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 1News item about an Auckland ‘March Against Antisemitism’ rally, held in the wake of the Bondi Beach Hanukkah Festival shooting, was unbalanced and inaccurate. The complaint was that the broadcaster failed to appropriately challenge rally participants on multiple points, resulting in omission of context and perspectives and the audience being misled, including by mischaracterisation of the rally and the suggestion Hamas was connected to the Bondi Beach shooting. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply because the broadcast, which focused on the concerns of the New Zealand Jewish community and commemoration of the Bondi Beach victims, was a report on events rather than a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance. In the context, it noted viewers would not have expected the broadcaster to challenge the rally participants or present the other perspectives outlined in the complaint. The Authority also found the inaccuracies raised either would not have materially misled viewers or concerned matters of opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 21 December 2025 broadcast of 1News included an item about an Auckland rally that took place a week after the shooting at the Bondi Beach Hanukkah Festival. The first half of the four-minute-long item was as follows:

1News presenter:                  'There's no ceasefire in the war on Jews'. Those stark words from Jewish Kiwis at an antisemitism rally in Auckland. A week on from the Australian terror attack, several hundred gathered in support of the Bondi victims, and highlight what they say is unfair treatment. [1News reporter] reports.

NZ Against Hamas:               Jewish lives matter!

1News reporter:                    A week on from the Bondi shooting, Jewish Kiwis couldn't have been clearer today, about 300 gathering in Aotea Square to rally against antisemitism in the wake of those 15 murders.

Rally attendee one:               The whole world is chaotic, and I want to honour the lives of those that were taken.

1News reporter:                    But the tone was raw, speakers brutal in their assessment of what they see as grossly unfair treatment after the October 7 attack and ensuing war in Gaza. Some said Jewish people had been blamed for the latter.

Speaker one (NZJC):            There is no ceasefire in this war on Jews. It continues unabated and is escalating.

Speaker two:                         We've been gaslit and we've been ignored.

1News reporter:                    Still, radicalism is the background beat to this march. The surviving Bondi shooter is said to have been influenced by Islamic State ideology. He's been charged with multiple counts of murder and one of terrorism.

Hon David Seymour:            It's critical for New Zealand that a group of people can get together, celebrate what's important to them and not fear violence for doing so.

1News reporter:                    This organiser is the founder of the New Zealand Against Hamas organisation. She believes New Zealanders have been unbalanced in their view of Israel and the war, but today took a moment to recognise a hero.

NZ Against Hamas:               I would also like to honour Ahmad Al-Ahmad, an Australian member of the public who disarmed one of the Bondi terrorists with his bare hands.

1News reporter:                    Organisers ask that marchers carry no signs expressing profanities or hatred to any groups, including Muslims. It's also a silent march.

Rally attendee two:               We don't have to stand and shout slogans and scream at people. We're a peaceful bunch. We really want to live in peace.

Rally attendee three:            For us, seeing Jews and Israelis getting massacred like this, it's tough, exactly as if it happened in Israel, and we're trying to make sure it won't happen again.

1News reporter:                    One week ago, the hate ended the lives of so many.

Rally attendee four:              We hope and we pray that the good people stand up, wake up now, stand up to this, and turn the tide around, bring the light.

1News reporter:                    A message of hope in the wake of so much devastation.

[2]  The remaining half of the item discussed commemorations in Australia for victims of the Bondi attacks.

The complaint

[3]  John Minto, on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. He considered the item ‘failed to apply a balanced and objective scepticism to the highly political claims and assertions made by those who took part in that rally’ for the following key reasons:

Mischaracterisation of the rally

a)  ‘The context of the rally was not just the Bondi attack itself, but the repressive legislation it has triggered, particularly against freedom of speech, being passed in New South Wales. That legislation was justified as being necessary to curb antisemitism, though the primary aim of those laws is to restrict criticism of Israel...’

b)  ‘A number of speakers defended and justified Israel and Israeli actions.’

c)  ‘Given the nature of the rally, and that support of Palestinian rights was considered there to be antisemitic, the report of it warranted some degree of assessment and revealing of what the actual political aims of the organisers were. There was no such assessment, nor any suggestion that any assessment, or even mention, of such a political dimension, was required’.

d)  Consequently, the broadcast ‘represented an unchallenged acceptance by 1News of the organisations’ and supporters’ agenda of Israel advocacy and consequential suppression of the right to support the freedom of Palestinians in this country’.

