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 that commentary during live coverage of a Black Caps test match amounted to socially irresponsible alcohol promotion, in breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The subject of alcohol purchase and consumption did not comprise most of the segment. Aside from commentator Scotty Stevenson stating he was ‘all for […] casually deleting a bunch of tins’, the discussion did not explicitly reference alcohol consumption. Any inferences that could be made about alcohol consumption were not antisocial and did not amount to advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption. The balance and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Privacy

The broadcast

[1]  The final day of a Black Caps test match against the West Indies was broadcast live by Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) on TVNZ DUKE, on Monday 22 December 2025. During the broadcast, the camera picked out spectators from a local cricket club seated on the bank. A couple of them had a few beer cans surrounding them, and one was playing cricket with a young boy. To this, commentator Scotty Stevenson said:

There [are] some erstwhile members of the [local cricket club]. They won the two-day competition yesterday, and I had confirmation from a couple of them that they haven’t exactly landed the plane after beginning celebrations– still circling. Except for one: [cricketer] is a no-show today. He was out for 98 yesterday– run out, on 98, so that’s probably why, he’s just at home having to think about that. But [cricketer], you should get down, team’s celebrating. I think you’re conspicuous by your absence here today so when you do arrive, make sure you give us a wave. 

[2]  Stevenson and co-commentator Mark Richardson then had the following conversation:

Richardson:               I’ll give him a hug. I mean, I want to see him down there having fun with his mates. He got 98. Yeah, he missed out on 100 but, you know.

Stevenson:                Well, one of the boys took six for two. [Laughs] Six for two!

Richardson:               I wonder how many of them have jobs.

Stevenson:                You are a grinch. You get a day’s respite. You’ve just won the two-day premiership.

Richardson:               Our economy is in a fragile state, it’s just starting– we need all hands on deck. You can’t be doing all-nighters on a Sunday night, regardless of what you’ve just won.

Stevenson:                Yes, you can. The place would be much better if everyone did. Don’t you come at it– like, these speculative people in the markets, they’re not the backbone of this economy. It’s the common man, it’s the worker.

Richardson:               Well, they’re up on the bank in their whites having done an all-nighter!

Stevenson:                That’s because they work 60 hours a week for a pittance. This is a form of personal protest. It’s a proletarian uprising masked as a cricket celebration.

Richardson:               I’ll tell you what, I can understand why the fellow got 98. He’s clearly the batter in the team and he’s clearly a responsible person. He’s gone to work today.

Stevenson:                [Camera on a cricketer from the club using his phone] That might be him there, he’s shown up.

Richardson:               I think he’s just texting his boss saying he’s not feeling well today.

Stevenson:                [Laughing] Do you think we’ve outed the entire team? Headlines tomorrow in the [local newspaper], ‘Entire […] cricket team sacked before Christmas.’

Anyway, you’ve made some massive assumptions here. They might own their own businesses.

Richardson:               Well, if they do, I’m not investing in them.

Stevenson:                [Camera back on the local cricket team] I’m all for it. Monday afternoon, casually deleting a bunch of tins, taken home the silverware yesterday. Good on ‘em.

Richardson:               It’s gonna be a long week from here on in though, isn’t it?

Stevenson:                Oh, the third day. The third day’s a challenge. But there will be one.

[3]  The camera moved to a different group from the local cricket club. When the group noticed they were on camera, they each held up cans of beer. One then held up their trophy while another pointed to it, and two cricketers pointed to the club’s logo on their uniforms. Stevenson and Richardson then briefly discussed the club’s town and well-known cricketers who used to represent its cricket club.

The complaint

[4]  Joseph Brownlee Smith complained the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, balance and privacy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for promoting ‘irresponsible drinking’:

a)  Stevenson and Richardson promoted and encouraged drinking, bringing the cricket club and its town into ‘disrepute’ by associating them with antisocial behaviour (ie alcohol consumption).

b)  Aotearoa New Zealand is ‘dramatically affected by binge-drinking culture, underage drinking and [their] effects’ – and as a state broadcaster, ‘TVNZ is in a position of tremendous influence [and] responsibility’.

c)  Stevenson ‘breached privacy by mentioning an individual named by the club’. He also ‘made an association between irresponsible drinking and this individual’.

