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 the action taken by NZME in relation to an Alternative Commentary Collective (ACC) host describing the All Blacks vs Italy game at Wellington’s stadium as ‘a paedophile’s delight … families as far as the eye can see’, was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard and advised it had spoken to the Content Director for Radio Hauraki, who discussed the matter with the hosts involved, reducing the likelihood of future similar breaches occurring. The Authority considered this to be sufficient in the circumstances.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content (Action Taken)

The broadcast

[1]  On Saturday 11 July 2026, the All Blacks played against Italy at Wellington’s stadium. The Alternative Commentary Collective¹ (ACC) covered the match on Radio Hauraki from 5pm (earlier than the usual 7pm kick-off). In their opening commentary, the ACC hosts said:

Host 1:    Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the second test match of the Nations Championship live from … Wellington. It’s the All Blacks versus Italy, live... And it’s a great pleasure to welcome along this evening, [Host 2].

Host 2:    Yeah gidday, [Host 1]. What an absolute treat to be here ... What a time to be alive. Wellington is absolutely fizzing this evening – and this afternoon, as the case may be, with this Italian test kicking off at 5pm. An early treat and can I just say, it is a paedophile’s delight here tonight [co-host could be heard laughing] at [Wellington] Stadium. There is families as far as the eye can see. It is wholesome, it is good, and we are about to get down to business with Italy taking on the might of the All Blacks, and can I just predict a hiding coming the way of the Azure.

[2]  A minute-and-a-half later, as the teams were running out onto the field, a thumping noise could be heard and the hosts said:

Host 1:    Sounds like there’s someone pounding on one of our microphones at the moment…

Host 2:    Does seem like someone may be whacking off in the distance…

Host 1:    They’ve stopped pounding on it now. Thank Christ. I think it was all the, some of the thousands of children that are here this afternoon [muffled: that’s found a microphone]…

Host 2:    [Muffled: Well it might’ve been me] I started touching dials and people started sprinting in saying, don’t touch those.

Host 1:    So we will stand for the anthems here at [Wellington] Stadium. Thanks for joining us here live… [Italian anthem followed]

The complaint

[3]  The complainant wrote to NZME Radio Ltd (NZME) saying they were completely ‘shocked and disgusted’ by the ACC host’s comment around 5.10pm that it was ‘a paedophile’s delight’ at the stadium, with ‘so many families’ there – and ‘it didn’t stop there, they went on to discuss paedophile sexual behaviour a few moments later’. The complainant said they were ‘appalled that this was broadcast on a national show’.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  NZME upheld the complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

We understand that this remark [‘a paedophile’s delight’] was intended as an attempt at humour. However, we accept that the remark relied on a reference to paedophilia which many listeners would regard as serious and inherently disturbing.

While the comment was brief and there was no advocacy or endorsement of paedophilia, we accept that the use of such a reference in the context of a mainstream sporting broadcast was inappropriate and likely to cause offence to a significant number of listeners. We also recognise that rugby broadcasts attract family audiences, including children, and that many listeners would not have expected this type of humour in that setting, particularly in light of the earlier game time just after 5pm.

Having considered the context and the wording used, we have decided to uphold [the] complaint…

[5]  In terms of action taken in response to this breach, NZME said:

We have discussed the matter with the Content Director for Radio Hauraki. The station has advised that the comment was regrettable and that the hosts/commentators have been spoken to regarding the remark and appropriate broadcast standards expectations. We consider that this action addresses the concerns raised and reduces the likelihood of similar comments being made in future broadcasts.

[6] In later correspondence, responding to the complainant’s suggestion it had not properly addressed the second part of the complaint (comments about ‘paedophilic sexual behaviour’), NZME said it did not intend to dismiss that part of the complaint but assessed the specific comment identified (‘paedophile’s delight’) as being ‘the predominant complaint’. NZME said it had identified ‘generic commentary’ a couple of minutes after that comment, which it presumed was the ‘discussions of paedophilic sexual behaviour’ the complainant referred to (the reference to a pounding noise and ‘someone whacking off’). In relation to that commentary, NZME said:

The link has to be drawn rather than any express statement about paedophilia being made, however, following the earlier ‘paedophile's delight’ comment, we can understand why [the complainant] heard the discussion as continuing, and we accept that the earlier comment may have aggravated the offensiveness of what followed.