Flag of Israel

e)  The report noted the organisers’ instructions to marchers were that they ‘carry no signs expressing profanities or hatred to any groups, including Muslims’. However, the reporter did not ‘mention or question’ the many Israeli flags ‘prominently on display, including at the head of the preceding march’.

f)  ‘That flag is the insignia of more than two years of genocide, ethnic cleansing, warfare by starvation and mass bombing of the Palestinians of Gaza.’ To Palestinians, Lebanese and their supporters, displaying the flag of Israel ‘could not be a more profound expression of hatred’.  

g)  There was no ‘broader contrary point of view’ – ‘from Jews, Palestinians, Lebanese, or anyone else’ – regarding ‘why they did not support this expression of Israeli solidarity’.

‘NZ Against Hamas’

h)  The broadcast identified one of the rally’s organisers as the founder of ‘NZ Against Hamas’, with the organisation’s name ‘also depicted on the march banner’. ‘That Hamas was in some way connected to, or responsible for, the attacks in Bondi, was left by 1News as a misleading assumption to be made by viewers.’

‘There’s no ceasefire in the war on Jews’

i)  The broadcast highlighted this quote from a representative of the New Zealand Jewish Council – ‘a well-known Israel supporter’ – from a speech she gave at the rally. The bulletin was introduced with this statement, and the relevant segment of the speech was included in the item.

j)  ‘This was obviously a reference to the Gaza October ceasefire and was intended to convey some message to the audience that, unlike the Palestinians in Gaza, Jews in New Zealand, are very vulnerable, as they were not protected by a ceasefire.’

k)  ‘As far as we are aware, no Jewish person in New Zealand has ever been injured or killed in what could be described as an anti-Semitic attack. In contrast, in the two months of the Gaza ceasefire, Israel has directly killed more than 400 Palestinians, as well as the hundreds of thousands dead because of Israel’s attack over two years. Dreadful as the killings at Bondi were, the reporting in this item has lost all sense of comparative scale.’

‘…speakers brutal in their assessment of what they see as grossly unfair treatment after the October 7 attack and ensuing war in Gaza. Some said Jewish people had been blamed for the latter.’

l)  ‘No evidence for such blame was broadcast.’ Instead, ‘an assumption was made by 1News that this blaming has occurred’.

m)  ‘What this unfair treatment constituted was not specified either. The viewer is left with the misleading impression that such complaints are so self-evident they are not worth explaining.’

Describing the Bondi attack as ‘murder’ and an act of ‘terror’

n)  ‘1News described the attack in Bondi as both “murder” and an act of “terror”. Indeed it was both. But a court has yet to rule on whether either definition is to be formalised. Where Israeli supporters are concerned such a lack of legal findings is no bar to 1News’ reporting.’

o)  ‘In complete contrast, 1News refuses to use the description ‘genocide’ to describe Israeli actions in Gaza […] 1News insists conveniently and selectively that it could not describe Israeli actions as genocide until such time as the International Court of Justice makes its final decision on the South African led case, which will not be brought down until at least 2027.’

Statements made by the reporter

p)  ‘One week ago, the hate ended the lives of so many’: The reporter made this statement ‘editorially’, ‘deciding on both [the] motive and scale’ of the Bondi attacks and demonstrating the reporter’s ‘sympathy for the views of the rally organisers’.

q)  ‘A message of hope in the wake of so much devastation’: The reporter concluded with this – and, in doing so, endorsed a statement from a march participant, who expressed hope the ‘good people, stand up, wake up now, stand up to this, and turn the tide around, bring the light’. ‘The reporter ought to have been questioning the marcher what expressions, such as “step up” actually meant, instead of reinforcing his demands […] in an overly sympathetic manner which we have never seen any reporter for 1News ever respond to Palestinian concerns with.’

