BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment of Mai Home Run, discussing Japan’s population crisis, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The hosts commented on how Japan could ‘get tips from India’ as the world’s most populous country. The complainant considered the segment denigrated Indian people. Within the context of the broadcast, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation, of Indian people.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration 

The broadcast

[1]  The 21 April 2026 broadcast of Mai Home Run included a segment about Japan’s population crisis. Host A discussed the offer of ‘cash incentives to help find love’, where the Japanese government are ‘paying people up to $125 USD to download and use dating apps’. Discussion included:

Host B:           I don’t think that’s healthy though. I understand the whole…

Host A:           [Interrupting] It’s a crisis…

Host B:           Yeah, the population crisis but…

Host A:           When you’re desperate you do desperate things, but I was just thinking, right, why don’t they get tips from India?

Host B:           What do you mean by tips?

Host C:           True, well because they’re…

Host A:           They’ve taken over China as the most populous country in the world.

Host B:           Oh, no. Sorry when you said tips I’m thinking like…

Host A:           Oh, dating tips?

Host B:           No like cash.

[…]

Host A:           No, no, no that sounds like something else.

Host B:           Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. That’s just where my mind went.

Host A:           But yeah, 1.4 billion in India, so…

Host B:           They might just love different over there, though. Like, there’s obviously love in the air [Laughing]. What? No, like what? Like, in Japan – what I’m trying to say is, in Japan they’re not keen on it. Whereas obviously like India’s probably more keen on it.

Host A:           Stop. Just stop man. Just stop, you keep digging a hole, bro… Yeah, so that move in Japan comes through rural areas because that’s where the steep population crisis is. Don’t worry about [Host B], everybody.

Host C:           [Mocking Host B] Maybe they just love different.

Host A:           Damn, bro. Honestly.

Host C:           You’re having a bad day, aye?

Host B:           [Laughing] What did I say?

Host A:           Just think a little before you say it. Here’s ‘The Weekend’ on Mai.

The complaint

[2]  Deeptesh Agrawal complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• While discussing Japan’s population crisis, a host made ‘inappropriate and offensive remarks suggesting that Indians should marry Japanese individuals’.
• ‘The discussion escalated into derogatory and disrespectful comments about Indians. Although it appeared that others present attempted to intervene and indicated that the individual was going too far, the remarks resumed shortly after.’
• ‘Subsequently another individual joined in and began making comments about the physical appearance of Indians, which was equally inappropriate and offensive.’
• ‘The joking and laughing style made the discussion feel like it was mocking or making light of a community, which I found inappropriate for a public broadcast, especially as my children were listening at the time.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  MediaWorks Radio Ltd (MediaWorks) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The comments made in this segment were intended to be light-hearted and were not made with malice or intent to denigrate or cause offence to anyone.’
• ‘The words / language in this segment also does not in itself meet the […] threshold of vitriol nor does it seriously impact the reputation of a class of people.’

The standard

[4]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

Our analysis

[5]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[6]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast.

[7]  Where discrimination and denigration complaints are concerned, the importance of freedom of expression means a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a breach of the standard.³ We may only intervene where the level of harm means placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁴

[8]  In addition, humour and satire are valuable forms of speech and are unlikely to breach the standard unless they had the potential to cause harm at a level that justifies restricting freedom of expression.⁵

[9]  The discrimination and denigration standard does not apply to individuals but to recognised ‘sections of the community’, an approach which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993. Indian people are a recognised section of the community, so the standard applies.

[10]  Context is important in assessing the impact of broadcast comments, and the following factors were taken into account in coming to our decision:

a)  The language and tone used in the broadcast was moderate and light-hearted rather than malicious.

b)  The relevant segment was a two-minute discussion relating to Japan’s population crisis.

c)  The brief comments made about Indian people were in relation to India being the world’s most populous country. The hosts did not suggest ‘Indians should marry Japanese individuals’, and the comments were not about the physical appearance of Indians.

[11]  We acknowledge some may have found the statements referring to cash ‘tips from India’ or suggesting Indian people ‘love different’ and are ‘probably more keen on it’, offensive. However, within the context, the Authority finds the comments were unlikely to encourage different treatment, or devalue the reputation, of Indian people.

[12]  Accordingly, we have identified no potential harm at a level meriting our intervention and do not uphold this complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 August 2026    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Agrawal’s original complaint – 28 April 2026

2  MediaWorks’ decision – 25 May 2026

3  Agrawal’s referral to the Authority – 17 June 2026

4  MediaWorks’ confirmation of no further comments – 23 June 2026

5  Agrawal’s further comments – 27 July 2026

6  MediaWorks’ confirmation of no further comments – 28 July 2026

¹ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12