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 a comment made during live coverage of a Black Caps cricket match breached the discrimination and denigration standard for ridiculing mental health/illness – and, by extension, people with mental illness. Commentator Scotty Stevenson said, ‘Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed.’ The Authority recognised that while some may view the comment as insensitive and inappropriate, the comment did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standard. The broadcast was unlikely to encourage the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalue their reputation.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  The Black Caps’ 13 November 2025 T20 match against the West Indies, held in Dunedin, was broadcast live by Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ). During this coverage, commentator Scotty Stevenson made the following comments:

Clouds clinging to the hilltops around the town belt above the Oamaru stone of Otago Boys’ High, a wonderfully gothic building that is as well... Built on the site of a former asylum, Otago Boys’ High School. Having met some of the old boys, don't think much has changed.

[2]  Stevenson’s co-commentator then said, ‘I was gonna say, sounds like a very positive start for a school.’

The co0mplaint

[3]  Tom Hansen complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for ‘making a joke of mental health’. Stevenson’s comments were ‘appalling’ given ‘so much emphasis is placed on mental health awareness’. ‘Like many other countries around the word, mental health is a major issue in New Zealand and surely not one to be made fun of.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  The Authority has previously¹ said:

i)   ‘…[A] programme's humorous or satirical intent is a highly relevant factor in assessing an allegation of denigration.’  

ii)  The discrimination and denigration standard ‘is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material offered in the legitimate context of a dramatic, humorous or satirical work’. This is reflected in (what is now) Guideline 4.2 of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

iii)  ‘This does not mean that drama, humour or satire are given unchecked freedom.’ Instead, Guideline 4.2 ‘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’.

b)  The relevant comments ‘were clearly intended to be humorous in nature’.

c)  ‘…Otago High old boys are not a protected section of the community for the purposes of [the discrimination and denigration standard].’

d)  ‘The comments did not express a high level of condemnation of any section of the community.’

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.² The standard states:³

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.⁴

Discrimination and denigration

[8]  As outlined at paragraph [5], the discrimination and denigration standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’. We consider people with mental or psychiatric illness to be a recognised section of the community, an approach consistent with the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Authority’s previous decisions.⁵ The standard therefore applies.

[9]  ‘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.⁶ A high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, is usually necessary to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard.⁷

[10]  Context is an important consideration in assessing whether a broadcast has overstepped.⁸ The following contextual factors are relevant in considering this complaint:  

• The comment was during a live broadcast, and sports commentary can at times be irreverent.⁹
• The broadcast was unclassified, being live sporting coverage, and was aimed at a mature, predominantly adult audience.
• Stevenson is a professional sports presenter and commentator, known for his humorous style.¹⁰
• The comment appears intended as humour.
• The comment, and the co-commentator’s response, carried no tone of malice or nastiness.

[11]  We understand Stevenson’s comment could be seen as insensitive and inappropriate by some viewers. While there has been increasing domestic and international awareness of mental health and illness, stigma is often still associated with both mental illness and mental health services, including psychiatric hospitals. Men often demonstrate low rates of mental health service use – the result of various ‘attitudinal’ and ‘structural’ barriers, including fear of stigma.¹¹

[12]  However, comments will not breach the standard simply because they may be offensive or rude.¹² In light of the above contextual factors, we do not consider the comment reached the high threshold for finding a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard.

[13]  Although Stevenson was making a joke, the broadcast did not convey the message that people with mental illness are appropriate subjects for ridicule. Stevenson’s comment was primarily directed at Otago Boys’ High School and its former students. People with mental illness were not the subject of the segment, and the comment was made without malice or nastiness towards people with mental illness. On this basis, we do not consider the broadcast encouraged the different treatment of those with mental illness to their detriment, nor devalued their reputation.¹³

[14]  Given the importance of freedom of expression, the legitimate attempt at humour, the lack of malice, and the broadcast’s context, we have not found harm at a level that justifies restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Accordingly, we find no breach of 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
22 April 2026

Appendix

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

1  Hansen's original complaint – 14 November 2025

2  TVNZ's decision – 8 December 2025

3  Hansen's referral to the Authority – 26 December 2025

4  Hansen's further comments – 16 January 2026

5  TVNZ's confirmation of no further comments – 10 February 2026

¹ New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2005-112 at [113]
² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
³ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Section 21(1)(h)(iii); See, for example: Rees and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2016-051; Makea and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-028; Mental Health Commission and CanWest RadioWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2006-030
⁶ Guideline 4.1: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁷ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁸ Guideline 4.3: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁹ For a similar finding, see Kundin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-121 at [8]
¹⁰ Celebrity Speakers “Scotty Stevenson” <celebrityspeakers.co.nz>; 1News “Scotty Stevenson” <1news.co.nz>
¹¹ Jake M. Gallagher, Keith Tuffin, and Clifford van Ommen “‘Do They Chain Their Hands Up?’: An Exploration of Young Men’s Beliefs about Mental Health Services” (2022) 51(2) NZJP 4 at 4–5
¹² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹³ Compare with Ashurst and 10 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-001, where the Authority upheld a complaint that comments about singer Susan Boyle breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found (among other things) the comments ridiculed and derided her for an intellectual disability,  and ‘the message that viewers would have received was that people with intellectual disabilities […] are appropriate subjects for ridicule’.