BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has upheld a complaint an episode of the six-part drama series Half Man, which follows stepbrothers with a difficult history and fractious relationship, breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The programme was broadcast at 8.30pm and classified 16-VLSC (advisories for violence, language, sexual content, and content that may offend). The Authority found the episode’s strong content and themes went beyond a 16 rating and required a higher rating of 18, meaning it should have aired in a later timeslot. The programme was therefore more likely to disproportionately offend or disturb viewers, who were not properly informed of the level of upcoming strong content. Despite its incorrect classification, the Authority did not find a breach of the children’s interests standard given the programme was clearly signposted as being unsuitable for children and broadcast outside of children’s viewing times. Any depictions of criminal or serious antisocial activity were dramatic elements of the plot and did not ‘promote’ illegal or antisocial behaviour. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply.

Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

Not Upheld: Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration

No Order

The broadcast

[1]  The final episode of the six-part series Half Man was broadcast on 2 June 2026 on TVNZ 1.

[2]  The main characters in the series, Niall and Ruben, are stepbrothers with a difficult history and fractious relationship. The final episode follows Niall as he struggles with a drug habit, his sexual identity and guilt about fathering a child with Ruben’s ex-partner.

[3]  Strong content in the programme includes:

• Coarse language including multiple instances of the ‘f-word’ and the ‘c-word’.
• Niall snorting drugs in bathrooms and in a car.
• Niall telling Ruben his mother had died and Ruben having a fit of rage.
• Niall at a ‘chem sex party’ receiving oral sex in a spa with his friend from others at the party (this occurred 37 minutes into the programme, after 9pm). Men’s naked torsos could be seen but no other nudity was shown.
• Niall returning to his car sweating and breathing heavily, having taken illicit drugs at the party.
• Niall throwing up on Ruben’s unconscious mother who is lying in bed connected to life-support equipment.
• Niall getting a sexual health check-up.
• Niall crashing his car into a street pole while high on drugs after a chem sex party.
• Towards the end of the episode (approx. 75 minutes in), Niall visits Ruben in prison and discloses that he is gay. Ruben tells Niall that he was sexually abused by his father. Niall then discloses that he slept with Ruben’s ex-partner and the child was his rather than Ruben’s. Ruben turns.
• The scene abruptly shifts to Ruben suffocating Niall on the ground of a barn at his wedding. Niall bites Ruben’s hand and they wrestle, before Niall stabs Ruben in his side. Ruben then continues suffocating Niall until he dies. TVNZ advised while not shown on screen, Ruben also dies, as his body was seen being carried by emergency workers in a previous episode.

The complaint

[4]  Kathy Lidgard said she turned on the programme ‘by mistake week after week’, as she wanted to watch the following programme which was running behind schedule and therefore was ‘trapped’ into watching. She complained the programme breached the offensive and disturbing content, children’s interests, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, and discrimination and denigration standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  The programme was shown at ‘the early time of 8.30pm’ and contained ‘extreme violence, offensive and disturbing content, and antisocial behaviour which could be thought of as acceptable by unsupervised children who may have watched this, or even part of it as I did’.

b)  The programme offers nothing ‘uplifting’, instead showing ‘every behaviour human beings should not emulate […] the absolute lack of any kind of love or empathy, the paying back and revenge mentality, the violence and lack of respect for women and relationships’.

c)  The programme is ‘not quality and should not be shown on NZ television at all’.

d)  On referring the complaint to the Authority and responding to TVNZ’s decision, she submitted that the scheduling of the programme at 8.30pm was ‘completely inappropriate, as well as the R16 rating’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) considered Lidgard’s complaint in relation to the 2 June 2026 episode, as this was the date she identified in her complaint.¹ It noted the following contextual factors:

a)  ‘Half Man is a gritty six-part drama series which explores toxic masculinity, the brittle bonds of male friendship, and repressed sexuality through the chaotic and co-dependent relationship of two stepbrothers, Niall and Ruben.’

b)  ‘[TVNZ] observes that the gritty nature of the storyline is clear from the outset and given that this is the sixth episode in the series and in a 16-certificate context, viewers are able to make a decision about whether they wish to view such material.’

c)  The episode was rated 16-VLSC and preceded by a written warning: ‘This programme is 16. Mature, and may contain coarse language (L), violence (V), sexual themes (S) or offensive content (C)’. The voiceover to the warning stated, ‘The following programme is classified 16, people under 16 years should not view’.

d)  ‘16 programmes may be screened after 8.30pm until 5am.’

[6]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint under the nominated standards for the following reasons:

Offensive and disturbing content

[7]  It considered the coarse language, sex scenes and violence depicted in the episode were within expectations of a 16-VLSC rated programme.

