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 Radio New Zealand’s news headlines regarding the government’s anticipated plans for replacement of the Interislander ferries breached the accuracy standard. The complainant said the headlines, stating the government’s plan was ‘reportedly to buy two smaller ships for $900 million, much more than the $551 million Labour’s paid’, were ‘mischievous’ noting the government’s intention to reduce costs, the ship cost component was implied to be ‘total project costs’ suggesting a substantial increase, and the comparisons of partial costs were ‘meaningless and speculation.’ The Authority found the headlines were comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It also found they were not misleading, noting listeners would appreciate there was more to a story than could be conveyed in a brief headline and, in the context of the broadcast as a whole, it was clear the headlined costs were not ‘total project costs’ and the government expected its planned project to be cheaper. While acknowledging the headlines were provocative, the Authority identified no harm justifying its intervention.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  Various Radio New Zealand (RNZ) National news bulletins broadcast on the morning of 11 December 2024 reported the government would be unveiling its ‘long awaited plan’ for replacing Interislander ferries later that day. The 5.20am and 5.40am news bulletins stated:

The government's expected to unveil its long-awaited plan today for replacing the (ageing)¹ Interislander ferries. The plan is reportedly to buy two smaller ships for $900 million, much more than the $551 million Labour’s paid.   

[2]  At 5.50am, the presenter of First Up interviewed Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni. Sepuloni was asked about the Coalition’s Interislander ferry plan:

Presenter:                  …regarding the ferries…sounds like two smaller ships for $900 million which Labour’s plan was $551 million…It’s obviously not less money, so how do you think that will be presented as a bargain?

Sepuloni:                    Yeah, it's not a bargain. I mean, basically, Nicola [Willis] was like a bull in a China shop when she first became Minister [of Finance]. Wanted to throw her weight around, didn't really look at the detail, cancelled ferries, now is trying to negotiate a deal to get new ones, is going to have to pay her way out of the old ones, and the deal that we're hearing come through the grape vine is not looking like a good one. This is not good for New Zealand. And particularly given the rumours that we're hearing that it won't be rail-enabled, and that's going to have an impact on being able to move goods around the country. And so, she has really let down New Zealand with her inability to negotiate and the fact that she just did not think things through.

Presenter:                  Um, so if it's not rail-enabled… what are they going to do with the ferry terminal building? Because I understand that one of the problems was, is that they were going to have to completely rebuild the ferry terminal building and to fit [the port’. And that was said, ‘well that's too expensive’. But if you're going to not have rail, surely you have to have more area for trucks and containers and things now, don't you?

Sepuloni:                    Well, this was where a lot of the cost came into play. It was around the infrastructure for the ferries and for the goods to be able to move around the country. And if we don't have that, then that's going to seriously impede our ability for goods to be to move. Then you have to go back to trucks on the roads and that's not ideal for a number of reasons, including the damage that those trucks cause our roads. And so, it's just dumb, basically... and, you know, they still haven't come out publicly with the deal that they have negotiated, and we're still waiting, but the rumours are rife.

[3]  The full news bulletin at 6am stated the following:

RNZ newsreader:      The government's expected to unveil its long-awaited plan today for replacing the ageing Interislander ferries. The plan is reportedly to buy two smaller ships for $900 million, much more than the $551 million the former Labour Government paid. Here's our political reporter... 

Political reporter:      The Coalition dumped the previous project because the two mega-ferries needed big terminal and port upgrades at Wellington and Picton, pushing the overall cost to $3 billion. The government says its version will be cheaper, even including the cancellation fees for the old contract which, last week, were still under negotiation. That may be in part because the ports will be asked to bear more of the costs, and in turn will charge users more. It's believed Winston Peters will have ministerial oversight of KiwiRail, with the Interislander service shifting to a new Crown-owned company. 

The complaint

[4]  Neville Watkin complained the broadcasts breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand by stating the government’s plan to replace the Interislander ferries was ‘reportedly’ to buy ‘two smaller ships for $900 million, much more than the $551 million the former Labour Government paid’. This was ‘mischievous’, noting:

• the government has clearly signalled its intention to reduce the cost of the previous Labour Government’s proposal
• ‘the figures quoted [cannot] be total project costs but were implied to be so’
• ‘comparisons of partial costs are meaningless’
• the quoted figures suggest a substantial increase
• the figures were ‘speculation, not fact’ as costs figures had not been released.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint because:

• Following the leak of a ministerial advisory group report from June 2024, Stuff had earlier reported Cabinet had ‘agreed to set aside $900m as a tagged contingency to buy new Cook Strait Ferries’.²
• The broadcast preceded the government’s announcement of its ferry replacement plans so would ‘by nature be anticipatory’.

