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 that a 1News broadcast about the greyhound racing industry’s perspective on their impending ban was unbalanced. The complainant alleged the broadcast was ‘one sided and seriously unbalanced’ by nearly exclusively presenting the industry’s perspective on the ban without including any viewpoints in support of the ban. The Authority found the broadcast was clearly introduced and presented as approaching the issue from the industry’s perspective and adequately included significant alternative viewpoints through comments by the 1News reporter, and Racing Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters. The audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints on greyhound racing through other, ongoing media coverage.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  An item during the 5 October 2025 broadcast of 1News covered the greyhound racing industry’s perspective on the Government’s decision to ban commercial greyhound racing in Aotearoa New Zealand. The item, in full, was as follows:

1News presenter:                  With the curtain about to fall on their sport, those involved in greyhound racing say they're going to lose their livelihoods. The Government's banning greyhound racing, saying too many dogs are being killed and injured, but the industry say[s] things are getting better and they're not being listened to. Senior Political Reporter … spent a day at the greyhound races this past week and got their side of the story.

Reporter:                              [Voiceover] In Palmerston North this week, the dogs were out on the track.

Racing club representative: We’ve got 12 races involving 80 or 90 dogs and probably 15 or 16 trainers.

Reporter:                                Before they’re allowed to race, each dog is checked in and checked over to make sure they’re good to go.

…

Reporter:                                But the sport’s days here are numbered. It’s being banned next year.

Greyhound trainer:               I think we’ve, sort of, been totally unfairly judged by Winston [Peters].

Reporter:                                Politicians of all stripes have had enough of all the injuries.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:       As difficult as it was, you’ve got to do what’s right, and we don’t believe in cruelty to animals.

Reporter:                                Last season, 17 dogs had to be put down after getting injured. 800 greyhounds were injured, 200 seriously.

Vet:                                         We’re upset about the injuries and deaths, as well. We don’t want them to happen and we’re actively working to reduce that in every step that we can.

Greyhound Racing NZ:        We’ve lowered the number of race-day euthanasias to the lowest level of any racing code in New Zealand. So, yeah, we believe significant progress has been made and could continue to be made if we had- you know, we’re given the green light.

Reporter:                                They just want the ear of the Minister to talk about safety improvements.

Reporter:                                [To Greyhound Racing NZ representative] What sort of engagement have you had with Winston Peters?

Greyhound Racing NZ:        None.

Reporter:                                He won’t talk to you?

Greyhound Racing NZ:        We have not met with the Minister since he's been in power since November ’23.

Reporter:                                [Voiceover] Those in the sport are at loss.

Greyhound trainer:               Who wants to employ a 62-year-old, broken-down dog trainer at that age? I'll probably be alright. I sort of feel for [others], though... young ones will be out there looking for a job with skills that [are], you know, hard to relate to any other occupation.

Racing club representative: You put your heart and soul and a lot of money into something that you’re passionate about and it’s just going to get ripped away.

Reporter:                                Meanwhile, in what some say is a clear double standard, the Government will continue allowing the TAB to broadcast greyhound races from overseas — like from Australia, which has had scandals where live animals were used as bait. 88 dogs have died racing in Australia so far this year, 8,000 injured.

Peters:                                    You see, the fact is, it’s based on a thing called New Zealand law. We can’t stop them at this point in time.

Reporter:                                But those involved in the industry here argue they take great care of their dogs. [Reporter], 1News.

The complaint

[2]  Matt Walker complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because it was ‘one sided and seriously unbalanced. It presented views of pro-greyhound racing without presenting any balanced views from the vast number of bodies and individuals who opposed it’.

[3]  While the broadcast included a ‘short statement’ from Winston Peters, it was ‘insufficient in providing balance’ since it mostly presented the views of the industry. ‘Not a single view was presented in support of the greyhound racing ban,’ and 1News has not reported ‘the opposing view’ (ie in favour of the ban) ‘since August 2024 (once) and prior to that in 2021’. As such, they have not presented the opposing view within a reasonable timeframe.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘Greyhound racing in New Zealand could reasonably be considered a controversial issue of public importance, though we consider the level of controversy has declined to a relatively low level, as far as those opposed to the “sport” are concerned, now that the Government has agreed to ban it.’
• This report was ‘explicitly framed as approaching the issue from the perspective of the greyhound racing industry, i.e., the people who will be affected by the upcoming ban, and who are trying to engage with the Minister for Racing to lobby for the ban to be reconsidered, in light of what they contend are successfully implemented safety improvements’.
• While ‘many viewers may oppose and dislike greyhound racing’, the industry represents a significant viewpoint. It was appropriate for 1News to report their perspective ‘considering ongoing, and thus far unsuccessful, efforts by the greyhound racing industry to engage with the Minister’.
• Views in opposition to greyhound racing have formed a substantial part of previous reporting on the issue.¹ It is reasonable to expect that viewers would understand the main arguments against greyhound racing given it has been an ongoing issue for many years.
• Regardless, the broadcast included the opposing perspective: ‘Explicitly, through Mr Peters' comments about cruelty to animals, and implicitly by recognising that the “sport” is soon to be banned (with the obvious implication that regulators agreed with the arguments against greyhound racing)’.
• This story did not require a direct statement from the SPCA, SAFE, or similarly minded organisations, ‘particularly as the fundamental basis of their opposition to greyhound racing was conveyed in statements by Winston Peters, the Senior Political Reporter, and the 1News presenter’.
• The broadcast ‘also referred to live-baiting scandals in Australia and noted contemporary data that painted a grim picture of the greyhound welfare in that country’.