[4]  In subsequent submissions, including in response to TVNZ’s decision, the complainant noted:

a)  TVNZ routinely relies on balance being available in other media. However, TVNZ promotes itself as New Zealand’s premium news source yet ‘advises complainants to go elsewhere for balanced coverage’. The approach suggests it is impossible to fall foul of the balance standard.

b)  TVNZ say the item is not ‘an issue of public importance’ – but an item that refers to antisemitism, Hamas, hate, October 7, terrorism, unfair treatment, radicalism, a ‘war on Jews’ that is ‘unabated and escalating’, gaslit, and ‘turn the tide’ must concern an issue of public importance and concern.

c)  Legislation introduced in New South Wales to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism – which the complainant described as ‘repressive legislation’ triggered by the Bondi attack and part of the ‘context of the rally’ – includes examples of ‘antisemitism’ containing inappropriate underlying assumptions and risks inappropriate controls over freedom of speech.

d)  TVNZ are wrong to suggest the Israeli flag in New Zealand is a symbol of the Jewish people as opposed to a ‘hate symbol’. This conflicts with the IHRA legislation’s requirement for differentiation between Jews and the State of Israel.

e)  An ‘issue with the frequent and unquestioned media claims that there is so much unequivocal and clear evidence of the rate of antisemitism (however it is measured) increasing, so that there is no need to cite particular examples. The political utility for friends of Israel to use such claim, the fluid and broad claims of what constitutes antisemitism (in particular criticism of Israel) and a track record of [some figures] misciting clear evidence of falling rates of antisemitic events, all mitigate against unquestioned media acceptance of the narrative of antisemitism increasing always and everywhere.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

a)  The report did not discuss a controversial issue of importance, and, in any case, it was clear to viewers it was from a particular perspective: that of rally participants and organisers.

b)  Viewpoints on Palestine and the conflict in Gaza are widely available, including on 1News, the New Zealand Herald, Stuff and Radio New Zealand.¹

c)  The item did not discuss the conflict in Gaza in any material way; the focus was on the Bondi Beach killings and the antisemitism rally in New Zealand in response.

Accuracy

d)  Referring to the complainant’s concerns about missing context, in particular the proposed New South Wales legislation, TVNZ said ‘criticism of Israel and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in regard to their actions in Gaza’ did not constitute antisemitism under the IHRA definition. In any event, the IHRA definition was not discussed in the report and therefore is not relevant.

e)  Content broadcast from the rally does not support allegations the item represented an unchallenged acceptance of the organisers’ and supporters’ agenda and consequential suppression of the right to support the freedom of Palestinians in New Zealand.

f)  Showing the Israeli flag in news reports is not prohibited. The Israeli flag in New Zealand is a symbol of the Jewish people. Jews in New Zealand can suffer from antisemitism, and this has increased markedly since 2023.² Accordingly, TVNZ did not agree ‘that the footage of the Israeli flags at protests held in New Zealand is akin to hate symbols’.

g)  The statement ‘[t]here’s no ceasefire in the war on Jews’ was made by a representative of the New Zealand Jewish Council and is quoted as an opinion. The reporter’s statements, that speakers at the rally discussed ‘what they see as grossly unfair treatment after the October 7 attack and ensuing war in Gaza’ and ‘Jewish people had been blamed for the latter’, were also statements of the speakers’ opinions and perceptions rather than statements of fact. The accuracy standard does not apply to opinion.

h)  TVNZ does not agree it is reasonable to compare New Zealand circumstances with the Middle East. However, it said the complainant’s comments about attacks on Jewish people in New Zealand were incorrect, noting children at a Jewish school in Auckland had been stabbed in 1990.³

i)  The argument that depiction of the ‘NZ Against Hamas’ founder and banner would lead viewers to assume Hamas was responsible for or connected to the Bondi attacks was not supported by the report’s reference to the Bondi shooter having been ‘influenced by Islamic State ideology’.

j)  The report’s references to the Bondi attack as ‘murder’ and an act of ‘terror’ were consistent with charges laid against the shooter.

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴ The standard states:⁵

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ The standard states:⁷

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

[8]  We have watched 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 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.⁸

Balance

[10]  The balance standard only applies when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes. The Israel-Hamas conflict is a controversial issue of public importance.⁹ The appropriate approach to addressing antisemitism in the wake of the Bondi Beach shootings may also be a controversial issue of public importance. However, these issues were not the focus of the broadcast, nor discussed more than in passing references.