[5]  On referral to the Authority and in response to TVNZ’s decision on the complaint, the complainant said that TVNZ:

a)  claimed the broadcast was ‘light-hearted banter not intended to promote alcohol consumption’ – but Stevenson clearly suggested members of the local cricket club, ‘whose images were depicted live on-air while the comments were made’, were ‘notable by their absence’ and should be ‘down’ at the stadium with the rest of the team, ie ‘joining in the alcohol consumption’

b)  did not substantiate their claim that the relevant comments were ‘whimsical’ and ‘one of the attractions of cricket commentary’ with any evidence, for example, ‘about viewer preferences and what viewers find funny’

c)  did not substantively address the alcohol-related ‘social impacts unique to Aotearoa New Zealand’ – specifically rangatahi viewers (those aged 16 to 24), who may ‘lack the reasoning and/or life experience’ to view the comments ‘in their appropriate context’

d)  suggested that ‘youth viewership is a very small proportion of total viewership’ yet provided no evidence of this, and DUKE is also ‘a channel aimed at the youth market’.

Jurisdiction – scope of the complaint

[6]  In referring the complaint to the Authority, the complainant also raised the offensive and disturbing content and fairness standards. Pursuant to s 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority can only consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. However, in limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where:

a)  the standard(s) can be reasonably implied into the wording of the complaint; and

b)  implying the standard(s) is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.¹

[7]  We consider the offensive and disturbing content standard cannot be reasonably implied into the wording of the original complaint, which is focused on the impacts of alcohol promotion rather than its offensiveness. Accordingly, it will not be addressed in this decision.

[8]  Some elements of the original complaint might impliedly raise fairness standard issues, which concern the fair treatment of individuals or organisations in a broadcast.² The original complaint refers, for example, to bringing the local cricket club ‘into disrepute’ and associating an individual with excessive alcohol consumption. However, the complaint as referred to us did not address fairness to the club or this individual. Instead, it focused on the ‘fairness’ of facts conveyed. Additionally, in further submissions, the complainant confirmed the crux of their complaint was the broadcast’s ‘endorsement and celebration of youth drinking’. As the fairness standard is not relevant to such concerns, there is no reason to examine whether it might be implied into the original complaint.

[9]  We address the promotion of illegal and antisocial behaviour, balance and privacy standards below, from paragraph [20] onwards.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[11]  TVNZ did not consider the spectators from the local cricket club were engaged in criminal or serious antisocial activity, nor that Stevenson encouraged such activity:

a)  ‘TVNZ’s live cricket broadcasts target a general audience.’ Most viewers are from older demographics, although it is ‘understood that children will be a part of the audience’. ‘There is also a reasonable likelihood that children watching the cricket would be doing so in the company of their parents.’

b)  The broadcast ‘was not specifically directed at children and the commentary focussing on the [local] cricketers did not dominate the coverage. It was a brief part of the extensive test match coverage.’

c)  Stevenson’s ‘tongue-in-cheek’ comments about ‘the celebratory drinks and the practice of pulling an “all-nighter” were unlikely to have been perceived by viewers as genuinely advocating alcohol consumption’, including irresponsible or underage consumption.

d)  The comments were made in ‘a light-hearted commentary segment, featuring humorous banter between the two commentators’ that most viewers, including children, ‘would understand was not intended to be taken seriously’. 

e)  ‘Live cricket commentary is a dynamic environment and the frequent downtime in on-field action means commentary often strays into general chit-chat or whimsical banter, frequently involving subjects inspired by people in the crowd or other scenes in the vicinity. This is one of the attractions of cricket commentary and a unique feature of the sport. The comments about the [local] cricketers were made in this context. The commentators were looking for things to talk about during the [downtime in] on-field action, and the [local] cricketers provided them with several minutes of light-hearted subject matter.’

f)  While Stevenson ‘was apparently supportive of extensive revelling by successful sportspeople’, TVNZ did not consider ‘this means he was necessarily supportive of excessive alcohol consumption’. (TVNZ’s emphasis)

g)  ‘As was explained by Mr Stevenson, the [local] cricketers featured in the broadcast were celebrating a significant victory. In such circumstances it is not [...] unusual for players to drink alcohol in a celebratory fashion. The players did not appear to be breaking any laws pertaining to alcohol consumption and were not shown behaving in an antisocial or disruptive manner.’

h)  The broadcast showed the local cricketers ‘each with a couple of beer cans sitting casually watching the game. One man is playing cricket with a young boy and other family members are also in attendance.’ The ‘contrast’ between Stevenson’s statements and ‘the relaxed atmosphere of the men and their families watching the game belies any idea that the drinking was antisocial’ – and furthers TVNZ’s view that the comments were ‘clearly humorous’ and would be understood as such by viewers.

i)  Richardson ‘provided a counterpoint. He criticised “all-nighters” and encouraged restraint and temperance, which he framed as virtues underpinning not only the success of the [local cricketer], but also success in the business world.’

