GEOFF NEAL AGAINST TVNZ 1NEWS
Case Number: 3564
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: TVNZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Discrimination and Diversity
Subterfuge
Ruling Categories:
Misleading
Politics
This complaint refers to one article published by Television New Zealand in April 2024 and nine more between 12 August 2024 and 7 September
2024 relating to legislation requiring councils to hold binding referendums if they wished to retain Māori wards and the reaction to that in councils across the country.
The first article, in which the Government announced the new legislation, mentioned that only three of 24 previous referendums had approved the establishment of Māori wards. The other nine articles published in August and September reported on debates and decisions made by many councils as they were required to under the new legislation.
Geoff Neal complained under NZ Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. He said none of those nine later stories reported the previous referendum results. These stories were therefore inaccurate, unbalanced and politically biased in favour of Māori wards. In his view it could not be argued that balance had been achieved over time.
They were unbalanced as the wishes of the majority who were against Māori wards were not proportionally represented. They were inaccurate as the overwhelming volume of pro-Māori ward news content did not accurately reflect the wishes of New Zealanders. They were also unfair as “the politically biased coverage in favour of Māori wards has not portrayed the Coalition Government or their policy decisions to reinstate Māori ward referendums in a fair light.”
Mr Neal also complained the articles breached NZ Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, as they ignored the wishes of the majority, discriminated against the majority and failed to include the diversity of opinion on the issue.
He also cited NZ Media Council Principle (9) Subterfuge, as “the overwhelming and conscious pro- Māori ward coverage meets the definition of deceit: used in order to achieve the political goals of TVNZ staff and board members.”
TVNZ said its complaints committee had not identified any breach of the relevant principles and declined to uphold Mr Neal’s complaint.
It stood by everything it published, although it noted only one of the nine articles originated from its newsroom. One was by Radio New Zealand and the others were by Local Democracy Reporting.
It said there was no basis for concluding any of the articles were inaccurate or misleading.
TVNZ’s General Manager of Digital News and Contest said: “The complaint seems to suggest that no stories on the Māori wards issues can be balanced, fair accurate etc. unless they report the polls mentioned. My response would be that the reporting has moved on from polls to coverage of what is occurring as each council makes its decision.”
On the issue of fairness, TVNZ said the articles made it clear that a significant number of councils had pushed back on the legislation and objected to the requirement to hold binding polls for already established Māori wards. These were obviously matters that were in the public interest for the media to cover and reporting council criticisms of the Government could not reasonably be perceived as unfair to the Government. TVNZ said it also reported the Government’s perspective with comments from Local Government Minister Simeon Brown.
On the issue of balance, TVNZ said the articles included a wide variety of perspectives both for and against Māori wards and that polls showing low-level support for Māori wards was reference in one of the articles. The first article also provided links to further reporting which presented a range of perspectives including those of Local Government Minister Simeon Brown, ACT Leader David Seymour, NZ First Leader Winston Peters and a range of local Government leaders.
Māori wards and the Government’s policies on them were clearly long running issues. Given the considerable coverage they received it was reasonable to assume the audience would have encountered a wide range of perspectives. It was not reasonable to expect every side of the argument to be repeated on every occasion when the matter was discussed.
TVNZ said Local Government Minister Simeon Brown was interviewed on its Q+A programme on August 25, during the period spanned by the articles, in which Mr Brown set out his perspective on the democratic principles undergirding the Government’s policy.
Māori wards and Government policies on them were clearly long running issues. Given the considerable coverage these issues received it was reasonable to assume the audience had been exposed to a wide range of perspectives. It was not reasonable to expect every side of the argument about Māori wards to be repeated on every occasion when the matter was discussed.
Referring to the complaint under Principle (7), TVNZ said the complainant had not identified any gratuitous emphasis on issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour of physical or mental disability – the categories mentioned in this principle.
Nor was there any basis for complaint under Principle (9) as the complainant had not alleged the articles included information obtained by subterfuge.
The NZ Media Council has reviewed the articles referred to in this complaint and cannot find support for a claim that TVNZ’s coverage has breached any of the principles cited.
Referendum and poll results showing a majority of the public opposed Māori wards were reported and did not have to be repeated every time the subject of wards was mentioned.
After the Government announced it was bringing in the new legislation requiring referendums, the story moved on to report on local council debates as they considered the new requirements and decided their responses. This accounted for many of the stories cited in this complaint.
While many of the stories recorded that mayors and councils were critical of the Government’s legislation, that was a reflection of local government reaction.