[8]  ‘The purpose of the Offensive and Disturbing Content Standard is not to prohibit challenging material, or material that some people may find offensive. Its purpose is to ensure sufficient care is taken so that challenging material is played only in an appropriate context, and that the challenges are not so offensive that they are unacceptable regardless of context.’

[9]  Noting the contextual factors listed above, it did ‘not agree that it would offend or disturb a significant number of viewers in the context of screening’.

Children’s interests

[10]  ‘16VLS certificate programmes are not aimed at or intended to be viewed by child viewers and sufficient information is provided in the programme presentation including the full frame warning, the certificate given and the time the programme played, so that child viewers could be protected from potentially adverse material.’

[11]  ‘TVNZ1 is a channel which is not aimed at or appealing to child viewers. It is known to have a low child viewership.’

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[12]  ‘[TVNZ] does not agree that a reasonable viewer outtake of the programme is that illegal or seriously anti-social behaviour is condoned. Viewers will understand that while such behaviour is something which is depicted or discussed this is not a good outcome or one which should be celebrated.’

[13]  ‘It is not reasonable to expect that storytelling for adult viewers will only include or show positive experiences as dramatic works are often a reflection of the human experience, and life sometimes is brutal, and complex and broken. [TVNZ] considers that the 16-certificate viewer will be able to understand this and process the story being depicted accordingly.’

Discrimination and denigration

[14]  The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of legitimate drama, and ‘There was no material in the programme that expressed a high level of condemnation of any group of people’.

Further submissions

[15]  In response to a request by the Authority for clarification on the difference in rating between this episode on TVNZ+ (18) and free-to-air television (16), TVNZ advised:

a)  ‘The series was appraised 18 for TVNZ+ and when it went onto linear (TVNZ1) it was reassessed.’

b)  Some episodes were edited to meet the requirements of a 16 classification for linear television. The episode complained about was not edited but had a full-screen warning applied: ‘That was the decision which was made given the time it was screening, and what time the sex scene would screen, and also given the full-frame warning and viewer expectation of the series (given that it was the finale). Those were contextual aspects that the plays on TVNZ+ don’t have (except the viewer expectation) and explain the different thinking for the two platforms.’

c)  ‘Part of the assessment was that the series is rated MA15+ in Australia which is equivalent to the 16 [certificate] in NZ (Australia also has an 18 [certificate]).’

The standards

[16]  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.² The standard states:³

• 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.

[17]  The purpose of the children’s interests standard (standard 2) is to enable parents and caregivers to protect children from material that disproportionately disturbs them, is harmful, or is likely to impair their physical, mental, or social development.⁴ The standard states:⁵

Broadcasters should ensure children⁶ can be protected from content that might adversely affect them.

[18]  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.⁷ The standard states:⁸

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.

[19]  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.⁹ As the complainant has not identified a relevant section of the community allegedly subject to discrimination and denigration, the standard does not apply and we do not address it in our decision.

Our analysis

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

[21]  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 and uphold a complaint where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.¹⁰

[22]  A key question in this case was whether the episode was classified appropriately. We have determined the episode’s strong content and themes went beyond a 16 rating, and required a higher rating of 18, meaning it should have aired in a later timeslot. We therefore found a breach of one of the broadcasting standards nominated – the offensive and disturbing content standard.

[23]  We are satisfied that upholding this aspect of the complaint does not represent an unreasonable or unjustified limit on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. We are not saying the programme should not have been broadcast. Rather, the disturbing nature of the content in this episode required the broadcaster to take further steps to ensure audiences had sufficient information about its content, to enable them to exercise choice and control. Our jurisdiction is limited to the specific episode subject to complaint, and we do not comment on the series as a whole or its designated timeslot (although we recognise our findings may guide the broadcaster in considering any future screening).

[24]  We expand on our reasons below.

Context

[25]  The context of the broadcast, including the steps taken by the broadcaster to inform audiences of its nature, is crucial to our assessment of potential harm under the standards. Broadcasters must schedule programmes responsibly, considering the likely and target audience, children’s interests, the audience’s ability to exercise choice and control, and all applicable broadcasting standards.¹¹ Where broadcasters provide consistent, reliable information to audiences about the nature of their programmes, and enable them to exercise choice and control over their own and their children’s viewing or listening, they are less likely to breach standards.¹²

[26]  We have considered the following contextual factors and information provided to viewers:

The nature of the broadcast

• Half Man is a 2026 six-part television drama created by Scottish actor and comedian Richard Gadd. It is described as an ‘explosive story of rage and brotherhood, following the volatile bond between two broken men across three decades’.¹³
• The programme complained about was the last episode in the series.
• The episode featured strong content including coarse language, extensive drug-taking, a scene depicting oral sex at a ‘chem sex party’, and an extremely violent final scene. It contained mature themes such as struggles with sexual identity, addiction, the death of a family member, sexual abuse, and anger issues.

