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 an interview on Saturday Morning with Baroness Dr Hilary Cass breached broadcasting standards. Dr Cass is the author of an independent review of NHS gender identity services for children and young people in England, whose findings contributed to the New Zealand Government’s decision to ban new prescriptions for puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria or incongruence. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns about the harm that could result from the ban on puberty blockers in New Zealand, and that many New Zealand medical member associations have expressed strong concern about it. However, it found the interview was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Cass’s opinion on a controversial and unsettled debate (the long-term safety of puberty blockers in transgender healthcare) and did not breach the balance or accuracy standards. Further, discussion of Dr Cass’s professional opinions as a result of her review was not discriminatory against trans youth. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, and Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 21 February 2026 broadcast of Saturday Morning on RNZ National featured a 26-minute interview with Baroness Dr Hilary Cass. Dr Cass is a British paediatrician who undertook an independent review (the Cass Review) into the NHS gender identity services for children and young people. The final report was published in April 2024.¹ Host Susie Ferguson introduced the interview:

To the thorny issue of transgender health care. New prescriptions for puberty blockers were to be banned by the Government just before Christmas, but an urgent High Court injunction called a halt to the edict and a judicial review is set down for May. It was the findings of an independent report and subsequent major clinical trial in the UK which prompted the Health Minister Simeon Brown to press pause on the medications for new patients with gender dysphoria. That's when people are distressed by feeling their assigned sex and gender identity are at odds. And that report in question is the Cass Review, done for the Health Service in England, which recommended limiting the use of puberty blockers to research settings and urged for holistic care with caution around irreversible treatments and the recognition of a complex picture of mental health, neurodiversity and social media when it comes to gender.

[2]  The first part of the interview was focused on the nature of puberty blockers:

Ferguson:       To get some clarity to start out about puberty blockers, is it fair to say that they press pause on puberty to give a young person who is questioning their gender identity some more time? 

Dr Cass:         Yes, so that was certainly one rationale for using them. The other was that particularly for birth-registered boys who were transitioning to become a trans girl, a trans woman, if they went through their natal puberty and started to drop their voice, grow facial hair, get a male frame, then it would be much more difficult to pass in later life. So that was the other rationale. 

Ferguson:       And in terms of that pressing pause, is it fair to say that that is how it worked out? I know a lot of people who did use puberty blockers would then go on to hormone treatment, but is it fair to say that it is literally a way of giving people a bit more time when perhaps they don't otherwise have it? 

Dr Cass:         Well, that's a really difficult question because the worry has been, does it give young people more time or does it lock them into a trajectory from which it's very hard to make any decision other than to go on to a hormone pathway? One of the real challenges here in the UK was that as soon as a young person was started on puberty blockers, that is when you really need to spend more time talking to them, thinking things through, working it out. But what actually happened is the waiting lists were so long that they hardly got seen in the period after they started on puberty blockers. And so there wasn't really that time to work things through. We don't know what would happen if you actually worked things through properly. And that's what our new services are set up to do. 

Ferguson:       How upsetting can it be for a young person who is questioning their gender identity to be confronted with the symptoms that come alongside puberty and the changes? 

Dr Cass:         Oh, I mean, certainly young people can get very much more distressed through that period. But I think we've got, in some ways, overly focused on the medical pathway, because some of the older young trans adults have said to me, it feels like there's such an urgency when you're younger. And what they'd say to their younger selves is you don't have to rush. Nothing's urgent. You can take time. And there's more ways of being trans than just a binary transition with medical support. So I think we've got over-focused on that and less focused on thinking about the young person holistically with the gender as just one part of who they are. 

Ferguson:       Because puberty blockers do not come without side effects, I understand, on bone density, on brain development. Are they safe medications for young people to be taking? Perhaps not even just in a transition situation, but also for precocious puberty. 

