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 under the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards about an interviewee saying, on Midday Report, Foreign Affairs Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters was ‘touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty’. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority found the brief comment would not have left listeners with an unfairly negative impression of Peters. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 2 October 2025 broadcast of Midday Report included an interview with Adrian (‘Adi’) Leason, talking about his son’s experience as a participant of the Global Sumud Flotilla carrying aid for Gaza, that was intercepted by the Israeli Navy. The Midday Report host opened the segment:

The Global Sumud Flotilla that has been trying to get aid into Gaza has been intercepted by the Israeli Navy and some New Zealanders taking part are now on an Israeli vessel. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says they are aware of the situation and have offered consular advice to the groups that are in touch with the New Zealanders. Adi Leason is the father of [Leason’s son], who is one of the New Zealanders involved and he is with me now.

[2]  Leason was questioned about his last conversation with his son, what his son was going through, his thoughts and worries as a father, and communications he had with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

[3]  The host asked Leason the following:

Midday Report host:             What kind of comms have you had from people in New Zealand, say Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or those kinds of organisations?  

Leason:                                  Yeah, the Ministry [of Foreign Affairs and Trade] have been good. The staff have responded quickly to questions. We've received a written letter. Unfortunately, they're kind of saying, in a kind of ministerial kind of way, that their ability to support New Zealanders is being limited by the current administration. Clearly, Winston Peters is at work, you know, touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty. So, it's very disappointing to see this approach taken from leadership, but the staff have been excellent.

The complaint

[4]  Stewart Brown complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• ‘[Leason] managed to accuse Winston Peters of “playing with himself” over Palestine’s recognition… [I]t was hate filled, illogical and defamatory.’
• ‘I do not accept that it is an [OK] thing for RNZ to publish unqualified and unquestioned the [relevant] words… It personalises and defames a NZ politician (Winston Peters) in what should have been a legitimate discussion.’
• ’Only one side of the subject was acknowledged, and that was through the “coarse” … words of Adi [Leason].’
• ‘This, to me, expands the scope of commentary way beyond common decency and robust political dialogue.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons (RNZ’s emphasis):

Fairness

• ‘RNZ observes that Mr. Leason’s chosen metaphor is coarse and highly critical. However, he is clearly stating his honestly held opinion as the This ‘statement of subjective opinion’ does not cross the threshold into a breach of the standard.

Discrimination and denigration

• The item did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard.
• The comments were not ‘sufficiently unfair or offensive to justify any action to limit’ freedom of expression.

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, 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.

[7]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.³ The standard states:⁴

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

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

[9]  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.⁵

Fairness

[10]  Individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast have the right to expect they will be dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.⁶ An assessment of what is fair considers factors such as:⁷

• the nature of the programme
• the nature of the individual referred to
• whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individual
• whether any critical comments were aimed at the person in their business or professional life, or their personal life
• the public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech
• the target and likely audience, and audience expectations.

[11]  The complainant’s key concern is that Leason’s statement was ‘hate filled, illogical and defamatory’, ‘way beyond common decency’ and unfair to Peters’ reputation.  

[12]  Midday Report is a news and current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience. The segment was an interview with Leason talking about his son’s participation on the Global Sumud Flotilla. The comment was used with reference to Peters’ actions as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[13]  It is well established the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to public figures and politicians is higher than for laypeople.⁸ As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and on matters of New Zealand’s international relations and engagements with other nations, Peters could reasonably expect a high level of scrutiny.

[14]  We do not consider the statement unfairly undermined Peters’ reputation as suggested by the complainant. Nor do we consider the statement was unfair to Peters’ reputation as ‘only one side of the subject was acknowledged’. It was a brief, off-hand statement which was clearly stated as Leason’s opinion, in an interview about Leason’s experience. We are satisfied the remark would not have left listeners with an unduly negative impression of Peters, and Leason’s comment did not amount to unfair treatment of Peters justifying regulatory intervention.

[15]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the fairness standard.

Discrimination and denigration

[16]  The standard does not apply to individuals or organisations.⁹ The complainant’s concerns about Peters’ reputation are better dealt with under the fairness standard above.

[17]  On this basis, the discrimination and denigration standard does not apply.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 January 2026  

Appendix

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

1  Brown’s original complaint – 5 October 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 7 October 2025

3  Brown’s referral to the Authority – 9 October 2025

4  RNZ’s confirmation of the broadcast – 14 October 2025

5  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 21 October 2025

6  Brown’s confirmation of broadcast – 11 November 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁴ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁷ Guideline 8.1
⁸ See, for example, Grant and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-061 at [12]
⁹ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12