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 Radio New Zealand report which indicated a run of hot days in Hamilton was probably unprecedented. The complainant provided records from the 1930s, suggesting Hamilton had previously experienced a heatwave of greater duration and intensity. He argued the broadcast was inaccurate and, when notified of the previous heatwave, RNZ had taken insufficient actions to correct any misleading impressions. The Authority found the statements complained about were analysis, comment or opinion to which the standard does not apply and, in any event, did not result in the broadcast being misleading.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 13 February 2025 broadcast of Morning Report included an item about Hamilton’s recent run of hot weather.

[2]  The segment was introduced by the RNZ presenter:

From sunny Nelson to sunny Hamilton, a climate scientist says Hamilton's recent run of hot days likely beats anything the city has experienced since temperature records began. Now Hamilton has reached highs of at least 27 degrees for the last 13 days, and that is set to continue today, yes, with a forecast high of 28. Climate change correspondent … reports.

[3]  Brief interviews with Hamilton locals followed, including:

Reporter:                  These Hamilton locals, unsurprised to hear they might have just had the hottest 11-day stretch on record.

Local A:                   I'm alright with it actually, I love the heat.

Reporter:                  Can you remember a hotter summer?

Local A:                   No, not in Hamilton anyway.

[4]  Following this, the report addressed the comments of a senior climate scientist and a Meteorological Service of New Zealand (MetService) forecaster:

Reporter:                 The place once dubbed the ‘City of the Future’ by a marketing campaign is experiencing a taste of its own climate future, with a run of hot days which [a senior climate scientist] says is probably unprecedented.

Climate scientist:    The last 10 days, well actually now 11, have been the hottest, continuous 10 or 11-day stretch, certainly of the records that I have available, they go back to sort of the early 1990s, but I think if you went further back in time as well, they'd still remain the worst on record.  

Reporter:                 The University of Waikato lecturer says this kind of heatwave will become more common because of that blanket of human-made greenhouse gases warming the planet. Heat stress already kills more than a dozen New Zealanders a year and raises the rate of hospitalisations because of heart strain and other factors. Under [five-year-olds] and the elderly are especially at risk. [The climate scientist’s] previous research found cities with smaller temperature ranges such as Auckland and Hamilton might face higher risks because their temperatures are more even, making hot spells more relentless. But he says sustained hot periods can sneak under the radar of the heat alert system.

Climate scientist:    It's basically consistently sitting between about 28 and 30 degrees Celsius, and it hasn't dropped below 27 for coming on 11 days and when you combine sort of lower winds and humidity into the mix then the levels of heat stress can start to be pretty pronounced.

Reporter:                 MetService forecaster … says MetService issues a warning when temperatures are close to maximum for a particular city, which across most of the North Island means above 30 degrees.

Forecaster:              The heat alerts that MetService has been trialling over the last few summers are designed to capture those very hot days and we're not quite talking record heat, although record heat would fall under those heat alerts, but it's not just your standard hot day either.  

[5]  The reporter concluded the segment with the following:

Only one day in Hamilton's recent run topped 30 degrees, but that doesn't mean it's been comfortable. [The MetService forecaster] says the city's typical February maximum temperature is 25 degrees and so far, they haven't had a day below 27. He says people should watch the next day's forecast and plan if needed. For example, going running early or late in the day, being mindful of where you park the car if you need to run errands and leave a pet inside, staying hydrated and seeking shade. The city council says it's preparing for rising heat, including looking at a system of cool shelters using facilities such as libraries. 

The complaint

[6]  Ian Wishart complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant provided substantial submissions in support of the complaint, key aspects of which are summarised below:

Broadcast was inaccurate

• The broadcast included (multiple) statements suggesting Hamilton’s recent run of hot days was unprecedented.
• ‘Unfortunately for both [the reporter] and [the climate scientist], historic newspaper records revealed Hamilton endured an almost unbroken streak of 62 days [of] about 27C in the summer of 1934/35.’
• ‘The 1934/35 heatwave beats everything Hamilton has experienced in NZ’s so-called hottest decade, since 2016.’
• The 1934/35 heatwave was evidence the ‘broader messaging’ of the story, regarding the impacts of climate change, was flawed, ‘as nature was and is clearly capable of throwing heat bombs at us that exceed by magnitudes anything we’ve seen under climate change’.
• This broader messaging was ‘dangerously flawed’ because ‘it implies that by adoption of stringent emissions controls we can somehow save ourselves from natural heat bombs at the 1935 scale when we actually can’t.’ This messaging leaves Hamilton authorities ‘blissfully unaware of the real heat-wave threat’ and what they might need to do to plan for it.