Dr Cass:         Okay, so we've got years and years of experience of them being used for precocious puberty and we know that they're very safe for that and they are licensed for that. It's quite different when we're giving them to young people who are going into puberty because when you have precocious puberty, you're essentially, you've got an abnormal hormone environment, your hormones are spiking too early and so what the puberty blockers are doing is normalising that. Whereas when we're giving them to adolescents what you're doing is there's a normal spike in hormones and we're flattening it, so it's actually almost the reverse, and we know less about the long-term impacts of that. And one of the really shocking things – and this applies in not just the UK but in many other places – is we just don't have the follow-up of what happens to these young people into adulthood. So we don't know the full safety data, and that's exactly why we're looking at the trial. But really crucially, these children and young people will be so tightly monitored during the trial, and if there's any evidence that they might be at risk, they would be pulled out. 

Ferguson:      We'll talk about the trial in just a moment. I'm interested though in the long-term consequences because what are the biological processes that would be different if the puberty blockers were being taken by a teenager who was not wanting to go through puberty? What would make the difference biologically in how puberty blockers would be metabolised in that person's body versus someone who had precocious puberty?

Dr Cass:         So there's not a difference in the way they're metabolised, but what they're doing is stopping the normal surges of hormones that you'd get. […] So it's almost like the young people will be in a sort of Peter Pan state until they either come off the puberty blockers or go on to masculinising or feminising hormones and then once you stop the puberty blockers normal processes kick in again and at the moment we don't have evidence that there is irreversible harm and that's what we want to monitor really, really closely. 

[3]  Ferguson raised the topic of governments stepping in to ban puberty blockers as a result of the Cass Review’s recommendations:

Ferguson:       Is it helpful from your perspective as a doctor, as a clinician, as a researcher, is it helpful for a government to step in, as New Zealand's has, as the UK’s did, and ban a medication?  

Dr Cass:         I think it is. And the reason I say that is because we know that many young people are getting treatments from providers who are not doing proper assessments or worse still getting these medications online. And that's way more dangerous. And, you know, we know that young people who are coming to our new clinics, some of them have already got private prescriptions. They're turning up on four times the adult dose of medications, they're turning up on medications that should never be used for this purpose. […]

Ferguson:       I'm intrigued that you are happy for politicians to be making essentially medical or clinical judgments. Do you not see that as dangerous or the thin end of a wedge? 

Dr Cass:         Well, if you listen to our Secretary of State, he has said, continuously, he is being guided by the science. He's not making these decisions for any political reasons, and indeed, actually, the thing that made a huge difference over here was that there was bipartisan agreement as agreement between the Tories and the Labour Party to implement the review. So nobody was playing political football with it over here, unlike the sort of state of lawfare that's going on in the US and you've got red on blue states fighting it out. It's not being politicised here. Politicians here, and I would guess with you as well, are just really concerned about the young people and trying to do their best for them. 

[4]  The interview went on to discuss:

• The clinical trial Dr Cass would be carrying out in relation to the long-term outcomes of puberty blockers: ‘So the trial hasn't started yet and in fact, just minutes ago it was announced that some more technical details are being ironed out, although it had been given approval previously.’ […] ‘And it's really important that we engage the trans community in really wanting better answers about long-term outcomes, because they should be expecting better healthcare into the long term, not just thinking about the next two years.’
• Whether it was ethical to restrict young people’s access to puberty blockers unless they were willing to participate in a long-term trial: ‘We're not treating this medication any differently than any other medication where I can't give you the answers to the questions you're asking about long-term benefits, long-term risks, whether the benefits outweigh the risks. It's exactly the same as a chemotherapy drug for cancer. […] In terms of the longer-term follow-up, we can't compel anybody to be followed up  you know for 20 years or 10 years – we need the cooperation and engagement of those young people…’
• Whether the bar was being set particularly high in this area of medicine in terms of the requirement for long-term data: ‘But I think the difference is that this is something that we are doing to minors that is life-changing, without – and there's the other problem – is that we don't have really clear diagnostic criteria to know which young people are going to have a long-term trans outcome and which are going to resolve the gender distress in lots of different ways.’
• The polarising views this topic attracts: ‘We have some people who are so opposed to and so anxious about the impact of puberty blockers that they're calling for the study here to be stopped. We have other people who are so convinced that they are beneficial, that they don't think they should have to be given in the context of a trial. And when you have such polarised views, the only way to get to the bottom of that is through a proper scientific process.’ […] ‘Children have been caught up in a culture war that's not to do with them.’ […] ‘The hardest message for me to get across is that there are some gender-questioning young people who will never be comfortable in their natal bodies and the only way they're going to be comfortable and be able to thrive in later life is through a medical transition. There are others that are going to just resolve that distress in numerous different ways. And social media doesn't like grey, it doesn't like that answer. It wants it to be either these are all trans children being denied treatment, or this is all social contagion and, you know, they need to pull themselves together.’