The standard

[6]  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

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

[8]  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

[9]  Under Guideline 6.1, the accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion rather than statements of fact. However, broadcasters must still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to or on which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.

[10]  In our view, the relevant statement was not a statement of fact about the government’s plan. It was comment or opinion about the anticipated announcement, based on such information as was then available - for example, details earlier leaked and reported by Stuff.[6] Given the timing of the broadcast and use of the term ‘reportedly’, we are also confident listeners would have understood the predictive, rather than factual, nature of the comment. In these circumstances, the accuracy standard does not apply.

[11]  Even if the accuracy standard did apply, we consider the statement was unlikely to mislead the audience for the following reasons:

• The statement, used twice in First Up news headlines and once in the introduction to the full 6am news story, was a teaser for the story to come, designed to pique listeners’ interest in the pending (more detailed) story. The audience is likely to understand there is more to a story than can be conveyed in a brief headline or introductory statement.⁷
• A headline or introduction of this nature must be viewed in the context of the broadcast as a whole.⁸ In the context, listeners were unlikely to be left with an impression the headlined costs were ‘total project costs’ or total project costs would necessarily increase under the government’s plan, noting:
  • The broader costs of the original Labour Government plan, including the terminal and port upgrades which pushed costs to ‘$3 billion’, were outlined in both the 6am bulletin and interview with Sepuloni. It was therefore clear the Labour Government’s plan was not going to be delivered for a total of $551 million.
  • The 6am bulletin stated, ‘The government says its version will be cheaper, even including the cancellation fees for the old contract which, last week, were still under negotiation. That may be in part because the ports will be asked to bear more of the costs, and in turn will charge users more.’
• While the cost of the ships was only a part of the overall project costs, it was not unreasonable or misleading to highlight the potentially higher cost of this component of the project under the government’s proposal, noting:
  • The government had been reported as setting aside $900m for the purchase of new ferries component of the project, compared with $551m under the previous government.⁹
  • The potentially greater costs for the ships had been a point of challenge levelled at the government.¹⁰
  • The original $551 million ship supply contract had been recognised as a good deal; the order having been placed at the ‘bottom of an economic cycle’.¹¹
  • The details and potential budget for other components of the project were not available.

[12]  While we acknowledge the headlines were provocative, for the above reasons, we have not identified any harm at a level justifying our intervention. Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
26 May 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Watkin’s original complaint – 12 December 2024

2  RNZ’s decision – 6 February 2025

3  Watkin’s referral to the Authority – 10 February 2025

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 26 February 2025

¹ The term ‘ageing’ was included in the 5.40am, but not the 5.20am, broadcast.
² Stuff’s report was (subsequently) reported by RNZ: Jenna Lynch "Government warned operating Aratere ferry until 2029 'simply not possible'" RNZ (online ed, 16 December 2024)
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Jenna Lynch "Revealed: $900 million set aside for smaller Interislander ferries" Stuff (online ed, 10 December 2024)
⁷ For a similar finding, see Mayer and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-023 at [12]
⁸ For a similar finding, see Anderson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-080 at [11]
⁹ Jenna Lynch "Revealed: $900 million set aside for smaller Interislander ferries" Stuff (online ed, 10 December 2024)
¹⁰ Jenna Lynch "Revealed: $900 million set aside for smaller Interislander ferries" Stuff (online ed, 10 December 2024); Oliver Lewis "Labour floats $900m cost for new ferries" Business Desk (online ed, 10 December 2024); Liam Foster "Stakeholders Divided Over Cook Strait Ferry Replacement Plan" B2Bnews (online ed, 11 December 2024); Thomas Coughlan "Interislander ferry replacements: Labour slams delays after Government announces path forward" The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 11 December 2024)
¹¹ Thomas Manch "'No comment' from PM as Cook Strait ferry deadline nears" The Post (online ed, 9 December 2024); 1News Reporters "New Cook Strait ferries expected for 2029, costs not revealed" 1News (online ed, 11 December 2024); "Abandoned iReX project could run up to $1b, says union" transporttalk (online ed, 6 August 2024); Lloyd Burr "The Cook Strait ferries saga, explained" Stuff (online ed, 31 March 2025)