BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

A majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the host of The Chase New Zealand, Paul Henry, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. When a contestant told Henry she would spend any prize money on a trip to the Taj Mahal in India, Henry said ‘You’ve got to be so careful what you eat,’ and that several of his friends had ‘exploded’ in the Taj Mahal, where it is ‘very hard to find a bathroom’. Later in the episode, Henry said, ‘$45,000, Taj Mahal, you can buy a lot of wet wipes with that.’ The complainant said the comments had the potential to encourage discrimination against India and Indian people, through reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes that India (and, by association, Indian people) are dirty and unhygienic. While acknowledging the complainant found the comments offensive, a majority of the Authority found the comments appeared intended as a humorous anecdote focussed on Henry’s friends’ unfortunate travel experiences, and could not be said to implicitly refer to, or target Indian people in this way. A minority considered the comments did reinforce negative stereotypes about Indian people.

Not Upheld by Majority: Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  An episode of the The Chase New Zealand aired at 7.30pm on 10 November 2025 on TVNZ 1. In an initial discussion with a contestant before they began ‘the chase’, host Paul Henry made the following comments:

Henry:            Time to welcome [Contestant]. [Contestant], how are you?

Contestant:    I’m good, thanks Paul.

Henry:            That’s good. You did your OE in London. Working where?

Contestant:    So I worked in a five-star hotel, in the bar.

Henry:            Which one?

Contestant:    The Conrad in Chelsea Harbour.

Henry:            Oh, very posh, Chelsea Harbour. So you’ve worked at both ends of the spectrum, you’re working in a flash hotel in London, and you also cooked on a European coach trip.

Contestant:    Yeah that’s right.

Henry:            I mean that is real down and dirty isn’t it? It is horrible.

Contestant:    It was pretty basic.

Henry:            Sleeping in tents.

Contestant:    Yes.

Henry:            Being dragged around in old buses.

Contestant:    Yip, yeah.

Henry:            What would you do with the money if you make some money this evening?

Contestant:    I have always wanted to go to the Taj Mahal, so I’m going to drag my family along to there and we’re going to get that quintessential picture sitting in front of the Taj Mahal.

Henry:            You’ve got to be so careful what you eat. I’ve got like, oh, I’m not going to exaggerate, three or four friends, who’ve exploded in the Taj Mahal. And that’s – what do you do there? It’s very hard to find a bathroom, you know, they just – can you imagine it? Just, can you imagine it for a moment (closes eyes). So, just remember that when you get there, because I think you’re going to do quite well.

[2]  In deciding which offer to take to begin the chase round:

Henry:            Alright [Contestant], turn around, face the options, now, $45,000, Taj Mahal, you can buy a lot of wet wipes with that, what are you going to do?

Contestant:    Well, my family said just get back to the desk and do the final chase so I’m gonna take the middle offer and hopefully get back.

The complaint

[3]  The complainant said the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. They considered Henry’s comments reinforced harmful racial stereotypes that India is dirty, unsafe and unhygienic. They submitted:

a)  The comments associated travel to India with ‘extreme gastrointestinal illness, lack of sanitation, and bodily degradation’.

b)  ‘They are colonial-era narratives that have historically been used to demean Indian people and South Asian communities and to portray their environments as inferior. The reduction of a culturally and historically significant monument to the centre of crude toilet humour directly reinforces these stereotypes.’

c)  It was not an offhand comment: ‘[Henry] used the Taj Mahal as the punchline, attaching crude imagery to a respected cultural monument for entertainment.’ He then revisited the joke later, in reference to wet wipes.

d)  In response to the argument by Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) that traveller’s diarrhoea was common, ‘The issue is not whether some travellers experience illness overseas, but how those experiences were exaggerated, normalised, and culturally anchored to a specific country and symbol for comedic effect.’ ‘Referencing general hygiene risks does not neutralise racialised framing, nor does it transform stereotype-based humour into factual commentary.’

e)  The Indian community was implicitly targeted by the comments. ‘The presenter’s momentary pause and self-correction (“they just –”) further underscores that the intended cultural target was Indian people, demonstrating that the denigration was directed at a particular group even without explicit naming.’

f)  TVNZ’s comparison between these remarks and the joke about European coach tours is falsely equivalent – that joke does not draw on a history of demeaning stereotypes about a particular people.

g)   Allowing these types of jokes sends a message ‘that racial stereotypes are acceptable and they normalise a way of thinking that harms communities and influences others to adopt the same prejudiced attitudes’.

h)  The potential for harm and embedding the prejudice was increased by the programme’s G-rating and prime time scheduling, by normalising harmful stereotypes for a broad audience, including children.

i)  ‘This incident cannot be viewed in isolation. Paul Henry has a documented history of making comments that target South Asian and Indian people, including mocking the name of Sheila Dikshit, who was a Chief Minister of Delhi, and questioning whether Sir Anand Satyanand was a real New Zealander because of his heritage. While this complaint focuses on the current broadcast, the recurrence of racially charged remarks across different contexts signals a pattern that warrants serious consideration by TVNZ.’