RNZ did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy

• ‘[The] glaring word ‘probably’ was a red flag that [the climate scientist] had no actual evidence to base his “hottest ever” claim on, other than belief that climate change is responsible for hot temperatures and therefore modern extremes are likely to be hotter. As the new data proves, natural climate variation can be much more extreme than AGW.’
• ‘Instead of ‘spending more time answering’ the question, RNZ chose ‘to make an unanswered question the lead angle, and ‘failed to research’ the issue.

The statement was a material point of fact

• ‘The claim that Hamilton’s 2025 heatwave was “probably unprecedented” was the lead angle of the story and thus a “material fact” for the story.’

RNZ was obliged to correct the story when notified it was inaccurate

• ‘The breach in the BSA standard might not occur with the original broadcast, which although seriously inaccurate, was predicated as a climate scientist’s opinion. The breach arose when, having had the serious factual error upon which [the climate scientist’s] opinion was based brought to its attention, RNZ failed to meaningfully correct the utterly false impressions created by its story and materiality emphasis.’
• ‘The deliberate decision to hide the existence of this new data from its audience robbed the public and climate stakeholders from seeing just how hot it can get, and for how long, even without the incremental influence of climate change.’
• 'RNZ had an ethical duty to correct/ follow up … the false impression created by the story.’
• The ‘new facts’ provided by the complainant ‘created a duty for RNZ’ under guideline 6.1 which requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to or upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based. The story ‘clearly became materially misleading when RNZ knew [of the 1934/35 heatwave], but they chose not to disclose any of that evidence’.
• RNZ amended its online story after receiving the complaint, but did not correct the Morning Report item. The only changes to the online item were to adjust the headline’s reference to records being shattered (with no context as to why) and to add reference to extreme heat in 1935 causing peat fires but with ‘no revelation that the 1935 temperatures significantly exceeded 2025’s in both intensity (4C higher) and duration (64 days vs 15).

Relevance of RNZ’s policies

• RNZ ‘should have upheld the complaint under its own policies, which clearly require interviewee opinions to be fact-checked and corrected if necessary. The BSA, regarding itself as a backstop to the initial complaint to a broadcaster, should be automatically including that broadcaster’s own published standards as part of its assessment.’

Balance standard

[7]  On referral to the Authority, the complainant also sought to rely on the balance standard, noting if the segment was treated ‘as a contestable debate’ and included alternative interviews and perspectives, it would have provided ‘balanced coverage’, but RNZ did not provide ‘an opportunity to balance within the period of current interest’.

[8]  However, pursuant to section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. The High Court has clarified that in certain circumstances:¹

… 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, and if a proper consideration of the complaint makes that approach reasonably necessary…

[9]  In our view, the complainant’s original complaint, reasonably interpreted, does not raise or necessitate consideration under the balance standard. The complaint is focused on the allegedly misleading depiction of a factual matter, Hamilton’s heatwave history, and RNZ’s refusal to correct a ‘false story’ by reporting facts presented by the complainant. These concerns are best addressed under the accuracy standard.

[10]  Accordingly, we do not consider the balance standard in this decision.

The broadcaster’s response

[11]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The author of the story [the reporter] and the climate scientist had engaged with the complainant regarding the issues raised. This led to the headline being changed and ‘annotation of the story with the additional data’ the complainant provided.
• ‘We note that in response to [the complainant’s] previous complaints about weather data, the Media Council has found such corrective action to be timely and sufficient, given the relatively minor nature of the error.’

[12]  Upon the complainant’s referral, RNZ provided the following further comments:

• RNZ stated the climate scientist is credible as an authoritative expert. Additional to this, ‘the reporter and [the climate scientist] were careful to emphasise that his comments were based on his knowledge at that time. There was nothing in his commentary to suggest that he needed to be challenged by the interviewer’.
• ‘RNZ did initiate its own investigation.’
• ‘Consequently, the most that RNZ could establish as a legitimate historical temperature record was a spell of hot days and peat fires in the 1930s. This was added to the online story, and the active verb in the headline was also adjusted at [climate scientist’s] request, from ‘shattered’ to ‘breaks’.’
• ‘Given these minor changes, RNZ does not believe the original broadcast, with its notes of caution from [climate scientist] based on his knowledge at the time of the interview, materially misled our audience.’

The standard

[13]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.² The standard states:³

• 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.