The standard

[5]  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.

Our analysis

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

[7]  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.⁴

Balance

[8]  There are two steps in the assessment of whether a broadcast breached the balance standard:⁵

a)  whether the standard applies — ie whether the programme ‘discussed’ a ‘controversial’ issue ‘of public importance’; and

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

[9]  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. 

[10]  While the broadcast largely centred on the impact of the upcoming greyhound racing ban on the industry, we consider the issue ‘discussed’ in the broadcast was the ban on greyhound racing generally, which we accept is a controversial issue of public importance.⁶ New Zealand’s ban on commercial greyhound racing is due to come into effect on 31 July 2026. As indicated in the broadcast, the subject continues to be controversial and generate conflicting opinion, notwithstanding the Government’s decision. Therefore, the balance standard applies.

[11]  The second step is to determine whether TVNZ adequately presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances.

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

• The programme’s introduction and presentation make it clear it is not intended to be a balanced examination of an issue or approach an issue from a particular perspective. 
• The audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.⁷

[13]  The broadcast was clearly signalled as approaching the subject matter from ‘their [the industry’s] side of the story’. Several industry representatives were interviewed, including a vet, a greyhound trainer, and spokespeople from a greyhound racing club and Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

[14]  Regardless, we consider significant alternative viewpoints were presented within the item. In its introduction, the broadcast stated why the Government is banning greyhound racing: ‘too many dogs are being killed and injured’. Later, the 1News reporter explained that last racing season, ‘17 dogs had to be put down after getting injured. 800 greyhounds were injured, 200 seriously.’ The item also included comment from Racing Minister Winston Peters, who said, ‘As difficult as it was [banning greyhound racing], you’ve got to do what’s right. And we don’t believe in cruelty to animals.’ We note the balance standard is centred on the different perspectives shared, not the nature of interviewees. In the context of this broadcast, inclusion of viewpoints specifically from anti-racing or animal protection groups was not required.⁸

[15]  Finally, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints on greyhound racing. Noting the Government’s decision to ban commercial greyhound racing was announced in December 2024, perspectives on the subject have been covered in a range of media over an ongoing period of interest.⁹

[16]  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
11 February 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Walker’s original complaint – 5 October 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 29 October 2025

3  Walker’s referral to the Authority – 31 October 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 21 November 2025

5  Walker’s further comments – 1 December 2025

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 3 December 2025

¹ 1News Reporters “The case for and against banning greyhound racing” 1News (online ed, 10 August 2024); “SAFE repeats call for greyhound racing ban after another doping case” 1News (online ed, 2 July 2021); “Calls for greyhound racing to be suspended after dog killed, five others injured in single day” 1News (online ed, 24 May 2021)
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 5.1
⁶ For a similar finding see Chilton & New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Inc and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-134 at [13]
⁷ Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁸ Wyeth & CK and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-059 at [38], citing Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [17]
⁹ See, for example: RNZ Gallery “Finishing line in sight for greyhound racing” RNZ (online ed, 20 August 2025); Virginia Fallon “The greyhound industry is still racing to the bottom” The Post (online ed, 29 May 2025); RNZ “17 deaths, more than 800 dogs injured: Greyhound racing season comes to an end” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 3 August 2025); and Kelly Ng “New Zealand to ban greyhound racing" BBC (online ed, 10 December 2024). The Authority has also previously issued decisions on broadcasts covering greyhound racing, including: Greyhound Racing New Zealand Inc and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-116; Greyhound Racing New Zealand and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-073; New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Inc and Discovery NZ Inc, Decision No. 2022-084; and LQ and New Zealand Media and Entertainment, Decision No. 2016-059.