[5]  Ferguson raised criticism the Cass Review had been subject to:

Ferguson:       Your report did come in for criticism, including from experts in Australia who published about it, also Yale University. You're not a specialist in transgender medical care and there were no transgender clinicians included as part of the review. Do you have any concerns about that becoming the last word essentially and having so much influence globally?

Dr Cass:         Well, the Yale paper has been discredited by a whole series of publications. It was filled with disinformation, but on the point of me not being an expert in transgender medicine, the vast majority of the young people are not in the long-term going to go down the transgender pathway. So a lot of this is about adolescent medicine, understanding that. But actually we didn't have any clinicians on the review. The review was myself with a sort of, if you like a civil servant team as a team of non-clinicians. But we consulted absolutely regularly with the trans community and with clinicians working in gender services. We spoke more often to our trans advocacy groups than any other stakeholders. We spoke to them every four to six weeks. We knew when things were getting tough. When Brianna Ghey, who was a trans teenager over here, was killed, we knew how traumatising that was for the trans community. So we were really connected. We had focus groups. We had about 18 focus groups with young people. We spoke to clinicians, but we also spoke to clinicians who were experts in adolescent medicine, in autism, in cognitive development, in other issues that challenge teenagers. So because I wasn't a gender specialist, I was able to step back and take that much broader view. Whereas everybody who was in the field was completely polarised in one direction or another. And this is a normal way of doing independent reviews in the UK. You take somebody who is not enmeshed in it, who is able to be independent, but take extensive evidence from experts. 

[6]  The interview concluded with the following exchange:

Ferguson:       I mean, certainly here, the gender affirming care services do have multidisciplinary teams. It is a significant number of different specialists who are part of any decision that may be made. But for someone who's listening to this at home, they may be concerned because they've got a young person in their life who is questioning their gender identity, what is the best way for adults to be able to support children going through this?

Dr Cass:         I think the really important thing is – not to be challenging young people, to be trying to understand and accept their perspective – but also to support them from a much broader point of view, thinking outside the box of just their gender […]

The complaint

[7]  The complainant said the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the reasons set out below.

Discrimination and Denigration

[8]  Given the harm that could result from banning puberty blockers, Dr Cass ‘arguing for the ban must be considered to be advocating for negative consequences for transgender youth’. This meets the threshold of ‘a high level of condemnation […] with an element of malice’ under the standard as RNZ and Dr Cass are ‘aware of or recklessly indifferent to’ the harm.

[9]  ‘It is factual that harm will result from the implementation of the government’s ban and/or Dr Cass’s recommendations.’ Te Kāhui Tika Tangata New Zealand Human Rights Commission has said the ban represents a serious infringement on human rights and will cause unnecessary harm and distress to vulnerable young people.² The High Court has noted ‘The total ban appears to make negative consequences inevitable for some transgender youth and there is an argument that it is discriminatory.’³ Medical bodies in Aotearoa New Zealand have cited concerns about worsening physical or mental health for transgender young people.⁴

[10]  Harm to takatāpui must also be considered: ‘it is unlikely that Dr Cass’s experience and focus groups in the UK involved a significant number of takatāpui and demonstrates the inappropriateness of centering Dr Cass’s advice as someone who has no understanding of Aotearoa or Māori culture.’