[12]  In response to the referral to the Authority, TVNZ noted, ‘[R]atings data confirms that viewers in the 5-17 demographic constituted 1.9% of the TV audience on the day in question. 98.1% of viewers were in the combined 18-55+ demographics.’

Balance

[13]  ‘The post-game activities of the [local] cricket team, which were relatively unremarkable in the context of sporting celebrations, do not amount to a “controversial issue of public importance” in the sense envisioned by the [balance standard].’ The standard therefore did not apply.

Privacy

[14]  The broadcast did not disclose private information or material about the local cricketer, nor material that a reasonable person in the cricketer’s shoes would consider ‘highly offensive’:

a)  Richardson and Stevenson spoke of the cricketer ‘in favourable terms’.

b)  ‘[The individual]’s cricketing success is not private information or material that he would reasonably have found highly offensive. It was also information that had evidently been volunteered by his team-mates.’

c)  ‘The discussion about [the cricketer]’s decision not to be at the test match celebrating with his teammates was humorous speculation concocted as part of the commentators’ banter. The comments were clearly not intended to be taken seriously.’

The standards

[15]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard (standard 3) is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.³ The standard states:⁴

Broadcast content should not be likely to promote illegal or serious antisocial behaviour taking into account the context and the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control.

[16]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁵ The standard states:⁶

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[17]  The purpose of the privacy standard (standard 7) is to respect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public.⁷ The standard states:⁸

Broadcasters should maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual.

Our analysis

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

[19]  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.⁹

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[20]  A two-stage test is applied when determining whether alcohol promotion in a broadcast was socially responsible:¹⁰

a)  Did the broadcast amount to ‘alcohol promotion’?

b)  If so, was that alcohol promotion ‘socially responsible’?

Did the broadcast amount to ‘alcohol promotion’?

[21]  Alcohol promotion may be in one or more of the following forms:

a)  promotion of an alcohol product, brand or outlet (‘promotion’)

b)  alcohol sponsorship of a programme (‘sponsorship’)

c)  advocacy of alcohol consumption (‘advocacy’).¹¹

[22]  Twice the broadcast showed a group of cricketers from a local club sitting with cans of beer casually watching the Black Caps’ game. During one of these shots, Stevenson said he was ‘all for […] casually deleting a bunch of tins’. Later, another group from the club were seen excitedly raising their beers cans in the air upon realising they were on camera. One player then took a swig of beer, seemingly for the camera.

[23]  We consider Stevenson’s positive comment about alcohol consumption, in combination with the footage described above, amounts to advocacy of alcohol consumption.¹²

Was the alcohol promotion ‘socially responsible’?

[24]  A broadcast that depicts or discusses alcohol and its consumption will not necessarily breach this standard. Instead, any alcohol promotion should be socially responsible, including that it:

• must not encourage consumption by people who are under the legal age to purchase alcohol
• must not occur in programmes specifically directed at children
• must not dominate a broadcast
• must avoid advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption and portraying it as positive or desirable
• is not required to be excluded from coverage of an event or situation being broadcast where such promotion is a normal feature of that event or situation – so long as the above guidance is adequately considered.¹³

[25]  Stevenson’s comment about being ‘all for […] casually deleting a bunch of tins’ may have portrayed excessive alcohol consumption as positive or desirable. The broadcast did not otherwise explicitly reference excessive alcohol consumption. However, we acknowledge some might infer from the broadcast that the team’s ‘celebrations’ included (possibly excessive) consumption of alcohol. For example:

a)  discussion of the cricket team ‘having done an all-nighter’ and the possible suggestion they were in the same clothes – their whites – as the day before

b)  reference to the named cricketer being the only one to have ‘landed the plane’ after beginning celebrations, and being ‘conspicuous by [his] absence’

c)  footage of team members consuming alcohol, with numerous cans of beer shown onscreen

d)  footage of a group of team members excitedly raising beer cans in the air upon realising they were on camera

e)  footage of one player taking a swig of beer, seemingly for the camera.

