Chris Lusk against Radio New Zealand

Radio New Zealand published an item on September 27, 2024, headlined Pasifika women working for free due to pay gap. This was an introduction to a Checkpoint report saying “From today, Pasifika women are working for free. This is according to new data from the Council of Trade Unions which calculates the date each year, that women start working for free because of the gender pay gap. For all women compared to men - it's November 28, but for Pasifika women, compared to Pakeha men, it is today. Money correspondent Susan Edmunds spoke to Lisa Owen.”

Chris Lusk complained that the data do not show that anyone starts “working for free” from September 27 every year. The statement was a sensationalist interpretation of the data on pay rates, which trivialises the real issue of coerced unremunerated labour.

The interviewer failed to question the reliability of the data or the interpretation of the data on alleged but unproven discrimination against women. A well-informed journalist should be aware of other possible contributors including average differences in the psychological makeup of men and women, and in their respective hierarchies of priorities.

The complainant also said the headline misled the audience about the content of the interview. The interview only dealt with the generic issue of the so-called gender pay-gap, but the headline led one to expect an exploration of the question as to why Pasifika women, in particular, were paid less.

The Media Council does not believe a case has been made to show this item breached either Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, or Principle (6) Headlines and Captions.

This appeared to be a straightforward report on CTU research of progress towards equal pay and its finding that Pasifika women earn less than other groups of workers.

The reference to a date from which people “work for free” was clearly a rhetorical device to convey how much less they earn each year than others in the workforce. It is a commonly used comparison in pay equity parlance.  It was not sensationalist or trivialising, and it was unlikely to be read literally as a date from which some people would no longer be paid.

This was a short article on the CTU’s pay gap findings. This appears to be a study of what different groups of workers are paid and not an analysis of the causes for such pay differences.  While the complainant may have wanted more information, this was a brief report of one bit of research. It is unrealistic to expect all angles to be covered every time a particular subject is in the news.

 Decision:  No grounds to proceed.