NZME is not suggesting any of this commentary was acceptable. The ‘paedophile’s delight’ comment was pointed and inappropriate, and as a result NZME upheld the complaint.

The standard

[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.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.

Our analysis

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

[9]  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 against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁴

Offensive and disturbing content – action taken

[10]  Where the broadcaster has upheld a complaint in the first instance, our role is to consider the sufficiency of the action taken assessed against the gravity of the breach.⁵ We consider the severity of the conduct, the extent of the actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm.

[11]  The broadcaster has accepted that referring to a family-friendly event as ‘a paedophile’s delight’ was inappropriate, in breach of the offensive and disturbing content standard. It acknowledged in later submissions that this comment may have ‘aggravated the offensiveness’ of the later commentary the complainant identified – although we note that, having listened carefully to the audio, it did not appear to be intended as a continuation of a theme or to refer to ‘paedophilic sexual behaviour’ as suggested in the complaint (the mention of the ‘thousands of children’ was in reference to someone possibly interfering with one of the ACC’s microphones).

[12]  In terms of the action taken, NZME discussed the matter with Radio Hauraki’s Content Director, and ‘The station … advised that the comment was regrettable and that the hosts/commentators have been spoken to regarding the remark and appropriate broadcast standards expectations’. It considered this sufficiently remedied the breach and reduced the likelihood of similar breaches in future. 

[13]  The complainant said they were dissatisfied because: ‘NZME states only that the hosts or commentators “have been spoken to”. It has not provided a direct apology, a public acknowledgement or correction, details of any formal disciplinary or educational response, or any specific editorial safeguards intended to prevent repetition.’

[14]  While we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns about the inappropriateness of the comment given the ‘family-friendly’ context, overall, we find the action taken by NZME was sufficient and proportionate in the circumstances, taking into account the following factors:

a)  The broadcaster accepted the comment was inappropriate and contrary to accepted norms of taste and decency. It acknowledged the potential harm and upheld the complaint in the first instance.

b)  The broadcaster ensured the relevant people were made aware of the complaint and the outcome, and the hosts have been counselled to avoid similar conduct.

c)  The comment was made off-the-cuff in a live radio environment. Audiences of Radio Hauraki generally, and the ACC specifically, expect edgy, adult humour and ‘questionable banter’.⁶

d)  Noting the context of a high-profile international sporting match starting at the earlier time of 5pm, we accept it may have attracted a broader-than-usual audience, and that it was within children’s normally accepted listening times – increasing the potential for listeners to be surprised or offended by it on this particular occasion. Nevertheless, audience expectations of the ACC are well-established, and it is clearly not targeted at child listeners.

[15]  In these circumstances, we do not consider any further action or penalty is warranted. We are satisfied the steps taken by the broadcaster were sufficient to avoid similar conduct in the future, and our published decision will record that NZME has accepted the broadcast breached standards.

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

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  Lopez’s original complaint – 13 July 2026

2  NZME’s decision – 28 July 2026

3  Lopez’s referral to the Authority – 11 August 2026

4  NZME’s further comments – 19 August 2026

¹ Alternative Commentary Collective “The ACC FAQ”: ‘The Alternative Commentary Collective (ACC) was founded as a humorous alternative to traditional sports broadcasting. What began as a side project during a New Zealand cricket summer offered a looser, more irreverent style of commentary that contrasted with conventional sports coverage. Broadcasting from a caravan and embracing a distinctly Kiwi sense of humour, the ACC quickly built a following and evolved into one of New Zealand's most popular sports media brands.’ <theaccnz.com>
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 Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ For a similar approach, see EM and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2026-009 at [7]; Ffowcs-Williams and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-092 at [9]
⁶ See, for example, Mitchell and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-028 from [10]