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

a)  While it acknowledged the complainant found the comments to be discriminatory to Indian people, ‘we find this is not consistent with what was said, which simply reflected on some of the Presenter’s friends experiencing stomach issues at the monument. Many people experience such issues when travelling overseas and [TVNZ] does not agree that the reference to this is denigrating to the Indian people.’

b)  It referred to New Zealand Government advice on ‘Keeping healthy when travelling’ to illustrate that one type of disease to be aware of when travelling is ‘diseases spread through contaminated food, water or poo’.¹

c)  It also referred to online advice that traveller’s diarrhoea is the most common travel-related illness, which is especially common in hot and/or humid climates where bacteria breed more easily, such as most of Asia.² The United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that the risk of traveller’s diarrhoea is high in India, with travellers having an over 60% chance of developing it during a two week journey.³

d)  It referred to a previous BSA decision which outlined that ‘a programme’s humorous or satirical intent is a highly relevant factor in assessing an allegation of denigration…the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material offered in the legitimate context of dramatic humorous or satirical work. This does not mean that drama, humour or satire are given unchecked freedom: [it] simply reflects the fact that democratic societies place a high value on these forms of artistic expression, and limitations should be imposed only in special circumstances.’⁴

e)  ‘The episode comprised factual information and comment and opinion, which the Standard is not intended to prevent. There was no material in the Programme that expressed a high level of condemnation of any group of people.’

f)  ‘…the Presenter is equally forthright about the experience of European coach tours with the same contestant earlier in the programme and these statements are intended to be amusing, rather than pejorative.’

g)  It considered previous upheld complaints in relation to comments made by Paul Henry were not relevant to the consideration of this complaint.

The standard

[5]  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.⁵ The standard states:⁶

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

[6]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[7]  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. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁷

[8]  Under the relevant standard, ‘discrimination’ is defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment. ‘Denigration’ is defined as devaluing the reputation of a particular section of the community.⁸

[9]  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 broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Broadcast content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.⁹

[10]  Comments will not breach the standard simply because they are critical of a particular group, because they offend people or because they are rude. Allowing the free and frank expression of a wide range of views is a necessary part of living in a democracy. Serious commentary, factual programmes, and legitimate drama, 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.¹⁰

[11]  The Authority was ultimately split on whether the broadcast breached the standard, with the majority (Susie Staley exercising her casting vote as Chair, and Karyn Fenton-Ellis) finding no breach, and the minority (John Gillespie and Aroha Beck) finding a breach. The reasoning of the majority and minority are set out below.

Majority view (Susie Staley, Karyn Fenton-Ellis)

[12]  The complainant has argued Henry’s comments had the potential to encourage discrimination against India and Indian people, through reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes that India (and by association, Indian people) are dirty, unsafe and unhygienic. Indian people constitute a section of the community for the purpose of the standard.

[13]  Context is important in assessing whether comments breach the standard, including:¹¹

• the language and tone used
• the forum in which the comments were made
• whether the comments were repeated or sustained, or corrected or rebutted
• whether the comments made a legitimate contribution to a wider debate or carried public interest.

[14]  The following contextual factors are relevant in this case:

a)  Henry’s comments were focussed on what he said were his friends’ actual experiences; that they ‘exploded’ at the Taj Mahal in circumstances where it was hard to find a bathroom.

b)  The comments appeared intended to be humorous. The Chase New Zealand is a light-hearted trivia game show, based on the original UK version of The Chase. The Chase has run since 2009, and its host Bradley Walsh is well-known for his comedic presenting style.¹² The Chase New Zealand follows a similar format, with host Henry engaging in humorous banter with the contestants.

c)  There was no explicit reference to dirtiness or a lack of hygiene, or to India being unsafe.

d)  It is not clear who Henry’s comment ‘they just-’ refers to.

e)  The comments had some factual basis – as TVNZ submitted, the risk of contracting traveller’s diarrhoea when travelling to India is documented by independent sources.

f)  The joke was drawn out by Henry’s later reference to being able to buy ‘a lot of wet wipes’ with the prize money.   

g)  While the Taj Mahal is a culturally significant monument, Henry’s comments were not derisive of the Taj Mahal itself – they referred to experiences his friends had when visiting the monument.

h)  This episode of The Chase New Zealand aired at 7.30pm on a Monday and was rated G (Approved for general viewing).