The broadcast’s classification

• The programme was classified 16. The 16 classification indicates that people under 16 years should not view the programme. Programmes rated 16 are: ‘Programmes containing stronger material or special elements which are outside the M classification. May contain a greater degree of sexual material, offensive language, realistic violence and stronger adult themes’.¹⁴
• The classification included audience advisories ‘L’ (language may offend), ‘V’ (contains violence), ‘S’ (sexual content may offend) and ‘C’ (content may offend).¹⁵
• The classification and advisories were shown 10 seconds before the programme started, and after every ad break.

The time of broadcast

• The programme screened at 8.30pm on a Tuesday. Programmes rated 16 may be screened after 8.30pm until 5am.¹⁶
• Children’s normally accepted viewing times are usually until 8.30pm (especially before and after school), and on weekends and public holidays.¹⁷
• The Codebook recognises that challenging material broadcast late at night, as part of a dramatic narrative, is more likely to be acceptable.¹⁸

The target and likely audience

• It is clear from its rating, scheduling and content that the programme had an adult target audience.
• It also aired on TVNZ 1, which has an adult target audience.

Audience expectations of the programme

• Half Man was released in 2026. It is not a long-running series with established audience expectations – however, as noted above this was the last episode in the series, by which time regular viewers of the programme would be familiar with its storyline and themes.

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[27]  Attitudes differ widely and continue to evolve in Aotearoa New Zealand’s diverse society. Caution must therefore be exercised when considering matters of taste and decency.¹⁹ The question under the offensive and disturbing content standard is whether the broadcast would have seriously violated community standards or disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience – notwithstanding the context of the programme and information given to viewers to enable them to exercise choice and control over their own viewing.

[28]  The complainant found the programme to be inappropriate, overly bleak and displaying morals and behaviours contrary to what she would wish to see on television. She submitted it should not be shown on television at all. We do not agree it should not have been shown at all, and consider the programme had value as a dramatic work exploring challenging real-life themes. However, we do think the programme was at risk of disproportionately offending or disturbing the audience as a result of being inadequately classified, meaning viewers were not sufficiently informed of the level of upcoming strong content.

[29]  The programme was classified 16. As above, the 16 classification indicates a programme may contain a greater degree of sexual material, offensive language, realistic violence, and stronger adult themes than an M classification (which denotes programmes containing content that some children and adults find challenging, and themes requiring a mature outlook). The 18 classification signals the programme contains themes which may be challenging or offensive even to some adult viewers.²⁰ Programmes classified 16 may be screened after 8.30pm, while 18 programmes may be screened after 9.30pm.²¹

[30]  In our view, the episode contained content and themes that were heavy, unsettling and likely to be challenging or offensive even to some adult viewers. We note the following factors:

a)  There were numerous dark, heavy and realistic themes dealt with throughout the episode, including substance abuse issues, a lifestyle out of control, struggles with sexual identity, anger issues, childhood sexual abuse, deceit, grief, and regret.  

b)  The level of drug-taking depicted was extensive – Niall was shown several times snorting drugs in bathrooms, and it was obvious he took illicit drugs at the sex parties as he returns to his car sweating and breathing heavily. Niall was also arrested after driving under the influence of what was found to be meth and crack cocaine. The overall picture gave a realistic impression of addiction spiralling out of control.

c)  The violent final scene was prolonged (lasting approximately three minutes), realistic and would likely be distressing even to some adult viewers. It included Ruben and Niall writhing on the floor of the barn, yelling and groaning, with Ruben suffocating Niall with his hands and Niall stabbing Ruben, resulting in the death of both characters.

d)  While the sex scene depicting Niall receiving oral sex in a spa with his friend from others at the party did not contain explicit nudity, and aired after 9pm, the concept and portrayal of chem/group sex parties was likely to be challenging or offensive even to some adult viewers.

e)  Other scenes, including Niall vomiting on Ruben’s unconscious mother who was lying in bed connected to life-support equipment, and Niall telling Ruben his mother had died and Ruben having a fit of rage, were confronting and upsetting.

[31]  The overall impact of the programme was darkly menacing and confronting. Its themes and content were at the ‘adult’ end of the spectrum and gave a sense of hopelessness and desolation. As a result, considering the above factors, the broadcast went beyond a 16 rating. In our view, it should have been rated 18-VLSC and aired from 9.30pm. We agree the audience advisories VLSC included by TVNZ were appropriate.

