BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

During a discussion about local government revenue and expenditure on a broadcast of The Panel, panellist Mary Lambie said Auckland Transport staff ‘need to be lined up and frankly shot because why do we spend so much on [road] cones?’ The Authority¹ did not uphold two complaints that the comment, and Lambie not revoking the comment or apologising when given the opportunity, breached the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. In context, the comment was flippant hyperbole made in a live discussion to express disapproval over local government spending. It was not a call to action. Intervention by the host and subsequent clarification of the comment by Lambie helped mitigate any harm caused by the broadcast. Overall, the broadcast carried high public interest given its discussion of public policy, and any harm caused did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

The broadcast

[1]  The Panel is an RNZ National broadcast hosted by Wallace Chapman, with each episode featuring ‘a range of panellists from right along the opinion spectrum, together with expert phone guests’.²

[2]  The show’s 25 August 2026 broadcast is the subject of the two complaints before us. It featured Mary Lambie and Jeremy Elwood as panellists and two phone guests at different sections of the broadcast, one being Westland mayor Helen Lash. The nearly 25-minute-long episode canvassed the following topics:

• the Government’s announcement it will cap the amount local councils can increase rates (to a maximum of 2–4%)
• whether sugary drinks should be taxed
• The New Zealand National Party’s emergency caucus meeting, and whether it was the ‘right call’ for Christoper Luxon to remain as leader, and
• whether hats should be worn inside.

[3]  During discussion of the Government’s rates cap announcement, Lash said the policy is ‘extremely worrying for the smaller councils like ours, for the rural provincial councils’ – a 2–4% rate increase ‘is not even going to cover maintenance’. Lambie instead praised the Government’s policy as ‘it’s going to have to make council up its game’ and provided anecdotes about what she saw as excessive council spending. Shortly after, Lambie said:

Lambie:          Yeah, but don’t you think it’s an opportunity to address some of the stupidity around some of the really silly compliance hoops that you're forced to jump through and that someone, say, up in Auckland, has to take a long hard look at AT [Auckland Transport] and think, you people need to be lined up and frankly shot because why do we spend so much on cones? I hate to think what we have spent on cones as ratepayers in Auckland, for example. 

Lash:              I heartily agree but that’s, you know– we’re talking two different things here. If you’re talking rates as in core services and the nitty-gritty of what councils have to supply, to me that's one thing. When you’re talking about this type of behaviour, that's another thing again. 

Lambie:          Yeah, but you can see the money we could save potentially. 

Lash:              Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And there’s a lot of wastage, I agree. 

Chapman:      Now, you’re hearing Mary Lambie loving the cap 4%, if that – keep it 2%. Jeremy Elwood? 

Elwood:          Well, I’ll tell you now, Helen, I’ve never been that upset about a road cone in my life. But I will say, I mean, is there any sort of give back on this? Has there been any sort of–

Chapman:      Actually, I want to jump in, I want to confirm because people are texting in – you are not literally calling for someone to be shot, of course? [Silence] Mary Lambie? [Lash laughs]

Lambie:          Yes, I’m here. 

Chapman:      Mary? 

Lambie:          I’m here. Jeremy?

Chapman:      Alright. 

[4]  About three minutes later, while discussing the National Party’s ruling out of an accommodation levy or ‘bed tax’, Lambie said:

Lambie:          And I don’t intend that they be shot, obviously, if those texts are still coming through, honestly. [Mimics snoring]

Chapman:      They are coming through, Mary, they are coming through saying– look, here’s one. 

Lambie:          Oh, don’t. 

Chapman:      No, I won’t say it. 

Lambie:          Please. 

Chapman:      [Reading text message] ‘It’s totally inappropriate to say people should get shot. Get a grip.’ 

Lambie:          Yeah, yeah. 

Chapman:      Are you going to apologise to The Panel listeners, Mary Lambie? 

Lambie:          You know what I mean. It means I am appalled by the behaviour and I don't find it ideal. So, no– look, this is silly and we’re wasting time. 

Chapman:      Alright. 

The complaints

[5]  Diane Miller and James Mowat complained Lambie saying Auckland Transport staff ‘should be lined up and shot’, and not revoking the comment or apologising when given the opportunity, amounted to a breach of broadcasting standards – specifically, the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. They considered such violent language to be ‘unacceptable’. 

[6]  Miller added it was irrelevant whether Lambie withdrew the comment immediately or apologised for it – the broadcaster ‘should still take action by refusing to have her on again’. ‘Violent rhetoric like this is unacceptable even as “hyperbolic political rhetoric”.’

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaints. It issued the same decision to Miller and Mowat, advising it had received several complaints about Lambie’s comments. The decision addressed various broadcasting standards and considerations, including freedom of expression. Components of the decision we consider most relevant to Miller and Mowat’s concerns and submissions follow, using headings from RNZ’s decision where relevant.