[26]  Context is crucial in assessing the likely practical effect of a broadcast. We consider, in the context of this broadcast, any alcohol promotion or advocacy was ‘socially responsible’.¹⁴ Relevant contextual considerations are as follows:

a)  The broadcast, being a test cricket match, was aimed at a mature, predominantly adult audience – and according to ratings data supplied by TVNZ, viewers aged 5–17 years old constituted 1.9% of the broadcast’s live audience.¹⁵ The broadcast was not directed specifically at children and did not encourage alcohol consumption by those under the legal age to purchase alcohol.¹⁶

b)  The broadcast was live, and sports commentary can at times be irreverent.¹⁷ Stevenson’s and Richardson’s comments were, in our view, in keeping with audience expectations of live cricket commentary as a form of entertainment. As noted by TVNZ (see paragraphs [11](d) and (e) above), the ‘frequent downtime in on-field action means commentary often strays into general chit-chat or whimsical banter, frequently involving subjects inspired by people in the crowd or other scenes in the vicinity. This is one of the attractions of cricket commentary and a unique feature of the sport.’

c)  Stevenson and Richardson are professional commentators, known for their humorous, ‘blokey’, ‘tongue-in-cheek’ style of presentation.¹⁸ We do not consider their comments, which were light-hearted and appeared intended as humorous, amounted to genuine advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption, nor that viewers would have interpreted their comments as such.

d)  While the term ‘all-nighter’ may be used in reference to alcohol consumption, it is not inextricably linked to it – it means ‘an event that lasts all night’.¹⁹ Regardless, Richardson provided an alternative perspective, expressing disapproval at the prospect of the team ‘doing all-nighters’:

i)  ‘Our economy is in a fragile state […] we need all hands on deck. You can't be doing all-nighters on a Sunday night, regardless of what you’ve just won.’

ii)  The absent local cricketer is ‘clearly a responsible person. He’s gone to work today.’

iii)  If any of the local cricketers at the Black Caps’ match own businesses, then ‘I’m not investing in them.’

e)  Depiction of spectators with alcohol is a normal feature of sports matches, and the subject of alcohol purchase and/or consumption did not dominate the segment.²⁰

f)  One group of cricketers from the local club were shown with cans of beer, casually watching the game while a young child was present. These images in particular do not amount to ‘advocacy of excessive alcohol consumption’.

[27]  We understand the complainant’s concerns about New Zealand’s binge-drinking culture, underage drinking and the effects of these on rangatahi and New Zealand generally. However, for the reasons outlined above, we find that any promotion or advocacy of alcohol consumption within the broadcast was socially responsible. We therefore do not uphold the complaint under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard.

Remaining standards

[28]  The balance and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached for the following reasons:

a)  Balance: As indicated at paragraph [16], the balance standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. An issue ‘of public importance’ is one that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’. A ‘controversial’ issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.²¹ Stevenson and Richardson’s comments about the local cricket club and their celebrations did not amount to a discussion of a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. The balance standard therefore does not apply.

b)  Privacy: While the cricketer was named by Stevenson and therefore identifiable beyond family and close friends,²² we could not discern any private information or material broadcast about the cricketer over which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.²³ We also do not agree there was any ‘association between irresponsible drinking and this individual’. There was instead a suggestion he should join celebrations that he appeared not to be involved in. Accordingly, the privacy standard was not breached.

For the above reasons 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  Brownlee Smith’s original complaint – 22 December 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 3 February 2026

3  Brownlee Smith’s referral to the Authority – 3 February 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 20 February 2026

5  Brownlee Smith’s further comments – 24 and 25 March 2026

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁴ Standard 3: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
⁸ Standard 7: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ Guideline 3.5: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11; Communities Against Alcohol Harm and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-026 at [17]-[18]
¹¹ Guideline 3.4: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹² For a similar finding, see Memelink and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2009-045 at [19]
¹³ Guideline 3.5: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁴ Guideline 3.1: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, pages 10–11
¹⁵ Guideline 3.1: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
¹⁶ Guideline 3.5: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁷ For a similar finding, see Kundin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-121 at [8]
¹⁸ For a similar finding, see Williams and New Zealand Media and Entertainment, Decision No. 2015-019 at [11]; Outspoken “Mark Richardson” <outspokenbyodd.co.nz>; Celebrity Speakers “Scotty Stevenson” <celebrityspeakers.co.nz>; 1News “Scotty Stevenson” <1news.co.nz>
¹⁹ Cambridge Dictionary “all-nighter” <dictionary.cambridge.org>
²⁰ Guideline 3.5: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
²¹ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²² Guideline 7.2: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18
²³ Guidelines 7.3 and 7.4: Privacy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 18