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 an interview on Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan concerning the Gene Technology Bill breached the balance standard. The host interviewed a professor of biological sciences regarding the progress of the Bill, and whether reducing regulation around genetic modification in Aotearoa New Zealand was a good idea. The complainant considered the segment lacked balance as it only provided a viewpoint in favour of the Bill and genetic modification. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, referred to the existence of other perspectives, and the broadcaster had reported extensively on the issue, emphasising a range of different perspectives, within the period of current interest.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  The 17 October 2025 broadcast of Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan on RNZ National included an interview with Professor Andrew Allan on the Gene Technology Bill (the Bill). The interview was introduced by Mulligan:

The long-posed Gene Tech Bill has hit another roadblock on its way to become law. The New Zealand First Party is concerned that there aren't enough protections for human health and the environment in the Bill. It is, by the way, the same view as Labour and the Greens. The difference, of course, is that New Zealand First is part of the coalition government, so it's more significant when they are opposed to a Bill. What exactly would the Gene Tech Bill allow in its current form and are those concerns valid? Andrew Allan is a professor at Auckland University's School of Biological Sciences and also a principal scientist at Plant and Food Research. He's with me in the Auckland studio.

[2]  The interview included Allan’s comment on:

a)  What the Bill is proposing: ‘[It] updates the use of these technologies in medicine, in conservation, in the environment. Its remit is to be a bit more enabling, allowing some of these techniques to be used outside the laboratory, but to be risk-proportionate. So, if some of these techniques are risky, it'll be heavily regulated and if they have no apparent risk or scientifically tested risk, they should just get out there.’

b)  Areas where gene technology has made scientific breakthroughs, such as CAR T-cell therapy which ‘cures some cancers’ and CRISPR gene-editing in agriculture: ‘[CRISPR] makes small changes to a plant or animal’s genome and it doesn’t introduce any extra DNA. So, it’s a really tread-lightly technique, but it has big effects.’

c)  Aotearoa New Zealand’s regulatory settings in comparison to other Western countries if this Bill was passed: ‘If it gets through, then we’ll have the most modern regulatory settings.’ Mulligan said in response, ‘It also means if we’re going to be the newest and perhaps the most progressive that we might be doing things for the first time, which might make some people nervous.’

d)  Australia’s genetic modification (GM) regulations: ‘They’ve had GMO [genetically modified organism] cotton, maize, soy, canola in the ground for some years and nothing’s happened. The farmers made good money. Their clean green image, well, Australia trades on a bit of that too, you know, they’re doing well.’

e)  Whether allowing GM crops would impact New Zealand’s ‘clean, green’ image and therefore business prospects: ‘We’ve done surveys of perceptions overseas with overseas consumers on what they think of New Zealand’s clean green image and what they would perceive if we went down a more techie route. And the answer is it doesn’t change. They’ll still think we’re clean and green.’

f)  Slogans like ‘No GM Food’: ‘Yeah, good! I think there’ll be things in the supermarket that have got a label saying this is not GM. But equally, there are things in our supermarket right now that are heavy lifting GM, and we can buy them in New Zealand.’

g)  If genetically modified crops were introduced to New Zealand, whether consumers would have the option to avoid them: ‘They'll work their way into our supermarkets because they're better in some way… We've got food in our supermarket that's wonderful. It's either conventional or organic. But my hope in the future is that we'll have conventional, organic, and something a bit more novel. A bit more edgy. And the consumer- label it, for heaven's sake, I really hope it's well labelled, maybe we don't even have to label it because it's going to look so different and taste so different. So, we can keep those three streams apart.’

h)  AgResearch’s public submission on the Bill, that there would be no practical way to control the spread of gene-edited ryegrass if it were released into the environment: ‘So, that was a good example where under new regulatory settings, the regulator would look at it and say, ‘Well, actually, you’re not guaranteeing containment here, so maybe we won’t give you a license.’ However, AgResearch’s concept there is, we’re not considering its benefit. The benefit is their lines of ryegrass make cows and sheep produce less methane… So, we’ve got to consider risk and benefit…’ Mulligan responded, ‘I guess their concern is that if you do the experiments and it becomes uncontained then it’s too late to change your mind on it.’

i)  Concerns about corporations abusing patents of GM crops: ‘And that's the case in conventional breeding as well. If you breed a new onion and you can license it and patent it. So, it's the same as before. I'd be concerned about any large corporation taking control of anything. So, I don't think we can blame the Gene Technology Bill and capitalism and conflate the two. They are different.’

