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 about a Free Palestine Party (Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party) election programme broadcast on TVNZ 1. It included statements onscreen: ‘Turn the tide for Palestine’; ‘Not a ceasefire… but justice’; ‘A right of return… to Palestine’; ‘Sanction Israel’ and ‘No sanctions – no vote!’ The complaint was that this ‘pro Palestine’ election programme was ’disturbing’, unfair, and gave a biased, ‘non-factual opinion’ of what is occurring in that part of the world. The Authority did not find any breach of the nominated standards or harm that would justify limiting the Party’s political expression. The election programme was clearly identified as promoting the views of the Free Palestine Party; the statements onscreen were clearly distinguishable as opinion and advocacy, rather than making factual statements; the advertisement did not seriously threaten standards of taste or decency, in the context; and the fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Offensive and Disturbing Content; Fairness), E2: Election Programme Advocacy - Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy

The broadcast

[1]  A Free Palestine Party (Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party) election programme was broadcast just after 5pm on 16 October 2026 on TVNZ 1. It included the following statements onscreen:

Turn the tide for Palestine

Not a ceasefire…

But justice

A right of return…

To Palestine

Sanction Israel

Free Palestine Party: No sanctions – No vote!

Overview – Election Programmes

[2]  During the election period, the Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice applies to election programmes which are broadcast for a political party or candidate. This year, the election period runs from 4 October 2026 until 11.59pm on 6 November 2026, the day before polling day.

[3]  Generally, broadcasting complaints will first be determined by the broadcaster. However, the Broadcasting Act 1989 requires that complaints about election programmes must come directly to the Authority for determination. This is so that any concerns about programmes that may influence voters can be determined swiftly.

[4]  When we receive a complaint about an election programme, we seek submissions from the complainant, the broadcaster and also the political party. We also seek to determine the complaint under a fast-track process. We thank the parties involved in this matter for their timely responses to our request for submissions.

The parties’ submissions

The complaint

[5]  Jacqueline Reid complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand – triggering standard E1 (election programmes subject to other codes) of the Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice. The complaint was that:

• It was disturbing to see an unbalanced¹ and unfair advertisement that was ‘pro Palestine’.
• At the time of broadcast (around 5pm), ‘young minds of children and uneducated people would view this as accurate’. However, it gave a biased and ‘non-factual opinion of the actual facts going on in that part of the world’.
• ‘Promoting one group of people over another’ was ‘disappointing’, ‘unfair’ and biased. It could be seen as hostile towards Jewish people.
• ‘I find it very distressing that a broadcaster funded by taxpayers would subject viewers to this kind of material.’

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) said:

• ‘The Free Palestine Party is a registered political party² running in the 2026 elections and like all registered political parties it has freedom of expression rights which are protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (section 14). These rights allow that political parties can express their political views as this is essential for democratic debate and informed voting. The right to freedom of expression may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (section 5).’
• ‘TVNZ considers that the Free Palestine Party ad is an expression of opinion and advocacy and this is clearly signalled to viewers by the name of the party which is prominently shown’. Therefore, standards of accuracy are not applicable.
• Groups of people (such as the state of Israel) are not considered to be ‘organisations’ for the purposes of the fairness standard, as confirmed by the Authority in previous decisions.³

Complainant’s further comments

[7]  Responding to TVNZ’s comments, the complainant said, ‘Does this mean “political parties” have more rights [to free speech] than the average New Zealander? If so – this leaves us wide open to propaganda’ and ‘average New Zealanders don’t fall under this category’, meaning their right to free speech is limited by comparison.

The Free Palestine Party’s response

[8]  The Free Palestine Party said in response to the complaint:

• Its campaign advertisement was cleared for broadcast, and it does not believe it contravenes any standards.
• It understands that ‘the complainant has a different view on this controversial issue than does the Free Palestine Party. [The complainant] is absolutely entitled to hold and express that view. We in the Free Palestine Party are exercising our view on this matter. There are political parties contesting this election in New Zealand with views very close to those of the complainant.’

The standards

Standard E1 – Election programmes subject to other code 

[9]  Under standard E1 (election programmes subject to other code) all other standards in the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand apply, except for the balance standard (standard 5).⁴ The complainant nominated the offensive and disturbing content, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

• Offensive and Disturbing Content: 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.⁵ The standard states:⁶
  
  Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:
  • o   the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
  • o   the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.
• Fairness: The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁷ The standard states:⁸
  
  Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

[10]  Because of the nature of the complainant’s concerns that some people would have viewed the election programme as ‘accurate’, when it presented a biased, ‘non-factual opinion of the facts of what is actually occurring in that part of the world’, we have also considered the complaint in relation to Standard E2 (election programme advocacy – distinguishing factual information from opinion or advocacy) and invited the parties’ submissions on that standard as well.⁹

[11]  Standard E2 states election programmes may include debate, advocacy and opinion, but factual information should be clearly distinguishable from opinion or advocacy, and factual information must be able to be substantiated.¹⁰ Guidelines to the standard relevant for the purposes of this complaint include:

E2b      Election advertisements that promote a party’s or candidate’s policy promises are, by their very nature, highly political, often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy, rather than factual information (and are generally readily distinguishable as such).

