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 promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard, about a 1News report’s reference to protests outside politicians’ homes sometimes being ‘effective, like during the Dawn Raids’. The complainant considered the Dawn Raids protest example, in the context of a story covering damage caused by protesters at Hon Winston Peters’ home, would encourage illegal or antisocial protest behaviour. The Authority found the programme was a straightforward news report covering responses to property damage at Peters’ home and progress of the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill (the Bill). It noted the report included numerous comments condemning the actions by protesters at Peters’ home and outlined the serious consequences suffered by those responsible. References to the Dawn Raids’ protesters were part of a report on comments made in Parliament during the Bill’s first reading. In the context, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to incite illegal or serious antisocial behaviour.  

Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour  

The broadcast

[1]  The 7 October 2025 broadcast of 1News included an item about property damage to Hon Winston Peters’ house following a pro-Palestinian protest outside his private residence, and the progress of the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill (the Bill). The 1News host introduced the segment:

The fallout from an attack by a pro-Palestinian protester on Winston Peters' home has resulted in an actress being cut from a TV commercial. She had revealed the foreign minister's address and encouraged others to join a protest outside. The targeting of the private residence has been widely condemned, a 29-year-old man charged after handing himself in to police. [1News Senior Political Reporter] has more.  

[2]  The segment included various perspectives from political party representatives condemning the damage to Peters’ residence:

Deputy PM David Seymour: You know, this has just got to stop. If you believe that someone else is wrong, then the right thing to do is try and persuade them, not go and smash their house.

…

1News Reporter:                   The Government alleges the Greens are partly responsible. The actor who broadcast Mr Peters' address appeared at a press conference about the Gaza flotilla alongside the Greens yesterday.

…

Chlöe Swarbrick:                  I had no idea that she (the actress) would be there.

…

1News Reporter:                   The Greens say they condemn both the attack and the doxing.

Swarbrick:                             Every political party and every politician that I am aware of has explicitly condemned that violent attack on Winston Peters’ home.

1News Reporter:                   One NZ is removing the actor from its ads, saying they don't back behaviour that puts people's safety at risk. 

[3]  The segment ended with the 1News’ Senior Political Reporter explaining the first reading of the Bill, which – if passed – would make it an offence to protest outside someone’s private residence (emphasis added):

Good evening. Look, a group of MPs, they're looking into this Bill right now, and the events at Winston Peters' house yesterday have sure put a spotlight on it. Look, the Government's thinking here is that we're seeing more and more protests, more demonstrations outside politicians' homes and outside public officials' homes. And as Christopher Luxon put it today, he said, look, I put my hand up for politics, I'm fair game when it comes to these kinds of protests, but my family and my neighbours, they are not fair game. You know, they simply didn't get into this, and he said the same goes for every, you know, other politician. Now, the opposition, they are all opposed to this legislation. The Labour Party is really worried that it could actually shut down protests at legitimate places of protest, such as outside foreign embassies or even outside Government House or Parliament House. The Greens, their main objections here are basically the penalties that come with it. They say the potential maximum penalty of three months in prison is actually way too excessive here. They're really uncomfortable with this. I can also tell you that during the first reading on this Bill, the point was made that sometimes protesting outside politicians' homes can be rather effective, like during the Dawn Raids when protesters would turn up with loudhailers outside politicians’ homes and give ministers a taste of their own medicine.

The complaint

[4]  Hector Camacho complained the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• The 1News reporter mentioned ‘that in the past, like in the dawn raid events, protesting at ministers’ houses was effective’ which ‘in effect is justifying it again and certainly not the message that you need to impart’.
• Given what happened at Peters’ property, it was irresponsible to say this ‘without qualifying that there shouldn’t be any violation of the politician’s property or privacy’.
• If people were ‘influenced by a lesser-known actress’ comments, it is not far-fetched to think’ the reporter’s comments could influence some people as well. It was ‘just not the appropriate thing to say’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The broadcast did not contain any such material. Protesting outside politicians’ houses is not illegal, and in any case the Senior Political Reporter did not encourage people to do so. He simply conveyed an observation made as part of the debate about the Bill in question, which was that protests at the homes of politicians have in some circumstances been effective.’
• ‘This was a relevant inclusion in the story, which could not reasonably be construed as an encouragement to viewers to break the law (particularly as such activity is not presently illegal).’
• ‘As the story explained, the actress who divulged the name of a street near Mr Peters’ house lost her job on a One NZ advertising campaign, the person responsible for vandalising Mr Peters’ house was facing charges, and the incident had been widely condemned by politicians of all stripes. There was no way a reasonable viewer would have taken from the story that it was appropriate for protesters to damage or enter private property.’

The standard

[6]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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.

Our analysis

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

[8]  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.³

[9]  The complainant said referring to effective protests outside politicians’ homes without ‘qualifying that there shouldn’t be any violation of the politician’s property or privacy’ justified ‘doing it again’.  

[10]  As TVNZ said in its decision, protesting outside politicians’ houses is not illegal. Nor do we consider such protest action, reflecting the exercise of rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, can be regarded as inherently antisocial.

[11]  The question for us is whether the broadcast was likely to promote some other illegal or antisocial activity, for example, damage to property or privacy in the course of protests.

[12]  The programme was a straightforward news report covering responses to Peters’ property damage and the Bill. The report included numerous comments condemning the protesters’ actions and outlined the serious consequences suffered by those responsible.

[13]  The Dawn Raids example was cited in the context of reporting on debate during the first reading on the Bill. We note comments by Hon Ginny Andersen during that debate included:⁴

We need to remember our history: when Pasifika were subjected to the cruelty of the Dawn Raids … it was protesters who took a stand in carrying out reversing on the Dawn Raids on Ministers' homes, shining spotlights, using loudspeakers, demanding justice. Those actions helped to expose and to end a gross injustice that's a part of New Zealand's history. If this law had been in place, those brave voices might have been silenced, and that should give us pause to have a think about what we are doing here.

[14]  Within this context, we consider the comments were unlikely to incite illegal or serious antisocial behaviour as contemplated by the standard.

[15]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behavior standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
11 February 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Camacho’s original complaint – 8 October 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 3 November 2025

3  Camacho’s referral to the Authority – 3 November 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 5 November 2025

5  Camacho’s further comments – 6 November 2025

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 1 December 2025

7  Camacho’s further comments – 1 December 2025

8  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 11 December 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
² Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ (21 August 2025) 786 NZPD (Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill – First Reading, Ginny Andersen)