[3]  Part way through the interview, Mulligan said:

Mulligan:                    I'm getting the sense that you are in favour of this Bill.

Allan:                          I hope there's some change. I'm a scientist. I don't think it should be a political conversation. It should be based on facts and reason and definitely case-by-case. Those uses of these technologies that are risky should be prevented. But those that are just perceived or thought of as new should go ahead.

[4]  The interview concluded as follows:

Mulligan:                    By the way, where is the Bill at now? We're just waiting. 

Allan:                          We're waiting for it to be presented to Parliament. The Select Committee has made some technical changes to it, especially after New Zealand First's input. So, we’re waiting to see how that affects everything. 

Mulligan:                    Yeah, you'll be hoping it's not too watered down. 

Allan:                          I'm hoping it's risk proportionate and enabling. 

Mulligan:                    Thank you. Nice to see you. So that's some reaction to this Gene Tech Bill and it being stalled in Parliament from Andrew Allan [title repeated as in introduction].  

The complaint

[5]  Neville Watkin complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  He considered it to be a ‘seriously one-sided biased interview,’ in favour of GM technology and the Gene Technology Bill.

b)  The interviewee’s extreme views were demonstrated by his suggestion that GM labelling on foods might not be necessary as consumers could distinguish GM food by its appearance or by tasting it.

c)  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) should have interviewed a GM opponent either immediately after, or later the same afternoon, to provide balance.

d)  RNZ should not be able to rely on the audience being sufficiently aware of other viewpoints on the issues discussed, or on the interviewee referring to opposing views, to avoid the responsibility to broadcast balance reporting.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

a)  ‘In RNZ’s view, this was a straightforward interview with an expert, relying upon the knowledge of a senior academic in discussing the Bill. During the interview Professor Allan acknowledged there were various viewpoints, achieving balance within the interview.’

b)  ‘The interview was specifically focused on the scientific context of the Bill and the procedural roadblock it had encountered in Parliament. Professor Allan was engaged as a scientific expert to discuss these specific aspects of the legislative process, not to represent a general political view on the broader ethics of GM technology. RNZ maintains the right to determine the scope and focus of its interviews.’ (RNZ’s emphasis)

c)  ‘The Bill is part of a complex and highly visible public debate… Because this issue is covered extensively across RNZ and the wider media landscape, the audience is already well aware of the significant opposing viewpoints.’

d)  ‘Professor Allan explicitly framed his input as “a scientist’s view” and made direct references to opposing views, including the market demand for non-GM food and associated labelling. This contextualisation mitigates any potential imbalance within the segment itself.’

The standard

[7]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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

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

[9]  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.³

[10]  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’. This interview discussed what the Bill would allow in its current form, and whether concerns about deregulating GM were valid, from the perspective of Professor Andrew Allan. We have previously found discussions relating to the regulation of GM and genetic engineering amounted to discussions of a controversial issue of importance.⁴ Accordingly, the standard applies.