[15]  We acknowledge the complainant found Henry’s comments to be discriminatory and offensive. We agree the joke was tasteless and pushed the boundaries of acceptable humour. However, noting the contextual factors above, we do not consider the comments had the effect of reinforcing or embedding harmful stereotypes that India and Indian people are dirty, unsafe or unhygienic. Henry’s comments appeared intended as a humorous anecdote focussed on his friends’ unfortunate travel experiences, and, in our view, could not be said to implicitly refer to, or target Indian people generally.¹³ Interpreting the comments as insinuating Indian people were dirty, unsafe or unhygienic would require us to read in a meaning too far removed from the comments themselves.

[16]  While the complainant argued the comment ‘they just–’ referred directly to Indian people, we consider the more likely interpretation is that it refers to his friends and what they did in this scenario (given he had just referred to them). In any event, as noted above, the comment is open to interpretation, and we are unable to say definitively what Henry meant by this.

[17]  Ultimately, given the tenuous link between Henry’s comments and Indian people generally, we do not think any harm is at a level justifying restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression in this instance.

[18]  We do acknowledge there have been serious previous breaches of the discrimination and denigration standard by the broadcaster concerning comments by Henry about people with Indian heritage.¹⁴ We can only consider each broadcast on its merits, and are unable to take these cases into account in assessing whether there has been a breach of the standard in this particular case. The relevancy of these cases would come into play if we upheld the complaint, as an aggravating factor as part of our assessment of what orders, if any, should be made.

[19]  We, the majority, therefore do not uphold the complaint.

Minority view (John Gillespie, Aroha Beck)

[20]  We disagree with the majority and consider the effect of Henry’s comments was to reinforce negative stereotypes about India and, by association, Indian people. On hearing of the contestant’s wish to visit the Taj Mahal, Henry immediately cautioned the contestant: ‘You’ve got to be so careful what you eat.’ This comment is difficult to interpret as anything other than a reflection on the cleanliness and hygiene practices in India – and consequently, of Indian people.

[21]  This messaging was reinforced by the subsequent story about his friends’ diarrhoea. While the story may have been focussed on the experience of his friends when travelling in India, in our view, the underlying insinuation, given his introductory comment, was that India and Indian people are ‘dirty’ and ‘unhygienic’, being the main reason Henry’s friends would have become sick. It was more than a humorous story about trying to find bathrooms at the Taj Mahal.

[22]  Commentary of this nature was sustained with Henry’s later reference to being able to buy ‘a lot of wet wipes’ with the prize money. This further associated India, and Indian people, with diarrhoea, contamination, and a lack of hygiene.  

[23]  Aotearoa New Zealand’s Indian community has historically been subject to discriminatory stereotypes of this nature.¹⁵ Using these negative racial stereotypes as part of such an anecdote normalised such stereotypes, particularly in circumstances where the popular programme aired at peak time, and was rated G. Associating this experience with the Taj Mahal, a site of cultural significance to Indian people, further disrespected and belittled Indian people.

[24]  In our view, Henry’s comments and diarrhoea-related story carry limited public interest. The harm caused by normalising this common negative stereotype significantly outweighs their value in terms of freedom of speech. Accordingly, we would uphold this complaint.

Conclusion

[25]  As a majority of the Authority have found the broadcast did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard, the complaint is not upheld. 

For the above reasons a majority of the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
6 May 2026    

Appendix

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

1  BN’s original complaint – 11 November 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 8 December 2025

3  BN’s referral to the Authority – 3 January 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 30 January 2026

5  BN’s further comments – 16 February 2026

¹ Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora (last updated: 6 January 2026) “Keeping healthy when travelling” <healthnz.govt.nz>
² Cleveland Clinic (last updated: 11 September 2024) “Traveler’s Diarrhea” <my.clevelandclinic.org>
³ CDC (23 April 2025) “India” <cdc.gov>
⁴ New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2005-112 at [113]
⁵ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁶ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Guideline 4.1: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁹ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁰ Commentary: Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹¹ Guideline 4.3: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹² “Bradley Walsh: Chasing his dreams” RNZ (online ed, 11 November 2023) <rnz.co.nz>
¹³ This can be distinguished from cases where we found phrases which were more directly connected to a section of the community to embed negative stereotypes. See, for example: Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-085; Waxman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-042; and Cant and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-071
¹⁴ Adams, Godinet and Parsons and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-145; and Adams and 4 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-143
¹⁵ Guarav Sharma “Historical discrimination of Kiwi Indians in spotlight” RNZ (online ed, 4 March 2026)