Preliminary issues

Request for Production of Documents

[14]  Wishart asked the Authority to exercise its powers under section 12 of the Broadcasting Act 1989,⁴ to require RNZ to produce the following correspondence and information in connection with his complaint:

• ‘any and all communications, including, but not restricted to, emails, text messages, WhatsApp or any other electronic comms between [RNZ’s Climate Change reporter] and [the Climate Change scientist interviewed in the story] from 13 February 2025 through to and including 7 March 2025’
• ‘any similar communications between [RNZ’s Climate Change reporter]  and her superiors at RNZ related in any way to [Wishart’s] communications or [the Climate Change scientist’s] input on aspects arising therefrom’
• ‘all emails, texts, messages etc RNZ possesses between anyone internal or external to RNZ relating to the issues [Wishart] first raised on Feb 13, and continuing through until the researchers cited by RNZ have reported back on their second attempted factcheck’.

[15]  This request was made on the basis:

• The evidence gathered by RNZ was part of its investigation of Wishart’s complaint and impacted the conclusions of its ‘investigation’.
• RNZ relies on this investigation without disclosing it.
• The requested communications ‘will disclose what parameters for the investigation were set, who completed it, what issues they identified, what conclusions they drew from it and what actions they discussed and eventually took as a result of it.’
• The information may go to the ‘competence of RNZ’s “authoritative expert”’.
• This material is relevant to the BSA’s determination ‘and any High Court review’ which follows.
• Journalistic source privilege does not apply as the source is not confidential.
• If any other privilege applies, RNZ has put this evidence at issue in this proceeding and waived it.

[16]  Wishart also asked for the hearing of his complaint not to be scheduled until RNZ had complied with such orders and the parties had had time to comment on the evidence.

Our determination – section 12 power

[17]  In deciding whether to exercise our s12 power, the question is whether we consider we have sufficient information to make a proper assessment of whether broadcasting standards have been breached.⁵

[18]  As will be apparent from our findings below, after considering the broadcast and submissions of the parties, we have reached the view we have sufficient information before us to assess whether RNZ has breached the relevant broadcasting standard.

[19]  Accordingly, we decline the complainant’s request that we order the production of further documentation.

Relevance of RNZ editorial policies

[20]  Noting one of the Authority’s functions is to ‘help broadcasters develop codes of practice appropriate to their operation’,⁶ Wishart said the Authority should ‘examine not only whether its own standards were broken but also whether RNZ’s editorial policy was breached’.

[21]  Our complaints determination powers extend to the receipt and determination of complaints about a broadcaster’s failure to maintain standards consistent with ‘any approved code of broadcasting practice applying to the programmes’.⁷

[22]  The Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, issued by the Authority, is the only approved code of broadcasting practice to which RNZ is subject, other than the Election Programmes Code, which is not relevant here, and accordingly represents the only standards we have jurisdiction to enforce through our complaint determination powers. It would also be an unusual outcome – and a significant disincentive for broadcasters to adopt standards exceeding the regulatory minimum – if the mere documentation of additional standards led to them becoming legally enforceable.

[23]  For these reasons, we do not consider RNZ’s editorial policies in our decision.

Our analysis

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

[25]  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

[26]  Wishart’s main concern is that the item misled viewers by suggesting Hamilton’s run of hot days was unprecedented, when historical records show a 1934/35 heatwave was worse. He considers this, in turn:

• affected the ‘broader messaging’ of the story regarding the impacts of climate change, because the 1934/35 heatwave showed natural climate variation can cause more significant events than those seen under anthropogenic climate change, and
• implies that adoption of stringent emissions controls can prevent similar heatwaves and leaves Hamilton authorities ‘unaware of the real heat-wave threat’ and what they might need to do to plan for it.

[27]  The first question to be addressed is whether the accuracy standard applies to the broadcast. The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment, or opinion, rather than statements of fact. An opinion is someone’s view; it is contestable, and others may hold a different view.⁹ It is not always clear whether a statement is an assertion of fact or an opinion – this will depend on the context, presentation, and how a reasonable listener would perceive the information.¹⁰ In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:¹¹

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided.

[28]  The broadcast included four statements suggesting the Hamilton heatwave may be unprecedented (emphasis added in each):

• ‘… a climate scientist says Hamilton's recent run of hot days likely beats anything the city has experienced since temperature records began’ (Introduction).
• ‘These Hamilton locals, unsurprised to hear they might have just had the hottest 11-day stretch on record’ (Reporter).
• ‘… a run of hot days which [a senior climate scientist] says is probably unprecedented’ (Reporter).
• ‘The last 10 days, well actually now 11, have been the hottest, continuous 10 or 11-day stretch. Certainly, of the records that I have available, they go back to sort of the early 1990s, but I think if you went further back in time as well, they'd still remain the worst on record’ (Climate Scientist).

