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 Women’s Rights Party election programme broadcast on TVNZ 1. The broadcast included a video montage of a protest at a ‘Posie Parker’ rally in Auckland in 2023. The complainant said this footage was distressing as it promoted ‘an anti-transgender and gender diverse agenda’. The Authority did not find any breach of the offensive and disturbing content standard or harm that would justify limiting the party’s political expression. The election programme was clearly identified as promoting the views of the Women’s Rights Party, and was focused on advocacy for women’s rights. The protest footage could not reasonably be said to promote a perspective that is anti-transgender or gender diverse people, and these groups were not referred to during the programme. Overall, the advertisement did not seriously threaten standards of taste or decency in the context.

Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Offensive and Disturbing Content)

The broadcast

[1]  A Women’s Rights Party election programme was broadcast on 16 October 2026 on TVNZ 1, at 5.49pm. The broadcast included commentary from party co-leader Jill Ovens and list candidates Dr Kerry Neilson and Yvonne van Dongen. It included a brief soundbite of Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.

[2]  In the background of their commentary, a video montage of protesters during Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s (also known as Posie Parker) Albert Park, Auckland rally was shown, with the captions ‘25 March 2023’ and ‘The day New Zealand women are violently silenced’ displayed on screen.

[3]  The programme, in full, follows:

[Video montage of protesters at Parker’s Auckland rally including shots of a person running on stage and pouring tomato juice over the heads of Parker and another, barriers being pushed down and protesters walking through, and clashes between protesters]

Ovens:              When Kellie-Jay arrived, that's when the barriers came down.

Voiceover:          A 70-year-old woman had already been punched in the face by a 20-year-old.  

Voiceover:         We were very vulnerable.

Dr Neilson:        The women were just overrun and Marama Davidson was saying what a celebratory event that was.

Davidson:           I’m so proud of the mobilising of people from across so many communities.

van Dongen:       I realised I would never vote Labour or Greens again.

[Shot of a crowd holding Women’s Rights Party signs with slogans such as ‘We have the right to speak,’ ‘Teach science not ideology,’ ‘Protect women’s spaces,’ and ‘No men in women’s sports’]

Encore of voices:  Vote Women’s Rights this election.

[Women’s Rights Party logo displayed]

Voiceover:             We are a party that stands for women’s rights.

Overview – Election Programmes

[4]  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. 

[5]  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.

[6]  When we receive a complaint about an election programme, we seek submissions from the complainant, the broadcaster and 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 and detailed responses to our request for submissions.

The parties’ submissions

The complaint

[7]  Charlotte Shores complained the broadcast breached standard E1 (election programmes subject to other codes) of the Election Programmes Code of Broadcasting Practice, in respect of the offensive and disturbing content standard (standard 1) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant said:

• 'The use of the Posie Parker protest footage is distressing for many in a campaign promise.’
• ‘The grounds of offence are gender and gender identification as it uses film from the Posie Parker protest to push an anti-transgender and gender diverse agenda.’
• The footage gave a ‘pro-women’ message which ‘encourages hate for minority groups (trans and gender diverse)’.
• ‘Previously such campaign ads have not aired and I believe this one should not air either.’

The Women’s Rights Party’s response
[8]  The Women’s Rights Party responded to the complaint as follows:

• ‘The BSA Code recognises that robust debate, advocacy and political opinion are an important part of an election campaign, so the fact that material is controversial or strongly expressed does not, by itself, make it unacceptable.’
• ‘The footage, which was filmed by a citizen journalist […], is critical to the story of the formation of the Women’s Rights Party.’ 
• ‘We reject the allegation that we denigrated the trans community in our advertisement. The Albert Park footage was included to show our contention that women’s rights have been eroded, and that there is a need to protect such rights.’

[9]  The Party included comment about the programme’s compliance with standard E2 (Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy), and other protest footage it had not included in the programme to comply with broadcasting standards. As this is not relevant to our assessment of whether the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, we have not repeated it here.

