s services, necessary to include to meet the requirements of the standard. Balance was achieved through the inclusion of UFG’s response.

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

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
6 May 2026    

Appendix

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

1  UFG’s initial correspondence to RNZ – 22 October 2025

2  Correspondence between RNZ and UFG – 23 October 2025

3  UFG’s complaint – 23 October 2025

4  RNZ’s decision – 30 October 2025

5  UFG’s referral to the Authority – 5 November 2025

6  UFG’s further comments – 4 December 2025

7  RNZ’s response to the referral – 18 December 2025

8  UFG’s further comments – 4 February 2026

9  RNZ’s further comments including reporter’s notes on anonymity and audio of interview between reporter and Brown – 31 March 2026

10  UFG’s further comments – 7 April 2026

¹ Evie Richardson “Auckland florists say industry ‘in shambles’, plagued by resentment” RNZ (online ed, 15 September 2025)
² Citing BSA decision: The Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand Inc and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-062
³ See New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2005-112 at [85]-[87]; AP and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-153 at [9]-[10]; and Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [18]
⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁵ Forrest and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-050 at [12]
⁶ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁹ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹¹ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹³ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁴ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁵ Guideline 8.1: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
¹⁶ Guideline 8.4: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁷ Tess Nichol “Commerce Commission investigating unapproved merger in New Zealand’s flower industry” NZ Herald (online ed, 13 May 2017)
¹⁸ Evie Richardson “Auckland florists say industry ‘in shambles’, plagued by resentment” RNZ (online ed, 15 September 2025)
¹⁹ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²⁰ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²¹ Guideline 5.3: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²² Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14