Complaint number: 25/306
Advertiser: Health New Zealand
Advertisement: Health New Zealand Television
Date of Decision: 1 December 2025
Outcome: No Further Action

Complaint: I would like to lodge a formal complaint regarding the Health NZ advertisement titled “Manukaroa’s Story”. My concerns relate to the messaging, structure, and overall impact of the advertisement, which I believe may undermine public health objectives and breach principles relating to social responsibility, truthful presentation, and the potential to cause harm.

1. Normalising or legitimising delayed or avoided childhood immunisation
   The advertisement devotes a substantial portion of its narrative to portraying a parent’s hesitation, delay, or refusal to immunise as reasonable, normal, or expected. The structure of the story risks legitimising non-vaccination behaviours by presenting them as equivalent or acceptable alternatives to adhering to established immunisation schedules.
2. Excessive emphasis on “doing what you think is right” over medical advice The ad repeatedly reinforces the notion that parents should rely primarily on intuition, trial and error, or personal opinion rather than evidence-based medical guidance. This messaging has the potential to mislead viewers, particularly those who may already be unsure or susceptible to misinformation. It also directly conflicts with public health principles, which rely on the promotion of evidencebased immunisation practices.
3. Delay in conveying the benefits of timely vaccination
   The advertisement takes an extended period to communicate the key public health message—that vaccinating children on time and following Health NZ schedules is important. By placing this core message at the very end, after significant airtime focused on hesitation and self-directed decision-making, the advertisement risks diminishing the intended message and confusing its audience.
4. Potential public health risk
   In the current health environment, where misinformation remains a concern,
   advertisements involving immunisation require particular care. This advertisement may inadvertently reinforce vaccine hesitancy by failing to emphasise the well-established safety, effectiveness, and necessity of timely vaccination. Instead, it may be interpreted as validating delayed vaccination as a reasonable approach.

Requested outcome

I request that the ASA review this advertisement in light of the concerns above and assess whether it meets the required standards for social responsibility, truthful presentation, and protection of public health. I also ask that the ASA consider whether the advertisement’s messaging is appropriate for a public health campaign intended to encourage immunisation.

Relevant Codes: Advertising Standards Code – Principle 2, Rule 2 (e) Advocacy Advertising; Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code- Principle 1, Principle 2, Rule 1 (b) Safety and Effectiveness, Rule 1 (c) Vulnerable Auidences, Rule 2 (a) Truthful Presentation

Information on Advocacy Advertising
Advocacy advertising is issues-based advertising where the purpose is to express the advertiser’s position on a political, religious, industrial relations, environmental or societal matter or on an issue of public interest or concern, with the intent to influence the choice, opinion, or behaviour of those to whom it is addressed.

It includes election advertisements from political parties, candidates and interest groups, and Government advertising whose principal purpose is to promote the Government’s (or local Government body) view and /or inform changes in public policy and/or educate the public on matters of public health, safety, or wellbeing.

Provided the requirements of Rule 2(e) are met, the Advertising Standards Code is applied to advocacy advertising in a way that takes into account the protections for freedom of expression and opinion in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA).

For more information see the Guidance Note on Advocacy Advertising.

Decision: The Complaints Board Chair considered the context, medium and audience of the advertisement, the product or service being advertised and when applicable generally prevailing community standards. The Chair also considered decisions about similar issues or advertising.

The Chair ruled the issue you raised does not reach the threshold to breach the relevant Advertising Standards Authority Codes and we will not be taking any further action.