BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

A promotion for Off the Grid with Colin and Manu included a clip of Manu asking Colin to ‘stop slurping’ when he eats and saying, ‘My mum would have smacked you in the head, you know’. The complainant alleged the comment was a breach of the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards. The Authority found the comment, in the context, was unlikely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience. The Authority also found it was unlikely to encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise engage in serious antisocial activity.

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

The broadcast

[1]  Off the Grid with Colin and Manu is a travel and food reality series featuring celebrity chefs Colin Fassnidge and Manu Feildel. The 16 May 2025 promotion (promo) for an upcoming episode, broadcast during 1News at 6.30pm, included a montage of clips from the show noting, ‘the bromance continues’.

[2]  The relevant clip showed Manu asking Colin to ‘stop slurping’ when he eats saying, ‘My mum would have smacked you in the head, you know’. Colin’s response was to wipe his hands on Manu’s jacket.

The complaint

[3]  Adam Skinner complained the promo breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, noting:

a)  The comment ‘smacked you in the head’ was ‘jarring’. ‘Do we condone these attitudes, normalise them?’

b)  Normalising striking a child in the head is ‘intrinsically offensive’.

c)  The comment ‘trivialises domestic and family violence, portraying it as light family entertainment’.

d)  During ‘the family-hour context of the 6PM news’, viewers expect protection from violent themes.

e)  The comment ‘downplays the real-world harm of reinforcing outdated attitudes towards corporal punishment’, which is banned in New Zealand.

[4]  On referral, Skinner also raised the children’s interests and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards, noting:

a)  The ‘family-hour timing’ and ‘danger of normalising corporal punishment of children’.

b)  Manu’s comment ‘presents violent discipline as a joke, with no warning or mitigating context, creating a real risk that child viewers interpret the behaviour as acceptable’.

c)  Turning the striking of a child into ‘a punchline … normalises illegal behaviour and presents it in a positive, humorous light’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  ‘The promo aired during 1News, which has an adult target audience.’

b)  ‘The promo was humorous in tone, with the clip that caused concern one of several showing the hosts pranking or pestering each other.’

c)  Manu's reference to his mother’s ‘smacking’ was not an endorsement of violence. Manu himself did not resort to violence during the promo.

d)  ‘… older generations may have held less enlightened attitudes to parental discipline than can generally be observed in contemporary Western society, but referencing such attitudes does not amount to endorsing them.’

e)  ‘… violence is never an appropriate way to deal with bad manners, [and] we do not agree that Manu's intention was to encourage or normalise such behaviour.’

f)  The material in question was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence among the programme's likely viewers.

[6]  In response to the complainant’s referral, seeking to raise the children’s interests and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards, TVNZ said:

a)  The additional standards were not supported by the original wording.

b)  ‘1News is not intended to be suitable viewing for unsupervised children and frequently contains challenging material inappropriate for them.’

c)  The promo did not normalise physical discipline. It highlighted the change in attitudes to such punishment and most viewers would have recognised ‘Manu’s mother’s approach to discipline was a behavioural artefact’ from a different time. The ‘humour of Manu’s reminiscence relies on that distinction’.

Jurisdiction

[7]  The first question for the Authority is whether we have jurisdiction to consider the complaint under the children’s interests and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards.

[8]  The Authority can consider a standard not expressly raised in the original complaint where it:

a)  can be reasonably implied into the wording of the original complaint; and

b)  is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint.¹

[9]  The original complaint nominated only the offensive and disturbing content standard and expressed the following concern about Manu’s comment:

It was jarring to see this put on the promo as the last, "funny" line before the details of when / where to watch it. Do we condone these attitudes, normalise them?

[10]  The children’s interests standard cannot be reasonably implied into these words. They do not raise issues relating to the impacts of children’s exposure to the broadcast. Children were not mentioned. Accordingly, we do not consider this standard further.

[11]  The promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard, however, can be more readily read into the original complaint. The reference to condoning ‘these attitudes’ can be reasonably interpreted as referring to the condoning of disciplinary correction by force, which may constitute an ‘illegal or antisocial behaviour’.² In addition, a reference to ‘normalising’ or ‘condoning’ a behaviour reflects an approach capable of promoting that behaviour. This is recognised in the standard’s commentary, which states ‘broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous’ may have the effect of inciting criminal activity.

[12]  The next question is whether it is reasonably necessary to imply this standard into the wording of the original complaint in order to properly consider the complaint. We note the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard has a different focus to the offensive and disturbing content standard. It extends beyond the causing of offence or distress, into examining the behaviours potentially promoted by the broadcast. Given this different lens, we consider it appropriate to imply this standard into the complaint. Without it, aspects of the complaint, as described above, could not be addressed.

[13]  Accordingly, we address both the offensive and disturbing content and promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standards below.

The standards

[14]  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.

[15]  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

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

[17]  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.⁷

Offensive and disturbing content

[18]  Attitudes differ widely and continue to evolve in New Zealand’s diverse society. Caution must therefore be exercised when considering matters of taste and decency. The feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot dictate what can be broadcast. However, broadcasts must not seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience.⁸

[19]  The context of the programme and the wider broadcast are important considerations when assessing complaints under the standard. The key contextual factors relevant here include:

a)  The promo was for a light-hearted travel and food series known for comedic moments and banter between the hosts.⁹

b)  The promo was broadcast during the unclassified 1News programme, which has an adult target audience and during which children are expected to be supervised.¹⁰

c)  The comment in question, ‘My mum would’ve smacked you in the head, you know’, was clearly delivered and received as a joke. There was no suggestion of cruelty, menace or aggression towards Colin.

d)  The comment was immediately followed by a playful response of Colin wiping his hands on Manu’s jacket, reinforcing the comedic dynamic of the show.

e)  The show’s audience would reasonably expect humorous, teasing exchanges between the hosts which is consistent with the tone of the programme.

f)  The promo did not feature any violence, coarse language or distressing imagery.

[20]  We acknowledge some may be offended by the reference to smacking. However, in the context, such a comment, delivered as a joke, is unlikely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience.

[21]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard.

Promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour

[22]  This standard does not stop the depiction or discussion of illegal or antisocial behaviour. It is concerned with broadcasts that actively undermine or promote disobedience of the law or serious antisocial activity. Broadcasts which condone criminal activity or present it as positive or humorous may have this effect.¹¹

[23]  Considering the contextual factors identified above at paragraph [19], we do not consider the broadcast had the effect of encouraging viewers to break the law or otherwise engage in serious antisocial activity:

a)  Manu’s reference to smacking recalled a matter from his childhood.  

b)  There was no suggestion such an approach was effective or appropriate.

c)  There was no call for others to use his mother’s disciplinary techniques.

d)  Viewers are likely to interpret Manu’s comment as a humorous attempt to discourage Colin’s ‘slurping’ rather than a positive endorsement of smacking.

[24]  While we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns, we do not consider the likely impact of Manu’s comments would be to encourage audience members towards smacking, domestic violence or corporal punishment. For these reasons, we do not uphold the complaint under this 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 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Skinner’s original complaint – 16 May 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 10 June 2025

3  Skinner’s referral to the Authority – 11 June 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 18 June 2025

5  Skinner’s further comments – 19 June 2025

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 23 June 2025

¹ See Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62] and Ross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-042 at [11] 
² Crimes Act 1961, s 59
³ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁴ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11
⁶ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁹  TVNZ+ “Off the Grid with Colin and Manu” <tvnz.co.nz>
¹⁰ See Bracey and EE and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-084 at [9]
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 11