E2c      Compliance against this standard is to be assessed on a statement-by-statement basis (and then in the context of the programme as a whole).

E2d      The assessment of whether a statement is clearly distinguishable as factual information or opinion or advocacy may include consideration of:

• the context and presentation (including tone) of the programme
• the precision (exact wording) of the statement
• whether the statement can be proven right or wrong (a fact) or is contestable or someone’s view (opinion or advocacy)
• how a reasonable viewer or listener would perceive it
• the political identity, reputation and policies of the party/candidate promoted in the programme
• whether the statement can reasonably be interpreted as an expression of political opinion or advocacy, designed to persuade voters to vote for a party/candidate
• whether the particular point was the subject of substantial other coverage (eg on television, radio or other platforms) through which viewers or listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative views and opinions to consider in making their voting decision.

Our analysis

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

[13]  The starting point in our consideration of any election programme complaint is the right to freedom of expression, and specifically the importance of political speech, which includes the right of broadcasters, political parties and candidates to impart ideas and information, and the public’s right to receive that information. This is an important right in a democratic society and is particularly important in the lead up to a general election, when political parties and candidates are seeking to influence voters, and audiences are seeking information to enable them to make informed voting decisions.¹¹

[14]  Given the high value placed on political speech in the lead up to an election, a correspondingly high threshold must be reached to conclude an election programme has breached the Election Programmes Code (ie, the harm caused or potentially caused by the programme must be great).¹² 

[15]  We have not found any such harm in this case, for the following reasons.

Standard E1: Election programmes subject to other code

Offensive and disturbing content

[16]  The complainant considered the advertisement was ‘disturbing’ in that it was ‘pro Palestine’, ‘biased’ and given taxpayer funding. The complainant also questioned whether it was motivated by hostility towards Jewish people.

[17]  Regarding the complainant’s concerns about the expenditure of taxpayer money, we note the allocation of funding for broadcast election advertising is determined by the Electoral Commission (not the broadcaster).¹³ It is not a matter of broadcasting standards and therefore outside the Authority’s jurisdiction. We are limited to considering the content of the election programme, assessed against broadcasting standards and the Election Programmes Code.

[18]  Standard E1 of the Election Programmes Code acknowledges that election programmes, including political party advertisements, are broadcast in a robust political arena, and should be viewed and interpreted accordingly. It states:

Robust debate, advocacy and expression of political opinion are a desirable and essential part of a democratic society and broadcasting standards will be applied in a manner which respects this context.

[19]  While, as the Free Palestine Party acknowledges, some may not agree with the views expressed in its advertisement, we do not consider any of its content seriously violated community standards of taste and decency or would have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience, given the context of the broadcast.

[20]  This was readily identifiable as an election programme and political advocacy, on behalf of the Free Palestine Party, a registered political party. It would have been clear to viewers that the statements shown onscreen represented the Party’s own views and political messaging.

[21]  Additionally, the Authority has previously declined to uphold complaints suggesting that showing support for Palestine, in itself, is offensive. For example, the Authority declined to determine a complaint that showing a Palestinian flag in a crowd shot at a football match breached this standard because it was ‘disturbing and offensive content and out of context’ – on the basis it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm requiring the Authority’s intervention.¹⁴ Regarding a complaint that an interviewee wearing what appeared to be a keffiyeh (as a sign of solidarity and support to Palestine) amounted to ‘unexpected disturbing material’ and ‘Jewish viewers may reasonably experience distress seeing a political symbol linked to recent tensions,’ the Authority held that:¹⁵

…the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. Allowing the free and frank expression of a wide range of views is a necessary part of living in a democracy. If the interviewee was wearing the garment as a sign of support for Palestinians, they have a right to freedom of expression, including political expression, and we do not consider it reasonable or justified for either the broadcaster or the Authority to restrict this, in the circumstances.

[22]  We consider the same reasoning applies here. The Free Palestine Party is exercising its right to free political expression in the lead up to the election and this was clear from the broadcast. Viewers may well disagree with the Party’s views. It does not automatically follow that the advertisement was unduly offensive in breach of the standard.

[23]  We find no harm under this standard arising from the broadcast.

Fairness

[24]  The fairness standard applies only to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. The complaint did not identify any individual or organisation they considered was treated unfairly, saying only that the advertisement, and ‘promoting one group of people over another’, was ‘unfair’.