The broadcaster’s response
[10]  TVNZ responded to the complaint as follows:

• ‘The Women’s Right’s Party is a registered political party 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 it is the BSA’s function to decide whether the alleged breach of standards would justify limiting the Party’s political expression in this case.’

The standard
[11]  Under standard E1 (election programmes subject to other codes) all other standards in the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand apply, except for the balance standard (Standard 5).¹ The complainant nominated the offensive and disturbing content standard 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.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.

[12]  As the complainant said the footage used, and its underlying ‘pro-women’ message, ‘encourages hate for minority groups (trans and gender diverse),’ we considered whether the discrimination and denigration standard should also be assessed.⁴ Although the wording of the complaint could be interpreted as implying this standard, we do not consider this necessary to properly consider the complaint. The offensive and disturbing content standard adequately addresses the complainant’s concerns in this instance. Therefore, we have only considered the complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard.

Our analysis

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

[14]  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 make informed voting decisions.⁵

[15]  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).⁶

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

Standard E1: Other standards – Offensive and Disturbing Content

[17]  The complainant said the programme’s use of the 2023 protest footage was ‘distressing’ as it pushed a ‘pro-women’ and ‘anti-transgender/gender diverse’ perspective.

[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]  We do not consider use of the protest footage in the advertisement seriously violated standards of taste and decency, or would have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience in the context, for the following key reasons:

a)  The broadcast was a Women’s Rights Party election programme, in which members of the party briefly recounted their experience of the 2023 Posie Parker Auckland protest and the treatment of women in the crowds, focusing on ‘women’s rights’.

b)  Footage of the protest was used as a visual aid to statements by members of the party. The selections of footage in the montage did not focus on any particular groups of protesters. There were some rainbow flags visible in crowd shots, and a person walking behind Davidson was shown carrying a sign saying ‘Trans Love’, but there was no focus on transgender and gender diverse people or interests in the footage used or the candidate testimonies.

c)  We have previously acknowledged Parker is a prominent figure in gender ideology debates, and that some of her views have commonly been described as ‘anti-trans’.⁷ However, the protest footage did not directly refer to, or show anything that clearly indicated the specific reasons behind the protest or clashes. We do not consider the footage could reasonably be said to promote a perspective that is ‘anti’ transgender or gender diverse people.

d)  While some of the footage was strong, including shots of a person pouring juice over Parker and another’s heads, and a physical fight between two protesters (while a voiceover stated ‘A 70-year-old woman had already been punched in the face by a 20-year-old’) we do not consider it was likely to disproportionately offend or distress viewers. As noted above, robust advocacy and expression of political opinion, which includes footage/images used, are expected from election programmes.

e)  The footage, and election programme as a whole, did not contain any malice and condemnation or encourage hostility towards transgender or gender diverse people. Its focus was on advocacy for women’s rights and the origin of the Women’s Rights Party. Transgender and gender diverse people were not a focus of the broadcast, nor were they referred to during the programme.

f)  While some may not agree with the views of the Women’s Rights Party, and may see the position advocated for by the Party as exclusionary, it was exercising its right to free political expression in the lead up to the election, and this was clear from the broadcast. There is significant public interest in election programmes informing voters of party policies, so long as standards are maintained.

[20]  For these reasons, and 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 can exercise this right to convey their political message in the way they choose, so long as standards are maintained. The video montage used in the Women’s Rights Party advertisement was not at a level which threatened standards or which warrants our intervention on this occasion.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley

Chair

4 November 2026

Appendix

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

1  Shores’ original complaint to the Authority – 28 October 2026

2  TVNZ’s submissions – 29 October 2026

3  Women’s Rights Party submissions– 30 October 2026

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of broadcast time – 2 November 2026 

¹ Standard E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code, Election Programmes Code 2023
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ In Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62], the High Court found: ‘…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.
⁵ Introduction, Election Programmes Code 2023 at 1
⁶ Guideline G1a: Guidelines applicable to all standards, Election Programmes Code 2023, page 5
⁷ See Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2023-035 at [31].