See this and other recent decisions here: bit.ly/3ATwu7B

Noting the significant public interest in the segment, the BSA found no harm justifying its intervention to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. The privacy standard did not apply

In the context, including comments pre-alerting listeners to the content, the Authority found it was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. Those not wishing to listen were given a reasonable chance to switch off

See this and other recent decisions here: bit.ly/3ATwu7B

The issue has been the subject of other coverage, meaning the likelihood of any real harm or the audience being left uninformed was reduced, and did not outweigh the broadcaster’s freedom of expression

It was sufficient under the balance standard to acknowledge the existence of the alternative perspective through comments from the Minister of Land Information about his decision not to change the name

The BSA found the comment was opinion and didn’t reach the threshold for denigrating a section of the community; the broadcast was framed as being from the perspective of community members disappointed by the decision

The complaints alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older…always white’ was racist, ageist, and of ‘questionable’ accuracy, and it was unbalanced, biased and unfair to include only interviews with supporters of the name change

See this and other recent decisions here: bit.ly/3ATwu7B

The reference to deductions being “20% off their ‘tax bill’”, rather than deducting 20% of a new asset’s value from a business’s ‘taxable income’, was materially inaccurate in the context, the BSA found

The complaint was about a statement the scheme 'allows businesses to claim back 20% off their tax bill when purchasing new assets’, in an item about Budget 2025

See this and other recent decisions here: bit.ly/3ATwu7B

The Authority found it was low-level language that would not have surprised or offended most listeners in the context or alarmed or distressed any children who happened to be listening

The High Court rejected the appellant’s arguments on all grounds. Arguments that the BSA’s decision was plainly wrong, was biased, or took into account the wrong considerations, were all dismissed. The full High Court decision can be seen on our website: www.bsa.govt.nz/assets/highc...