Freedom of expression

a)  ‘RNZ recognises that the comments prompted strong reactions from listeners and that some regarded the language used as inappropriate or offensive. However, the subject under discussion was a matter of public policy and public expenditure. Political expression, criticism of public institutions and robust debate about the use of ratepayer and taxpayer funds sit at the heart of freedom of expression and are afforded a high level of protection in broadcasting standards decisions.’

b)  ‘The role of broadcasting standards is not to prevent the expression of controversial, unpopular, strongly-worded, or passionately-held opinions. Rather, it is to balance freedom of expression against any actual harm that may arise from a broadcast.’

c)  ‘In this case, RNZ considers it significant that the remarks were made in the context of political debate and criticism of public spending decisions. It is also significant that the remarks were challenged during the programme itself. Listeners were not simply exposed to Ms Lambie's comments. They also heard audience concerns reflected back into the discussion and heard the host question and test the remarks in real time.’

d)  Freedom of expression is ‘not unlimited’. However, RNZ did not consider ‘the harm arising from the broadcast reached a level that would justify restricting that expression in this case’.

Good taste and decency

e)  While RNZ acknowledged the complainants ‘found the words “lined up and frankly shot” offensive and inappropriate’, broadcasting standards ‘must be assessed in the full context of the broadcast’ – and in this context, it did not consider the broadcast ‘breached standards of good taste and decency’.

f)  RNZ identified relevant contextual factors as including:

i)  ‘the nature of The Panel as a commentary and opinion-based programme featuring strongly expressed views’

ii)  the discussion’s subject matter was public spending and local government policy

iii)  the comments were made in the context of a political debate

iv)  ‘the remarks were reasonably capable of being understood as hyperbolic political rhetoric rather than a literal proposal’ 

v)  the host challenged Lambie’s comment and acknowledged audience concerns during the programme, and

vi)  Lambie ‘subsequently clarified that she did not intend that anyone actually be shot’.

Violence and harm

g)  While Lambie’s language ‘was violent in nature’ and ‘some listeners regarded the language as distressing or inappropriate’, RNZ did not consider the broadcast ‘encouraged, promoted, or seriously condoned’ violence as required by the relevant standard.

h)  ‘The transcript demonstrates that audience concerns were immediately recognised, that the host sought clarification, that the host later stated it was inappropriate to say people should be shot, and that Ms Lambie subsequently clarified that she did not intend that anyone actually be shot.’ A reasonable listener would not have viewed the broadcast as ‘advocating actual violence’.

Role of the host

i)  RNZ emphasised that Lambie’s comment was ‘not left unchallenged’. The host of The Panel ‘immediately recognised listener concern and returned to the issue during the discussion’. ‘He sought clarification regarding whether Ms Lambie was speaking literally, informed listeners that audience feedback was being received, stated that it was inappropriate to say people should be shot, and later invited Ms Lambie to apologise.’

j)  The broadcast therefore did not present the remarks as an uncontested endorsement of violence. Rather, listeners heard a strongly expressed political opinion, audience objection to that opinion, and direct challenge by the programme host.’

The standards

[8]  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.³ The standard states:⁴

• 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.

[9]  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.⁵ The standard states:⁶

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

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

[11]  The right to freedom of expression is our starting point when determining a complaint that broadcasting standards have been breached. This right includes both the broadcaster’s right to impart information and ideas to audiences, and the audience’s right to receive that information. The Authority’s role is to balance freedom of expression, including the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and find a breach of broadcasting standards where harm is at such a level that limiting the right to freedom of expression can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁷ 

[12]  For the reasons provided below, we do not consider the programme’s actual or potential harm reached the threshold necessary to demonstrably justify restricting RNZ’s right to freedom of expression.

Offensive and disturbing content

[13]  The offensive and disturbing content standard does not prohibit challenging material but rather ensures broadcasts do not cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or seriously undermine widely shared community standards.⁸ Attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in our diverse society. Caution must therefore be exercised when considering matters of taste and decency.⁹

[14]  When determining a complaint under this standard, it is crucial to consider the context in which the potentially offensive or distressing content occurred, as well as the broadcast’s wider context.¹⁰ Contextual considerations may include:

a)  the public interest in the programme

b)  the nature of the broadcast

c)  the broadcast’s classification (where relevant)

d)  audience expectations of the programme and the channel/station

e)  the level of the broadcaster’s editorial control over the programme (eg whether the broadcast was live or pre-recorded)

f)  any steps taken by the broadcaster to mitigate the impact of potentially offensive material broadcast unexpectedly or inadvertently.