[25]  To the extent that may be read as suggesting the advertisement was unfair to Israel or Israeli people, as outlined in the broadcaster’s response, past Authority decisions confirm that nations and groups of people do not qualify as an ‘organisation’ to which the standard would apply.¹⁶

Standard E2: Election programmes subject to other code

[26]  The expression of opinion in advocacy advertising is a desirable and essential part of democratic society. Guideline E2b to the standard acknowledges, as we have noted above, that election programmes promoting party or candidate policy promises are, by their very nature, highly political, often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy, rather than factual information (and are generally readily distinguishable as such).

[27]  Compliance against this standard is to be assessed on a statement-by-statement basis (and then in the context of the programme as a whole). The complainant did not identify any ‘fact’ in particular that they considered to be inaccurately conveyed; only that some viewers (especially younger people) would view the election programme as ‘accurate’, when it presented a ‘biased, non-factual opinion’ of the facts (presumably in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict).

[28]  However, applying the factors outlined in guideline E2d to the content of this advertisement, we are satisfied the statements made were clearly distinguishable as the Free Palestine Party’s opinion and political advocacy, as opposed to being statements of fact:

• the context and presentation (including tone) of the programme – this was an election programme broadcast just after 5pm during an advertisement break; the statements were shown onscreen (not verbalised) and accompanied by various brief background images (eg the sea, a map, the Palestinian flag)
• the precision (exact wording) of the statement – the language used in the onscreen statements was not factually precise, but rather clearly advocating for a certain position (eg, ‘Turn the tide for Palestine’)
• whether the statement can be proven right or wrong (a fact) or is contestable or someone’s view (opinion or advocacy) – we do not consider any of the statements amounted to a statement of fact; the statements represented the Party’s views and advocacy – eg, ‘a right of return to Palestine’, and calls to ‘sanction Israel’ – which are contestable and would attract opposing views. We note in this respect, the Free Palestine Party’s submission acknowledging there are different views on ‘this controversial issue’ and that ‘There are political parties contesting this election in New Zealand with views very close to those of the complainant.’  
• how a reasonable viewer or listener would perceive it – reasonable viewers would perceive the advertisement as promoting the Free Palestine Party’s views and political advocacy
• the political identity, reputation and policies of the party/candidate promoted in the programme – the advertisement was clearly attributed to the ‘Free Palestine Party’, giving a clear indication of what it stands for
• whether the statement can reasonably be interpreted as an expression of political opinion or advocacy, designed to persuade voters to vote for a party/candidate – the statements were clearly an expression of political opinion and advocacy, and the final statement in particular (‘No sanctions – no vote!’) was clearly designed to persuade voters to vote a certain way
• whether the particular point was the subject of substantial other coverage (eg on television, radio or other platforms) through which viewers or listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative views and opinions to consider in making their voting decision – the Israel/Palestine conflict is the subject of regular, ongoing media coverage and viewers can reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative viewpoints on the conflict.

Conclusion

[29]  Taking into account the vital importance of free political expression in the lead up to the general election, we do not consider that the right to freedom of expression ought to be limited in this case. It is important that political parties and candidates are able to exercise this right to convey their political message in the way they choose, so long as standards are maintained. The content of the Free Palestine Party advertisement did not threaten standards or cause any potential harm which warrants our intervention.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
27 October 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Reid’s complaint (to TVNZ) – 16 October 2026

2  TVNZ’s comments – 20 October 2026

3  Reid’s further comments – 23 October 2026

4  Free Palestine Party’s comments – 23 October 2026

5  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 23 October 2026

¹ Note: The complainant also nominated the balance standard (Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand) as having been breached – however, as that standard does not apply to election programmes, it is not addressed in this decision. See: Standard E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code, Election Programmes Code 2023 
² Linking to Electoral Commission | Te Kaitiaki Take Kōwhiri “Register of political parties” <elections.nz>
³ Citing Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16], where the Authority found ‘Russia as a nation is not an “organisation” for the purposes of this standard.’
⁴ Standard E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code, Election Programmes Code 2023
⁵ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁶ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁸ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ In Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407, the High Court found, at [62]: ‘…it is permissible [for the Authority] to fill gaps… or cross boundaries between Code standards… but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint,’ and it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.
¹⁰ Standard E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy, Election Programmes Code 2023  
¹¹ Introduction: Election Programmes Code 2023, page 1
¹² Guideline G1a: Guidelines applicable to all standards, Election Programmes Code 2023, page 5
¹³ Electoral Commission | Te Kaitiaki Take Kōwhiri “About the broadcasting allocation” <elections.nz>
¹⁴ Johnson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-001
¹⁵ Parsons and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-011 at [22]-[23]
¹⁶ See, for example, Lancaster & New Zealand Jewish Council and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-020 at [74]