[11]  While free speech is important, RNZ did not treat the airing of this harmful perspective with sufficient care and balance.

[12]  There appeared to be ‘a pattern of wilful or reckless behaviour in reporting on transgender issues’ by RNZ.⁵

Balance

[13]  The complainant said Dr Cass represents an extreme position – not the ‘overwhelming opinion of the medical establishment’.⁶ ‘Despite the overwhelming opinion of medical bodies, none were quoted or represented in the interview.’

[14]  Noting the overwhelming consensus position, while the interview may have acknowledged alternative viewpoints, this was insufficient. ‘Presenting this as “an area of ongoing debate and disagreement” was unbalanced,’ and ‘when it comes to minority rights (access to healthcare) and medical opinions, an accurate statement of the consensus position is essential.’

[15]  ‘Transgender people face a high level of discrimination in healthcare and fear of discrimination also prevents them from accessing healthcare services. RNZ’s decision not to feature expert voices further undermines their confidence in the healthcare system and may lead to significant harm.’

[16]  ‘Dr Cass’s position is analogous to a doctor who is anti-vaccine, or a climate denier; that is to say it is fringe to the medical consensus in Aotearoa. Dr Cass may be entitled to express that opinion, but it is incumbent on RNZ to appropriately contextualise that opinion as fringe.’

[17]  The framing of interviews is key to setting audience expectations of the content. Many of the opening questions to Dr Cass were requests for factual medical information, such as whether puberty blockers give young people who are questioning their gender identity more time, whether they are safe for young people and whether puberty can be upsetting for a young person questioning their gender identity. ‘From this opening, a reasonable listener would believe they are listening to a professional presenting the medical consensus for informational purposes, not the personal opinions of the interviewee.’ Further into the interview, the interviewer asks Dr Cass a question ‘from your perspective as a doctor, as a clinician, as a researcher…’ (complainant’s emphasis).

[18]  Further, the criticism of Dr Cass’s report is not adequately explored. ‘Dr Cass is able to dismiss the Yale review out of hand as “discredited” and full of “misinformation”, the experts in Australia are ignored. The interviewer does not offer any pushback on this topic. The pattern is repeated throughout the interview, where Dr Cass makes assertions that the interviewer does not meaningfully challenge.’

[19]  While RNZ referenced a previous interview by Dame Sue Bagshaw⁷ as offering balance to this issue, the complainant did not consider this was sufficient. ‘At a minimum, the prior interview with Dr Bagshaw should have been directly referenced so that viewers could seek it out themselves.’ The interview with Dame Bagshaw was several months old at the time of the interview with Dr Cass.

[20]  ‘Even when considered together with the Dr Bagshaw piece, presenting an extreme medical viewpoint equally with the mainstream consensus fails to meet the balance standard’.

Accuracy

[21]  The complainant said the broadcast contained two key inaccuracies.

Status of clinical trial

[22]  The first was contained in the opening statement:

It was the findings of an independent report and subsequent major clinical trial in the UK which prompted the Health Minister Simeon Brown to press pause on the medications for new patients with gender dysphoria.

[23]  The complainant stated: ‘said clinical trial has not even begun and as such its findings could not be part of the decision making. This materially misrepresents the issue and leaves the viewer with the impression that the government’s actions are based in evidence’. Subsequent references in the interview to ‘the trial’ not having started yet would not have mitigated the inaccuracy – the audience would more likely have concluded there were two different trials being discussed, one that was completed and one that was underway.

[24]  The complainant considered the error was ‘material in constructing the narrative that those who dissent are acting irrationally or out of political motivation, a theme that is returned to frequently throughout the interview.’