[32]  TVNZ advised that while the episode is classified 18 on its on-demand platform, its classification was reappraised and reduced to 16 for free-to-air television, with a warning applied but no changes to the content (while some other episodes were edited). The rationale for this was unclear to us, noting there is more ability for viewers to exercise choice and control when selecting content to view on demand. We acknowledge it was the final episode in the series, by which time viewers who had watched the preceding episodes would have an understanding of the storyline. However, this is not determinative and does not negate the requirement under the standard for broadcasters to carefully assess, and provide sufficient information about, the content of each programme broadcast.

[33]  We also note TVNZ’s submission that part of its assessment was that the series is rated MA15+ in Australia, being equivalent to a 16 classification in New Zealand. However, we do not consider this to be persuasive, particularly given TVNZ initially assessed the series as being 18 and it appears the programme has had various classifications, including 18, applied to it in other countries.²²

[34]  The episode’s incorrect classification and inappropriate time of broadcast meant audiences were not provided with sufficient information to decide whether they wished to watch the programme. Consequently, there was a real risk of audience members being disproportionately offended or disturbed by it.

[35]  We therefore uphold the complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard.

Children’s Interests

[36]  Under this standard, broadcasters should ensure children can be protected from content that might adversely affect them, during children’s normally accepted viewing times.²³ Again, the information provided to parents and caregivers about the nature of the programme is highly relevant in assessing whether children were able to be protected from inappropriate content.²⁴ Parents/caregivers share responsibility for protecting children and should use the information and tools available for this purpose.²⁵

[37]  While we have found the programme should have been rated 18 rather than 16, the programme screened at 8.30pm, outside children’s normally accepted viewing times. Its 16 classification gave a clear signal it was not suitable for anyone under 16 (for the purposes of this standard, a ‘child’ is under the age of 14).²⁶ The programme was clearly not targeted at children and aired on a channel targeted at adults.

[38]  Despite our finding that the programme’s content exceeded the 16 classification, the programme was clearly signposted as being unsuitable for children. Parents and caregivers therefore had sufficient information to exercise choice and control over their children’s viewing and protect them from inappropriate content. We find no breach of this standard.

Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

[39]  The complaint under this standard was that the programme contained extreme violence and antisocial behaviour.

[40]  The standard does not stop broadcasters from depicting law-breaking or antisocial behaviour, even if they do not explicitly condemn it.²⁷ Context is crucial in assessing the programme’s likely practical effect,²⁸ and guidelines to the standard explicitly recognise that fictional/dramatic works, as a form of creative expression, are unlikely to breach the standard.²⁹ 

[41]  We did not observe any content in the programme that would have encouraged audiences to break the law, or was otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity. This programme was a dramatic work exploring the volatile relationship between two troubled characters, and it would have been clear to the audience that any depictions of law-breaking or antisocial behaviour were dramatic elements of the plot.

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

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast of Half Man on 2 June 2026 by Television New Zealand Ltd breached Standard 1 (Offensive and Disturbing Content) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. 

[43]  Having upheld the complaint, the Authority may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We do not make any order in this case. Publication of this decision is sufficient to publicly notify the breach of the offensive and disturbing content standard, and to provide guidance to broadcasters. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
11 November 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Lidgard’s original complaint – 3 June 2026

2  TVNZ’s decision – 1 July 2026

3  Lidgard’s referral to the Authority – 2 July 2026

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 28 July 2026

5  TVNZ’s response to the Authority’s request for clarification – 23 September 2026

¹ Under the Broadcasting Act 1989, a complaint must relate to a specific broadcast
² Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary: Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
⁵ Standard 2: Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ A ‘child’ is under the age of 14 years
⁷ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁸ Standard 3: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁰ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹¹ Guideline 1.13: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 7
¹² Guideline 1.3: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
¹³ TVNZ+ “Half Man” <tvnz.co.nz>
¹⁴ Guideline 1.4, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6. The ‘M’ classification indicates ‘Programmes might contain violence, sexual material, offensive language, adult themes, nudity, or other content that some children and adults find challenging. May contain material with a moderate impact and themes that require a mature outlook.’
¹⁵ Guideline 1.8, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 7
¹⁶ Guideline 1.16, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁷ Guideline 2.1, Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 9
¹⁸ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁹ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
²⁰ Guideline 1.4: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
²¹ Guideline 1.16: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
²² For example, the British Board of Film Classification rates five out of six episodes, including this final episode, as 18 <bbfc.co.uk>
²³ Guideline 2.1: Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 9
²⁴ Guideline 2.3: Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 9
²⁵ Commentary: Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
²⁶ Standard 2: Children’s Interests, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁷ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
²⁸ Guideline 3.1 Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
²⁹ Guideline 3.1 Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11