[11]  The standard and guidelines reflect the present broadcasting environment in New Zealand and the increased flows of information available from sources and on topics of all kinds. Given the proliferation of information available to today’s audiences, complaints under this standard will rarely be upheld. However, it provides protection in cases where balancing viewpoints on controversial issues have not been available across time, different programmes, or different media.⁵

[12]  For the following reasons, we have not found a breach of the balance standard:

a)  The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where it is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way it is presented that it is approaching the issue from a particular perspective.⁶ The segment was presented as an interview with Professor Allan. His positions as Professor at the University of Auckland's School of Biological Sciences and Principal Scientist at Plant and Food Research were stated at the outset. The host’s comment, ‘I'm getting the sense that you are in favour of this Bill,’ and Professor Allan’s affirmative response, as well as Professor Allan’s responses to the questions, clearly indicated to viewers that he held a pro-GM and deregulation (subject to prescribed limits) perspective. In closing the segment, the host described Professor Allan’s interview as a ‘reaction’ to the Gene Technology Bill and it being stalled in Parliament. In this context, the audience would have understood the segment represented one viewpoint on the issue and would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented.

b)  While we consider the controversial nature of GM regulation is widely known, the existence of alternative perspectives was nevertheless flagged during the interview:

i)  In the introduction, the host noted the varying perspectives of major political parties on the Bill – ‘The New Zealand First Party is concerned that there aren't enough protections for human health and the environment in the Bill. It is, by the way, the same view as Labour and the Greens.’ 

ii)  The host put concerns about GM to Professor Allan for comment, alerting viewers to these perspectives. This included concerns about whether GMOs can be contained once they are out in the environment, patenting being abused by large corporations, and whether GM would impact on New Zealand’s ‘clean and green’ image. He alluded to the fact that some people do not wish to eat GM food through his questions, ‘What do you think when you see a slogan like “No GM Food”?’ and whether people would have the option to avoid GM food if the Bill went ahead.

iii)  In response to Professor Allan’s comment that if the Bill was enacted, New Zealand would have the most modern regulatory settings amongst other Western countries, the host said, ‘It also means if we’re going to be the newest and perhaps the most progressive that we might be doing things for the first time, which might make some people nervous.’

c)  The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest. It does not require every significant viewpoint to be presented in every programme that discussed a particular controversial issue of public importance.⁷ RNZ has reported extensively on the progress of the Bill, including reports focused on perspectives which are cautious of, or opposed to, GM and the Bill.⁸ We note that following the interview with Professor Allan, on 31 October, Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan interviewed Scientist and Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, who is opposed to the Bill and spoke in detail to the risks involved.⁹ While the complainant considered RNZ should have interviewed someone with an opposing view immediately after or the same day as the interview with Professor Allan, the standard allows for balance to be achieved ‘within the period of current interest’. Given the Bill was introduced to Parliament in December 2024 and remains under consideration, the period of current interest in the topic is ongoing.

[13]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
18 March 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Watkin’s original complaint – 17 October 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 23 October 2025

3  Watkin’s referral to the Authority – 5 November 2025

4  Watkin’s further comments – 14 November 2025

5  RNZ’s response to the referral – 28 November 2025

¹ Commentary, Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Grammar and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-070 at [20]; Friends of the Earth (NZ) and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-081 at [15]; Carapiet and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-081 at [17]; and GE Free NZ in Food and Environment Inc and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-115 at [11]
⁵ Commentary, Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
⁶ Guideline 5.4
⁷ Guideline 5.2
⁸ See, for example: Katie Kenny “Gene technology changes: what you need to know” RNZ (online ed, 18 March 2025); Farah Hancock “Why some of our biggest exporters are worried about the Gene Technology Bill” RNZ (online ed, 23 April 2025); “Kiwi Gene therapy scientist’s warning about GMO Bill” RNZ (online ed, 18 March 2025; Louis Collins “Select Committee hears submissions on Gene Technology Bill” RNZ (online ed, 3 April 2025); Monique Steele “Forest Stewardship Council rejects GMOs in forest, amid interest from NZ foresters” RNZ (online ed, 12 September 2025); and Russell Palmer “NZ First to withhold support for Gene Tech Bill unless major changes are made” RNZ (online ed, 13 October 2025)
⁹ “Why the gene tech bill has some scientists worried” RNZ (online ed, 31 October 2025)