[11]  The broadcast is primarily a news report about specific events: the Auckland rally against antisemitism and Australian commemorations for victims of the Bondi attacks.¹⁰ It briefly conveyed some of the participants’ concerns around unfair treatment, wishes to live in safety and hopes that ‘good people’ would stand up and ‘turn the tide around’. However, it did not go on to engage with any issues surrounding the causes of, or ways to address, the participants’ concerns. There was no reference to, for example, the proposed New South Wales legislation, described by the complainant as ‘repressive’ and a threat to ‘freedom of speech’. In addition, while we note the complainant’s submission around the various terms used in the broadcast – such as ‘October 7’, ‘terrorism’ or the ‘war in Gaza’ – we do not agree these background references (even in combination) amounted to a discussion of these contextual topics.

[12]  The balance standard is not intended to be applied to brief news reports in a way that requires in-depth background context in each item about current events in an ongoing issue. As the broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance, the balance standard does not apply.

[13]  In any event, we note the standard’s requirement to present alternative perspectives is reduced where it is clear the programme is:¹¹

a)  not claiming, or intended, to be a balanced examination of an issue

b)  signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective

c)  narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.

[14]  This broadcast was exactly that: clearly focused on the concerns of the New Zealand Jewish community and commemoration of the Bondi Beach shooting victims. In this context, viewers would not have expected the broadcaster to challenge the rally organisers or participants, nor present the types of perspectives outlined in the complaint.

[15]  Concerns around varying approaches to the reporting of Jewish or Israeli, as opposed to Palestinian, perspectives appear to be the crux of some of the complainant’s concerns – in particular, those referring to:

a)  the description of the Bondi attack as ‘murder’ and an act of ‘terror’ when ‘1News refuses to use the description “genocide” to describe Israeli actions in Gaza’

b)  failure to ‘mention or question’ the Israeli flags on display at the march

c)  the reporter demonstrating ‘sympathy for the views of the rally organisers’ and responding ‘in an overly sympathetic manner which we have never seen any reporter for 1News ever respond to Palestinian concerns with’.

[16]  However, these raise issues of bias rather than the failure to present alternative views on significant issues as contemplated under the balance standard. As we have previously explained to the complainant,¹² the balance standard does not address these kinds of issues of bias.¹³

[17]  Finally, we note the complainant’s comments about the balance standard allowing for balance to be achieved in other media. While not relevant to our finding above, we note this feature of the standard reflects the current broadcasting environment in New Zealand and the increased flows of information available from sources and on topics of all kinds. Our recent Trust in News Media research, for example, demonstrated New Zealanders are using, on average, three different sources for their news.¹⁴ This lessens the need for every individual broadcaster to cover all significant perspectives on relevant issues. The test under the standard is therefore whether the audience ‘can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. We have acknowledged this means complaints under the balance standard will rarely be upheld.¹⁵ However, this does not mean it is ‘impossible to fall foul of the balance standard’ as a review of our published decisions under this standard will demonstrate.¹⁶

[18]  For the reasons above, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[19]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[20]  The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹⁷

[21]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.¹⁸

[22]  We address the following accuracy issues raised by the complainant below:

• mischaracterisation of the rally
• depiction of the Israeli flag
• depiction of the ‘NZ Against Hamas’ founder and banner
• the statement: ‘There is no ceasefire in the war on Jews’
• the description of rally speakers as ‘brutal in their assessment of what they see as grossly unfair treatment after October 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza’, with some saying ‘Jewish people have been blamed for the latter’.

Mischaracterisation of the rally

[23]  The complainant states the broadcast mischaracterised the rally by failing to:

a)  include context such as the ‘repressive legislation’ triggered by the Bondi attack, which is argued to have the ‘primary aim’ to ‘restrict criticism of Israel’¹⁹

b)  include any assessment of the organisers’ political aims

c)  note that some speakers ‘defended and justified’ Israel.

[24]  We do not consider the rally was mischaracterised by failure to include such context or assessment. The story was focused on the participants’ concerns around unfair treatment, wishes to live in safety and hopes that ‘good people’ would stand up and ‘turn the tide around’, rather than on any mechanisms to address these concerns or analysis of the organisers’ political aims. In these circumstances, the absence of such context or assessment would not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.²⁰

[25]  We accept some speakers expressed views beyond what was conveyed in the item.²¹ However, this does not undermine the concerns and perspectives that were conveyed, nor did the story purport to be a summary of all views expressed at the rally. The story’s focus, and the selection of comments included, is a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion. Viewers are likely to understand those attending or presenting at such an event will have varying views and perspectives and are unlikely to be materially misled by the way in which the rally was depicted.²²

Depiction of the Israeli flag

[26]  The complainant noted the march organisers’ reported instructions were to ‘carry no signs expressing profanities or hatred to any groups including Muslims’ – yet the reporter did not ‘mention or question’ the presence of Israeli flags, which ‘to Palestinians, Lebanese and their supporters’ is ‘a profound expression of hatred’, nor offer alternative views regarding ‘this expression of Israeli solidarity’.

