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 ‘inappropriate and potentially racist’ comments made in reference to white people during a Mai Morning Crew broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, and discrimination and denigration standards. The comments, while potentially offensive to some, did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The broadcast did not encourage the different treatment of white people nor devalue their reputation. While the Authority considered the complaint was best dealt with under the discrimination and denigration standard rather than the offensive and disturbing content standard, it noted the broadcast was unlikely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb or offend the audience in the context.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  Comments made by a Mai Morning Crew host at the end of its 13 March 2026 broadcast are the subject of this complaint.

[2]  The following discussion took place as the hosts were signing off for the weekend:

Host one:       Did you see [the breakfast show co-host] from the Breeze brought her puppy in today? 

Host two:       I know. Honestly, the double standards. What do I have to do, be hot and white? 

Host one:       Yeah.

Host three:     Maybe, try it.

Host one:       Unfortunately, maybe you just have to be [the Breeze breakfast show co-host]. 

Host two:       Yeah, or [the Breeze breakfast show co-host]. 

Host one:       And no one, no one comes close to her at work. 

Host two:       Do you know what I will always remember [the Breeze breakfast show co-host] for? […] [S]he was the one who snapped out that tradie for sniffing undies on Target.

Host one:       On Target! Oh my god. That is actually iconic.

Host two:        Infamous, infamous.

Host three:     Wait, what?

Host one:       Did you know that? Did you ever watch Target growing up? 

                                                […]

                        They used to put hidden cameras in when people were doing services on houses – like tradesmen. And there is an iconic clip from Target of a tradie going into someone’s house and then they go into the drawer and sniff a lady’s undies. [Laughs]

Host three:     [Gasps] Oh no!

Host two:        [Laughs] Yeah, I know, wild eh. In New Zealand!

Host three:     That’s wild!

Host one:       And it was like– it blew everyone’s socks off, basically. 

Host two:       Yeah. Oi, guess what race too? 

Host three:     I don’t want to. 

Host one:       White? 

Host two:       Yeah, he was Pālagi. [Laughs]

Host three:     Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah. 

Host one:       That’s okay, that’s alright.

Host two:       What were you thinking?

Host three:     Nah, white, yeah yeah. [Host 2 laughs] That’s exactly what I was gonna say. 

Host two:       Hey, have the best weekend, Mai whānau!

Host one:       Bye guys!

The complaint

[3]  Benjamin Harrington complained the broadcast – specifically, two allegedly ‘inappropriate and potentially racist’ comments made in reference to white people – breached the offensive and disturbing content, and discrimination and denigration standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Key aspects of the complaint were:

a)  ‘The presenter repeatedly referenced race in a negative and unnecessary way within a short period of time, including suggesting that being “white” was relevant to the situation being discussed. Framing commentary around a person’s race in this manner risks reinforcing negative stereotypes and can contribute to the denigration of people based on racial identity.’

b)  Remarks such as these ‘can promote negative attitudes around race and are not appropriate for broadcast to a wide public audience’.

c)  Mai Morning Crew is a morning radio show broadcast to a wide audience, so ‘greater care should have been taken to avoid language that could reasonably be considered offensive or racially inappropriate’.

[4]  On referring the complaint to the Authority and responding to the broadcaster’s decision, the complainant said, in summary:

a)  Target audience: ‘I do not agree with the emphasis placed [by the broadcaster] on “target audience” as justification for the content. Mai FM is a publicly accessible Auckland-wide radio station, and its broadcasts can be heard by a wide and diverse audience in many environments, including workplaces. Listeners do not always have control over what is played, and it is not reasonable to expect individuals to remove themselves from shared environments to avoid potentially offensive content.’

b)  The broadcaster’s intention in making the comments:

i)  ‘There was no clear indication during the broadcast that the remarks were intended as a joke.’ The statements were ‘presented plainly, without any clarification or framing that would signal humour’. 

ii)  ‘Simply stating that something was said in jest does not automatically remove its potential to cause offence or avoid scrutiny under the relevant broadcasting standards.’

iii)  The broadcaster’s claimed intention should not be ‘decisive’. ‘A lack of intent to offend does not mean that offence was not caused.’

c)  ‘Normalisation of racial commentary’: ‘Framing commentary around a person’s race in this manner risks normalising the idea that race is an appropriate or defining characteristic in unrelated contexts.’

d)  ‘Community Standards and Impact’: The broadcast did not align with ‘widely shared community standards’. ‘The potential for offence should not be dismissed on the basis that the programme is known for being “edgy”, as this risks lowering the standard of what is considered acceptable for public broadcast.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  MediaWorks Radio Ltd (MediaWorks) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Offensive and disturbing content

a)  ‘The comments made by the announcer were made in jest and were intended to be light-hearted, rather than as statements of judgement towards a specific group of people.’

b)  Mai FM ‘regularly broadcasts provocative and “edgy” content’ – and such content ‘contributes significantly to the station’s appeal’. Accordingly, the relevant comments were ‘unlikely to have surprised or alarmed regular listeners of the show, or cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards’.