Conflating transgender healthcare in UK with NZ

[25]  ‘Throughout the interview, Dr Cass also conflates the medical situation in the UK with that of NZ, something with which she has no relevant experience or expertise in.’ As an example, the complainant cited the following exchange:

Ferguson:      Is it helpful from your perspective as a doctor, as a clinician, as a researcher, is it helpful for a government to step in as New Zealand's has, as the UK’s did, and ban a medication?

Dr Cass:         I think it is. And the reason I say that is because we know that many young people are getting treatments from providers who are not doing proper assessments or worse still getting these medications online. 

[26]  The complainant said, ‘A reasonable viewer of the above is left with the impression that young trans people in NZ are not getting proper assessments.’ They noted the Royal New Zealand College of GPs has indicated, ‘People seeking treatment are reviewed by a specialist GP, psychiatrist, endocrinologist, and a paediatrician if they are under 15 years.’⁸

[27]  The interview then ended with the interviewer asking Dr Cass ‘to provide medical advice to a NZ audience despite her lack of expertise in our context or population’:

Ferguson:      What is the best way for adults to be able to support children going through this?

Dr Cass:         I think the really important thing is – not to be challenging young people – to be trying to understand and accept their perspective, but also to support them from a much broader point of view, thinking outside the box of just their gender. What happened here is that as soon as somebody questioned their gender, they were put on a long waiting list for the Tavistock. Nobody addressed the fact that they were depressed, nobody addressed their sort of huge anxiety, nobody addressed the sort of distress they might be having about how they were being treated on social media. So I think it's about thinking about them as a whole person and not just thinking about them as their gender and getting locked into that. 

[28]  The complainant said, ‘This will disproportionately impact groups who are under-represented in Dr Cass’s research in the UK, such as tangata whenua and Pasifika’.

Fairness

[29]  The programme did not ask ‘trans youth, people whose healthcare will be affected, what they think about this ban’.

[30]  The programme represented ‘an extremist viewpoint without contextualising it as such or providing an alternative viewpoint’.

[31]  Subsequent to referring their complaint to us, the complainant submitted that Health Minister Simeon Brown and Dr Cass were unfairly treated in the broadcast, by representing them as ‘unfairly credible’. They also submitted ‘people who oppose Dr Cass’s position or the government policy are cast as irrational or not being led by the science’.

The broadcaster’s response

[32]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint, saying ‘the broadcast constituted legitimate public interest journalism on a significant and widely debated health policy issue. Restricting such discussion would represent a significant limitation on editorial freedom.’ Its reasoning under each standard is set out below.

Discrimination and Denigration

[33]  ‘The interview did not contain abusive, derogatory, or hateful language toward transgender people or any other section of the community. On the contrary, the discussion acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the need for careful, evidence-based approaches to treatment.’

[34]  ‘The threshold for a breach of this standard is high and typically requires a sustained attack or serious condemnation of a protected group. That threshold is plainly not met in this broadcast.’

Accuracy

[35]  RNZ acknowledged that its introductory wording in relation to a clinical trial already having taken place was ‘imprecise’. It advised the introduction in its online write-up had been amended accordingly.⁹

[36]  However, it did not consider the imprecision was a ‘material’ inaccuracy for the purposes of the standard. ‘During the interview Dr Cass referred to the ongoing and unresolved status of clinical trials, including delays due to compliance and methodological issues. In this context, RNZ considers that reasonable listeners would not have been misled into believing that a completed clinical trial had produced definitive results forming the basis of the New Zealand Health Minister’s decision.’

[37]  RNZ did not make a response to the complainant’s concerns about the conflation of transgender healthcare in the UK with New Zealand.

Balance

[38]  ‘RNZ notes that the balance standard does not require every perspective on a controversial issue of public importance to be presented within a single programme or interview. Rather, balance may be achieved within the period of current interest. This issue has been the subject of ongoing coverage by RNZ News and Current Affairs. Relevant coverage includes a Saturday Morning interview in November 2025 with Dame Sue Bagshaw, a New Zealand youth health specialist, who expressed a different perspective on puberty blockers and gender dysphoria.’