The NZ Media Council notes a wide range of views for and against the legislation and the issue of Māori representation were reported. It was evident that TVNZ’s coverage was balanced over time. There was no evidence of a breach of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
It was not shown that the reportage was biased, and no case has been made to show the coverage breached Principles (7) or (9).
There were no grounds to proceed.
The first article, in which the Government announced the new legislation, mentioned that only three of 24 previous referendums had approved the establishment of Māori wards. The other nine articles published in August and September reported on debates and decisions made by many councils as they were required to under the new legislation.
Geoff Neal complained under NZ Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. He said none of those nine later stories reported the previous referendum results. These stories were therefore inaccurate, unbalanced and politically biased in favour of Māori wards. In his view it could not be argued that balance had been achieved over time.
They were unbalanced as the wishes of the majority who were against Māori wards were not proportionally represented. They were inaccurate as the overwhelming volume of pro-Māori ward news content did not accurately reflect the wishes of New Zealanders. They were also unfair as “the politically biased coverage in favour of Māori wards has not portrayed the Coalition Government or their policy decisions to reinstate Māori ward referendums in a fair light.”
Mr Neal also complained the articles breached NZ Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, as they ignored the wishes of the majority, discriminated against the majority and failed to include the diversity of opinion on the issue.
He also cited NZ Media Council Principle (9) Subterfuge, as “the overwhelming and conscious pro- Māori ward coverage meets the definition of deceit: used in order to achieve the political goals of TVNZ staff and board members.”
TVNZ said its complaints committee had not identified any breach of the relevant principles and declined to uphold Mr Neal’s complaint.
It stood by everything it published, although it noted only one of the nine articles originated from its newsroom. One was by Radio New Zealand and the others were by Local Democracy Reporting.
It said there was no basis for concluding any of the articles were inaccurate or misleading.
TVNZ’s General Manager of Digital News and Contest said: “The complaint seems to suggest that no stories on the Māori wards issues can be balanced, fair accurate etc. unless they report the polls mentioned. My response would be that the reporting has moved on from polls to coverage of what is occurring as each council makes its decision.”
On the issue of fairness, TVNZ said the articles made it clear that a significant number of councils had pushed back on the legislation and objected to the requirement to hold binding polls for already established Māori wards. These were obviously matters that were in the public interest for the media to cover and reporting council criticisms of the Government could not reasonably be perceived as unfair to the Government. TVNZ said it also reported the Government’s perspective with comments from Local Government Minister Simeon Brown.
On the issue of balance, TVNZ said the articles included a wide variety of perspectives both for and against Māori wards and that polls showing low-level support for Māori wards was reference in one of the articles. The first article also provided links to further reporting which presented a range of perspectives including those of Local Government Minister Simeon Brown, ACT Leader David Seymour, NZ First Leader Winston Peters and a range of local Government leaders.
Māori wards and the Government’s policies on them were clearly long running issues. Given the considerable coverage they received it was reasonable to assume the audience would have encountered a wide range of perspectives. It was not reasonable to expect every side of the argument to be repeated on every occasion when the matter was discussed.
TVNZ said Local Government Minister Simeon Brown was interviewed on its Q+A programme on August 25, during the period spanned by the articles, in which Mr Brown set out his perspective on the democratic principles undergirding the Government’s policy.
Māori wards and Government policies on them were clearly long running issues. Given the considerable coverage these issues received it was reasonable to assume the audience had been exposed to a wide range of perspectives. It was not reasonable to expect every side of the argument about Māori wards to be repeated on every occasion when the matter was discussed.
Referring to the complaint under Principle (7), TVNZ said the complainant had not identified any gratuitous emphasis on issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour of physical or mental disability – the categories mentioned in this principle.
Nor was there any basis for complaint under Principle (9) as the complainant had not alleged the articles included information obtained by subterfuge.
The NZ Media Council has reviewed the articles referred to in this complaint and cannot find support for a claim that TVNZ’s coverage has breached any of the principles cited.
Referendum and poll results showing a majority of the public opposed Māori wards were reported and did not have to be repeated every time the subject of wards was mentioned.
After the Government announced it was bringing in the new legislation requiring referendums, the story moved on to report on local council debates as they considered the new requirements and decided their responses. This accounted for many of the stories cited in this complaint.
While many of the stories recorded that mayors and councils were critical of the Government’s legislation, that was a reflection of local government reaction.
The NZ Media Council notes a wide range of views for and against the legislation and the issue of Māori representation were reported. It was evident that TVNZ’s coverage was balanced over time. There was no evidence of a breach of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
It was not shown that the reportage was biased, and no case has been made to show the coverage breached Principles (7) or (9).
There were no grounds to proceed.