[27]  We understand the complainant’s key concern surrounds the reporter not ‘mentioning or questioning’ the presence of the Israeli flags, which has been addressed at paragraphs [15]–[16]. However, for completeness, we have identified no concerns, from an accuracy perspective, surrounding the report’s description of the rally’s instructions and the presence of Israeli flags.

Depiction of ‘NZ Against Hamas’ founder and banner

[28]  The complainant said reference to one of the rally’s organisers as the founder of ‘NZ Against Hamas’, and the depiction of this group’s name on a banner, would have misled viewers to assume Hamas was connected with or responsible for the attacks in Bondi. We do not agree this is an inference likely to be drawn by reasonable viewers. As noted by TVNZ, this conclusion is reinforced by the report’s indication the shooter was ‘influenced by Islamic State ideology’ rather than by Hamas.

‘No ceasefire in the war on Jews’

[29]  The complainant said this was ‘obviously a reference to the Gaza October ceasefire’ and intended to convey that Jews are vulnerable, not being protected by a ceasefire like Palestinians in Gaza. The vulnerability of Jews compared to Palestinians in Gaza has ‘lost all sense of comparative scale’.

[30]  Whether or not the statement can be so interpreted, it was not a statement of fact. As noted above, the accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.  

Speakers’ assessment of ‘grossly unfair treatment’ and reference to Jewish people being blamed for events

[31]  The complaint in relation to these statements concerned the lack of evidence produced to support them, which risked viewers being misled to believe they are ‘so self-evident they are not worth explaining’.

[32]  However, again, these were not statements of fact but of analysis, comment or opinion clearly attributed to speakers at the event: ‘But the tone was raw, speakers brutal in their assessment of what they see as grossly unfair treatment after the October 7 attack and ensuing war in Gaza. Some said Jewish people had been blamed for the latter’ (emphasis added). TVNZ’s viewers can be expected to understand the speakers were expressing their own views and that others may hold different views. The accuracy standard does not apply to such content.

[33]  For the reasons above, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 July 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Minto’s original complaint – 30 December 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 4 February 2026

3  Minto’s referral to the Authority – 1 March 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 2 April 2026

5  Minto’s further comments – 13 April 2026

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 24 April 2026

¹ TVNZ referenced reports available on its website and those of other broadcasters at <1news.co.nz/tags/israel-gaza conflict/>; <nzherald.co.nz/topic/gaza/>; <stuff.co.nz/topics/gaza-0> and <rnz.co.nz/tags/gaza>
² Citing Adam Hollingworth "Steep rise in anti-Semitic offences in NZ after October 7" Stuff (online ed, New Zealand, 21 November 2025)
³ Citing Torika Tokalau "Our Truth, Tā Mātou Pono: The 1977 hate speech attack on Jews in Auckland's Remuera" Stuff (online ed, New Zealand, 6 February 2021)
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁵ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ For a similar finding, see Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-081 at [18]; Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-017 at [21]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [11]; and Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [14]
¹⁰ The Authority has previously recognised that the balance standard will not apply to simple reports or recounting of events. See, for example, OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077; and Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-045
¹¹ Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² See, for example, Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082 at [9] and Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-053 at [25].
¹³ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁴ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Trust in News Media (October 2025) at page 17
¹⁵ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁶ All of the Authority’s decisions are available on its website (<bsa.govt.nz/decisions>) and are searchable by ‘standards’ and ‘standards breached’.
¹⁷ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁸ Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁹ In the wake of the Bondi Beach shooting, New South Wales introduced the Prevention of Antisemitism Bill 2026, intended to adopt and apply the IHRA definition of antisemitism for public and university purposes in New South Wales.
²⁰ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²¹ See, for example, Israel Institute of New Zealand (22 December 2025) "March Against Antisemitism - 21 Dec 2025, Auckland - Dr David Cumin" <israelinstitute.nz>
²² For a similar finding, see Sharifi and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-009 at [11]