[39]  ‘Long-form interviews on Saturday Morning are a well-established format intended to allow guests to explain their work and perspectives in depth. Listeners would not reasonably expect such an interview to be immediately counterbalanced by another interview on the same programme.’

[40]  ‘In addition, the interview itself acknowledged the contested nature of the issue. Dr Cass described the subject as complex and “grey”, rejected polarised narratives, and discussed differing viewpoints within the medical community. The interviewer also put challenging questions to Dr Cass, including questions about the ethics of requiring clinical trial participation as a pathway to treatment.’

[41]  ‘The balance standard does not require broadcasters to determine or present a “consensus” position, nor to characterise viewpoints as mainstream or fringe. Its purpose is to ensure that audiences are made aware of the existence of differing perspectives on a controversial issue.’

[42]  ‘RNZ therefore considers that listeners were provided with sufficient context to understand that this is an area of ongoing debate and disagreement, and that the balance standard was satisfied.’

Fairness

[43]  RNZ said the fairness standard did not apply, noting the standard is concerned with protecting individuals and organisations from unwarranted harm to their reputation or dignity. ‘The interview focused on medical evidence, policy responses, and the findings of Dr Cass’s review. It did not make allegations about any specific New Zealand individuals or organisations.’

The standards

[44]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.¹⁰ The standard states:¹¹

Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[45]  The balance standard states:¹²

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.

[46]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹³ The standard states:¹⁴

• 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.

[47]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁵ The standard states:¹⁶

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

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

[49]  The openness of our society and its liberal character is recognised in the fundamental concept of freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This means there should be a freedom to express and impart ideas or information, and a freedom to receive those ideas or information – a freedom which is fundamental in broadcasting. The inclination is therefore towards freedom and away from restrictions, which are only justifiable to avoid actual or potential harm that may be caused by a broadcast.¹⁷

[50]  Saturday Morning is known for presenting challenging long-form interviews, which may include controversial critique or robust debate, across a broad range of topics.¹⁸ The free and frank exchange of opinions, even where some opinions may be subject to criticism or strongly disagreed with, is an important aspect of the right to freedom of expression, and is fundamental to the operation of our democratic society.¹⁹

[51]  The topics of trans healthcare and the ban on puberty blockers have been subjects of much recent controversy and have attracted polarised viewpoints. We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns about the harm that could result from the ban on puberty blockers in New Zealand, and that many New Zealand medical member associations have expressed strong concern about it. We also acknowledge trans people, and children struggling with gender dysphoria who may be impacted by the ban, are particularly vulnerable groups in our society.

[52]  As a regulator, our role is to objectively weigh the right to freedom of expression against the harm that may have been caused by the broadcast, having regard to current community norms and values. As discussed further in our analysis below, we do not consider the broadcast of this interview with Dr Cass, who provided her medical opinions on the nature and safety of puberty blockers as a result of her independent review in the UK, would have resulted in harm representing a breach of broadcasting standards. In coming to this finding, we took into account the controversial and unsettled nature of the debate around the long-term safety of puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria and young trans people, and the relevancy of Dr Cass’s views to this debate, noting (while many may disagree with it) the Cass Review has been influential around the world.

[53]  In these circumstances, any restriction on the right to freedom of expression – including the broadcaster’s, Dr Cass’s, and the audience’s right to hear her perspective – would be unjustified in our view. We have explained our reasons under each of the nominated standards below.

Discrimination and denigration

[54]  ‘Discrimination’ is defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment. ‘Denigration’ is defined as devaluing the reputation of a particular section of the community.²⁰

[55]  The importance of freedom of expression means a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Broadcast content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.²¹

[56]  Comments will not breach the standard simply because they are critical of a particular group, because they offend people or because they are rude. Allowing the free and frank expression of a wide range of views is a necessary part of living in a democracy. Serious commentary is a valuable form of speech and unlikely to breach the standard unless it had the potential to cause harm at a level that justifies restricting freedom of expression.²²

[57]  The complainant has argued that the interview breached the standard on the basis Dr Cass ‘arguing for the ban [on puberty blockers] must be considered to be advocating for negative consequences for transgender youth’.