[15]  The Panel is an unclassified current affairs radio programme broadcast on RNZ National which features robust debate from panellists ‘across the political spectrum’ on often controversial topics. The comment that forms the subject of the complaints was made as part of serious political commentary and debate over the Government’s plan to cap council rates increases – a policy announced the same day this episode of The Panel aired.¹¹ Political speech and discussion of public policy carries high public interest. Consequently, any harm caused by this broadcast must be correspondingly high to outweigh freedom of expression and justify our intervention.¹²

[16]  We recognise the violent themes of Lambie’s comment and appreciate the complainants, among others, found it offensive. In our view, however, surrounding context mitigated any potential harm caused.

[17]  The comment was flippant hyperbole in a live discussion, expressing disapproval of local government spending – specifically, spending on road cones, which reinforced the remark’s exaggerated nature. It was not a threat or call to action. Lambie confirmed this by qualifying her comment a short while later, adding:¹³

• ‘And I don't intend that they [Auckland Transport staff] be shot, obviously, if those texts are still coming through, honestly.’
• ‘You know what I mean. It means I am appalled by the behaviour, and I don't find it ideal.’

[18]  Guidance to the offensive and disturbing content standard states offensive material inadvertently broadcast from a third party is less likely to breach the standard if the host immediately redresses the issue.¹⁴ In this instance, Chapman promptly asked Lambie to clarify her comment was not literal because ‘people are texting’, signalling to Lambie and the audience that some listeners found the comment inappropriate. A few minutes later, Chapman read out listener feedback that it was ‘totally inappropriate to say people should get shot’ and offered Lambie the opportunity to apologise – albeit in a somewhat unserious tone. Elwood also immediately addressed the comment, making the light-hearted quip: ‘I’ve never been that upset about a road cone in my life.’ These steps, in addition to Lambie’s own clarification of her comment, helped mitigate any harm caused by the broadcast.¹⁵

[19]  The complainants expressed concern that Lambie did not apologise when given the opportunity. While some may have found this to be abrasive or rude, more is required to find a breach of this standard. Content must seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb its audience.¹⁶ In the context of this broadcast, we do not consider the conduct complained about met this high threshold.

[20]  Overall, we have not identified harm at a level outweighing the broadcaster’s freedom of expression and justifying regulatory intervention. We therefore find no breach of the offensive and disturbing content standard.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[21]  The promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine or promote disobedience of law, legal processes, or customs of society.¹⁷ Direct incitement to break the law is likely to breach this standard, if there is a real likelihood the audience will act on it. Broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous may have this effect.¹⁸

[22]  We consider the complainant’s concerns are best addressed under the offensive and disturbing content standard and accordingly have focused our analysis on that standard. Regardless, we do not believe the broadcast encouraged its audience to break the law, nor condoned criminal or serious antisocial activity. Although the relevant comment contained violent themes, we consider most listeners would have understood it as hyperbole. It was not a call to action but rather Lambie’s ‘vehemently expressed opinion’ on local government expenditure, made during a discussion on that subject.¹⁹ Chapman also questioned the comment after receiving listener feedback and Lambie later clarified, ‘I don't intend that they be shot, obviously’.

[23]  Accordingly, we do not find a breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard.

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 these complaints:

1  Miller’s original complaint – 25 August 2026

2  RNZ's response (Miller) – 27 August 2026

3  Miller’s referral to the Authority – 27 August 2026

4  Mowat's original complaint – 25 August 2026

5  RNZ’s decision (Mowat) – 27 August 2026

6  Mowat’s referral to the Authority – 27 August 2026

7  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 7 September 2026

¹ John Gillespie declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint
² RNZ “The Panel” <rnz.co.nz>
³ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁴ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁶ Standard 3: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁹ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁰ Guideline 1.1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
¹¹ New Zealand Government “Government to cap rates” <beehive.govt.nz>
¹² Flanagan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No 2024-020 at [7]
¹³ For a similar finding, see Reekie and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-033 at [20]; and Solomon and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-036 at [10]
¹⁴ Guideline 1.2: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
¹⁵ Compare with Blissett and RadioWorks Ltd, Decision 2012-006, in which a majority of the Authority upheld comments made by a talkback host about shooting journalists. Comments included ‘We are discussing this morning, really one of the great issues of the campaign, but unfortunately you won’t have to hear it because the media have gone mad, rabid. If I had a gun I’d shoot them, put them out of their misery, because they may have gone rabid and they may infect others,’ / ‘…no idea why somebody just hasn’t taken a shotgun there and cleaned out the entire newsroom,’ / ‘This is the reason why, if you see a rabid journalist, you shoot them straight away, and then the infection doesn’t spread.’ The Authority considered the length of the comments, their repeated use of graphic violent imagery, specificity and mode of delivery had clear potential to distress and offend, whether or not they were intended to be taken literally. There was no equivalent qualification, or challenge of the comments as in the current case.
¹⁶ For a similar finding, see Green and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2015-087 at [27] and [31]; and Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁷ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁸ Commentary: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
¹⁹ For a similar finding, see: Boulton and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-043 at [23]