Discrimination and denigration

c)  The host had ‘no intention […] to denigrate or cause offence’ with their comments.

d)  The broadcast did not ‘reach the threshold of vitriol’, nor did it ‘seriously impact the reputation of a class of people’.

[6]  In response to the complaint referral, MediaWorks reiterated:

a)  ‘As noted in our original decision, the comments in question were made in jest. They were framed as light-hearted throwaway comments in the context of the conversation and were greeted with sarcastic responses from the other hosts’, aligning with the ‘style of show’ and target audience’s expectations.

b)  ‘These comments were not intended as statements of judgement towards a specific group of people, nor were they intended to denigrate or cause offense to a specific group of people.’

The standards

[7]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (standard 1) is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.¹ The standard states:²

• Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:
  • the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
  • the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[8]  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.³ The standard states:⁴

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

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

[10]  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

Discrimination and denigration

[11]  The discrimination and denigration standard applies to recognised ‘sections of the community’, including on account of race. White people are a recognised section of the community and as such, the standard applies.⁶

[12]  The next question is whether the broadcast encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, this section of the community. ‘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.⁷

[13]  The complaint centres on two comments made by one of the Mai Morning Crew hosts:

a)  In response to being told a colleague brought their dog into the office that day: ‘I know. Honestly, the double standards. What do I have to do, be hot and white?’

b)  Asking his co-hosts to ‘guess [the] race’ of the tradesperson ‘snapped out […] for sniffing undies on Target’ and subsequently confirming they were ‘white’ or ‘Pālagi’ (or ‘Pālangi’) – a term used throughout Western Polynesia and diasporic communities to mean ‘white people’ or a person of European decent.⁸

[14]  In assessing whether a broadcast has breached the standard, we consider, among other factors: the language used; the tone of the person making the comments; the forum in which the comments were made; whether the comments were repeated or sustained; and whether the comments made a legitimate contribution to a wider debate or carried public interest.⁹

[15]  We acknowledge some listeners may have, like the complainant, found the comments offensive – but comments will not breach the standard merely for being rude or offensive.¹⁰ Typically, a high level of condemnation with an element of malice or nastiness is necessary to find a breach. Broadcast content that reinforces or embeds negative stereotypes may also be considered, even if not said maliciously.¹¹

[16]  In this instance, neither comment was malicious nor likely to reinforce negative stereotypes about white people. The comments were seemingly legitimate attempts at humour and in our view, most viewers would have interpreted them as such. They were brief, off-the-cuff remarks in a live radio setting, during a programme that describes itself as including ‘a bunch of oversharing’ and ‘non-stop laughs’.¹² The first was a light-hearted joke about ‘double standards’ on a fairly niche issue (the ability to bring your dog to work). While the second could be seen as provocative or irreverent, we do not consider either comment likely to encourage the different treatment of white people or devalue their reputation.

[17]  Given the importance of freedom of expression, the legitimate attempt at humour, the lack of malice, and the context of the broadcast, we have not identified actual or potential harm requiring our intervention. We therefore find no breach of the discrimination and denigration standard.

Offensive and disturbing content

[18]  The complainant also raised the offensive and disturbing content standard as having been breached by the broadcast. To us, the complainant’s central concern is the broadcast’s treatment of race and its comments towards white people. A complaint of this nature is more appropriately dealt with under the discrimination and denigration standard, and we consider the complainant’s concerns have been sufficiently addressed in our analysis of that standard.¹³

[19]  In any event, for the same reasons outlined at paragraph [16] above, it is unlikely the broadcast would have disproportionately offended or disturbed its audience. It did not seriously violate community norms, and we have not found any actual or potential harm that justifies limiting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

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

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 August 2026

   
Appendix

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

1  Harrington's original complaint – 15 March 2026

2  MediaWorks' decision – 10 April 2026

3  Harrington's referral to the Authority – 11 April 2026

4  MediaWorks' response to the referral – 29 April 2026

5  Harrington's further comments – 4 June 2026

6  MediaWorks' confirmation of no further comments – 2 July 2026

¹ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
² Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁴ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ See Oxton & Jarvis and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-039 at [22]-[26]; Kane and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-012 at [19]; and Hawthorne and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2015-097 at [5]-[9]
⁷ Guideline 4.1: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁸ Jan Tent and Paul Gerharghty “Exploding sky or exploded myth? The origin of Papālagi” (2001) 110 JPS 171 at 171
⁹ Guideline 4.3: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁰ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹¹ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12; and Healy and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-089 at [16]
¹² Rova “Mai Morning Crew” <rova.nz>
¹³ For a similar finding, see Van Son and SKY Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2006-075 at [13]