[58]  The Cass Review did recommend puberty blockers be limited to clinical research trials, and Dr Cass’s comments on puberty blockers in the interview were to the effect that there was insufficient evidence on the long-term effects of the medication in the context of trans healthcare (as opposed to treating conditions like precocious puberty where more long-term data was available), and that further investigation was necessary.

[59]  We recognise the argument the New Zealand Government’s position that puberty blockers should not be prescribed pending further research (which is based on the Cass Review findings)²³ may have harmful effects for trans youth. We also recognise trans youth, and young people struggling with gender dysphoria who may be impacted by the ban, are particularly vulnerable groups in our society. However, we do not consider Dr Cass’s comments, conveying her professional medical opinion on the medication as a result of her review, can be said to be discriminatory.

[60]  Dr Cass’s comments represented her professional opinions on a controversial and hotly debated topic of public interest (the long-term safety of puberty blockers). Her views are relevant to this debate, considering the recommendations in the Cass Review contributed to the Government’s decision to ban further prescriptions of puberty blockers for people with gender dysphoria or incongruence. The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of genuine expressions of opinion and it is not the Authority’s role to stifle such debate. Freedom of speech preserves the ability for contrasting ideas and views to be shared, even if many may strongly disagree with this particular viewpoint.

[61]  Dr Cass’s tone was measured and unemotive, and the language she used when she referred to trans youth and trans people was respectful. Her comments did not approach the threshold of conveying ‘a high level of condemnation’ against a section of the community.

[62]  As a result, we do not consider the broadcast encouraged the discrimination against, or denigration of, trans youth.

Balance

[63]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the balance standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.

[64]  It is clear the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – transgender healthcare and the safety of puberty blockers (from the perspective of Dr Cass) – and so the standard applies.

[65]  The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at their own informed and reasoned opinions.²⁴ A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.

[66]  We do not consider listeners would have expected additional perspectives to be included in the broadcast, or that they were otherwise left misinformed by it.

[67]  Under the standard, the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or negated, where the programme’s introduction and presentation make it clear the programme is approaching an issue from a particular perspective.²⁵ The segment was presented as an interview with Dr Cass. Its introduction noted she had authored a report recommending limiting the use of puberty blockers to research settings, and a more holistic approach to treating gender dysphoria, which had led to the Government’s decision to prohibit further prescriptions of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. In this context, the audience would have understood the segment represented a particular viewpoint on the issue, and that other viewpoints existed.

[68]  Many listeners would already be aware of the controversial nature of the topic of trans healthcare. For those who were not aware, it was also flagged at the outset of the interview as being a ‘thorny issue,’ alluding to the existence of differing perspectives. It was also noted at various points during the interview there were ‘polarised views’ and ‘binary positions’ on the issue, that it is ‘highly politicised,’ ‘radioactive,’ and that UK specialists in the field were ‘completely polarised in one direction or another’.

[69]  The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest. It does not require every significant viewpoint to be presented in every programme that discusses the issue.²⁶ RNZ has covered significant viewpoints on the issue of the safety of puberty blockers as part of its reporting since the Cass Review was released in early 2024, and on the Government’s subsequent ban on puberty blockers.²⁷ This includes perspectives of people and organisations who support the use of puberty blockers, transgender people, and families with transgender children. Given judicial review of the Government’s decision is pending,²⁸ the period of current interest is ongoing.

[70]  The standard also states that alternative perspectives on relevant issues will not be required where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. This reflects New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available to audiences and a more discerning viewing/listening public.²⁹ Additional to RNZ’s coverage, the issue of the safety of puberty blockers and the Government’s ban has been widely covered in a range of other media.³⁰ It is therefore reasonable to expect most listeners will be aware of significant viewpoints on the issues addressed in the broadcast.

