Ropata Fowlds-Hartley against Radio New Zealand

Radio New Zealand published an article on November 9, 2025, titled Could NZ plug into Australian ‘drone wall’ to keep China at bay?

The story was about an idea floated by an Australian defence analyst who suggested New Zealand could join Australia’s proposed “drone wall” aimed at deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. The concept was set out in a paper published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Ropata Fowlds-Hartley complained that the article amplified the views of a defence analyst and did not include other perspectives or dissenting voices. It did not include comment from New Zealand-based international relations scholars, civil society groups such as Greenpeace or Peace Movement Aotearoa, or Pacific or Māori voices concerned with regional militarisation.

“This absence creates a false consensus around a highly controversial proposal, undermining RNZ’s obligation to present diverse viewpoints on matters of public interest.”

“The framing of a “drone wall” as a necessary deterrent against China reflects a speculative and escalatory logic. It risks normalizing militarization in the Pacific without interrogating the diplomatic consequences for NZ’s independent foreign policy, the ethical implications of autonomous weapons systems and the environmental and sovereignty concerns of Pacific nations.”

“RNZ’s role as a publicly funded broadcaster demands greater scrutiny of such narratives, especially when they align with defence-industrial priorities.”

He said it lacked investigative vigour, source diversity and contextual framing of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear legacy and regional commitments.

Radio New Zealand responded that the Media Council’s guidance on Accuracy, Fairness and Balance allowed for balance to be provided over time with long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument could not reasonably be repeated on every occasion and where balance could be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.

The story which was the subject of this complaint was part of RNZ’s substantial coverage of the Government’s various defence policies. RNZ referred to a long list of other articles it had published previously on defence relations with other countries, foreign policy concerns, relations with China, nuclear proliferation, and whether New Zealand should join AUKUS.

“We take our responsibilities to cover a wide range of views and subject matter very seriously. I hope this response reassures you that we are committed to ‘editorial balance, public accountability and democratic discourse’. We agree with you that these are vital components of our role as a public broadcaster.”

The Media Council notes this was a news article focussing on the views of an Australian defence analyst.

New Zealand defence policy, the size and capability of its forces, emerging threats, relations with Australia, the Pacific Islands, and major powers including the United States and China, have been the subject of debate for decades.

Clearly it is a complex subject on which there are many opinions. This makes it impractical to canvas a range of views every time a new defence concept is floated. It would be interesting to see further discussion on the pros and cons of a joint drone defence system and that will no doubt follow.

The Council understood the points raised in this complaint but was not of the view  that the publication of this article breached its Principles.  Defence policy and decisions are a long-running issue, and balanced opinion does not have to be provided in relation to every newsworthy development.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.