[29]  Noting the language used (ie ‘likely’, ‘might have’, ‘probably’, ‘I think’), the source of the information (the climate scientist) and the lack of evidence provided to support the statements, reasonable listeners are likely to recognise the suggestions regarding an unprecedented heatwave to be the climate scientist’s opinion – to which the standard does not apply.

[30]  As Wishart suggested, even when dealing with opinion, guideline 6.1 of the accuracy standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to or upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based. This guideline requires consideration of factual information relied on or referred to in coming to the opinion expressed. In this case, however, the scientist does not purport to base his opinion on fact, except when he refers to his records going back to ‘the early 1990s’. As there is no suggestion those records were inconsistent with the opinion provided and no suggestion there was any other factual basis for his views about the period before the early 1990s, guideline 6.1 does not assist the complainant.

[31]  In any event, we do not consider the broadcast, including the ‘broader messaging’ referred to in paragraph [26], misleading by including the relevant opinion (without reference to the 1934/35 heatwave):

• Listeners were provided with sufficient information to assess the broadcast content for themselves:
  • The relevant opinion was mentioned four times, each time with language clarifying its caveated nature.
  • The limitations of the scientist’s records (only going back to the early 1990s) were clearly stated.
  • The source of the opinion – the climate scientist – was identified together with his role and position at Waikato University.
• The Hamilton heatwave was not expressly attributed to climate change or presented as evidence of climate change.
• The climate scientist’s predictions about the likelihood of future heatwaves are not expressly reliant on the 2025 Hamilton heatwave being ‘unprecedented’ or caused by climate change. Correspondence provided by the complainant included the scientist’s perspective on being advised of the 1934/35 heatwave, ie:
  Finally, none of the above points really change the broader messaging. Even if this run of extreme days was the second-or-third ranked on record, climate change makes such events both more intense and more likely … Indeed, we are still waiting for an event as extreme as Feb ’73 to hit the North Island – this last several weeks in Hamilton is certainly not that event, but such record-shattering events are made all the more likely when coincident global warming rates are high, which is very much the case right now.
• Listeners are likely to understand extreme weather events can be caused by natural conditions and to appreciate the practical challenges associated with definitively proving the underlying cause of any given meteorological event.
• The climate scientist’s comments regarding the likelihood of such heatwaves becoming more common are consistent with those of other experts. Climate change is widely accepted as a leading cause in global climate fluctuations, resulting in hotter and colder temperatures.¹²
• The complainant argues the broadcast, through linking the heatwave to climate change, implies people can be saved from such heatwaves by ‘adoption of stringent emissions controls’ when naturally caused heatwaves will still occur. However, the broadcast was not about, and did not discuss, ways to prevent the effects of climate change.

[32]  Any listeners misled in the way Wishart described would, in our view, be reading an unreasonable amount into the comments in the broadcast. The accuracy standard is not designed to address this.

[33]  Having found the relevant statements were opinion and the broadcast was not misleading, there is no need for us to go on to consider whether reasonable efforts were made to ensure accuracy or whether RNZ had any obligation to issue a correction on being advised of the 1934/35 heatwave.

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

Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Acting Chair
4 July 2025

 
Appendix

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

1  Wishart’s original complaint – 9 March 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 3 April 2025

3  Wishart’s referral to the Authority – 1 May 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 8 May 2025

5  Wishart’s further comments – 8 May 2025

6  Wishart’s Memorandum – 10 May 2025

7  RNZ’s further comments – 16 May 2025

8  Wishart’s further comments – 20 May 2025

9  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 21 May 2025

¹ See Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Limited, [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407at [62]
² Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
³ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Section 12 gives the Authority the powers set out in sections 4B, 4C, 4D, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, including the ability to require the production of material and to summon witnesses.
⁵ See for example: Ministry of Health and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. ID2007-012 at [13]-[17], NZ Fire Service and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2016-017 at [15] and Tongan Health Society and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-054 at [53]
⁶ Under s21 of the Broadcasting Act, one of the Authority’s functions is to ‘encourage the development and observance by broadcasters of codes of practice appropriate to the type of broadcasting undertaken by such broadcasters’
⁷ See sections 21(a), 6(1)(a) and 4(1)(e) Broadcasting Act 1989
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ See Buchanan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-087 at [10]
¹⁰ As above
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² See Meteorological Service of New Zealand Ltd “MetService and Climate Change” <about.metservice.com>; World Meteorological Organization (28 May 2025) “Global climate predictions show temperatures expected to remain at or near record levels in coming 5 years” <wmo.int>; and NIWA | Taihoro Nukurangi “Climate change and possible impacts for New Zealand” <niwa.co.nz>