[71]  The complainant submitted the overwhelming medical consensus position in New Zealand is that a ban on puberty blockers will cause harm to trans youth, and that this should have at least been flagged in the interview. They provided examples of reputable medical member associations in New Zealand who have made statements to this effect.³¹ However, the interview was not discussing the New Zealand Government’s ban on puberty blockers – it was discussing the nature and safety of puberty blockers from Dr Cass’s perspective. There remains debate both in New Zealand³² and around the world about the safety of puberty blockers due to a lack of long-term data. In these circumstances, we do not consider it was incumbent on RNZ to canvass the views of the medical member associations cited. Nor do we agree Dr Cass’s position ‘is analogous to a doctor who is anti-vaccine, or a climate denier,’ or that her views are ‘fringe.’ Even if her research has been subject to criticism, and many may disagree with it, Dr Cass is a highly experienced paediatrician who was asked to lead the review of gender identity services in England. The report was endorsed by both the UK Conservative and Labour parties, and the NHS implemented a number of its recommendations.³³

[72]  The complainant also submitted the interview was framed in a way which would have led the audience to believe they were listening to ‘a professional presenting the medical consensus for informational purposes’. We do not agree this was the case. While the host asked for Dr Cass’s medical opinions in relation to the nature and safety of puberty blockers and gender dysphoria, she also noted the controversial and unsettled nature of the subject of puberty blockers (as described at para [68]), so that the audience would not have been misled to believe they were listening to the consensus view. In any event, Dr Cass did not make any definitive claims on the safety of puberty blockers, instead broadly saying that the issue with puberty blockers is that they are a ‘life-changing’ medication for minors and there is a lack of data on long-term outcomes. Many of her statements were also prefaced by ‘I think’, which reinforced that they were Dr Cass’s opinion rather than consensus.

[73]  In a similar vein, the complainant considered the host did not meaningfully challenge responses by Dr Cass and did not adequately explore the criticism of Dr Cass’s report. In our view, the host asked probing questions in relation to the use of puberty blockers for precocious puberty vs gender dysphoria, the ethics around restricting access to puberty blockers to clinical trials, whether the bar for long-term data was being set unnecessarily high for this particular medication, whether it is helpful for governments to step in and ban a medication, and whether Dr Cass was concerned about the influence of her report in light of the criticism it has received. We do have sympathy for the complainant’s concern that the host did not further probe Dr Cass on her response to the question on criticism of the Cass Review, and her statement that a critical Yale University paper ‘has been discredited by a whole series of publications. It was filled with disinformation’. Optimally, this statement would have been explored further. Overall, however, we consider the host’s questions served to flag the controversial nature of the subject, rather than to portray Dr Cass as an authoritative representative of a consensus position.

[74]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[75]  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. If so, the second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[76]  The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.³⁴

[77]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.³⁵

Status of clinical trial

[78]  The complainant said the interview’s introduction was incorrect to state:

It was the findings of an independent report and subsequent major clinical trial in the UK which prompted the Health Minister Simeon Brown to press pause on the medications for new patients with gender dysphoria.

[79]  This was on the basis the clinical trial had not yet begun. The complainant submitted this materially misled the audience by giving ‘the impression that the government’s actions are based in evidence’.

[80]  The statement was clearly incorrect, as the ‘major clinical trial’ had not, at the time of the interview, begun, and so could not have formed part of the Health Minister’s decision-making. RNZ accepted this, and made a correction in its online article, but did not find a breach of the accuracy standard on the basis the inaccuracy was minor, and would not have materially misled the audience in respect of the content as a whole.

[81]  We agree the inaccuracy could have given the initial impression there was more scientific evidence to support the Health Minister’s decision than there actually was. We agree this error, taken in isolation, had the potential to be materially misleading, noting the results of a ‘major clinical trial’ would carry significantly more scientific weight than an independent report.

[82]  However, due to subsequent references in the interview to the trial not having started yet, we do not consider the audience would have been materially misled by the initial error. Around five minutes in to the interview Dr Cass said, ‘So we don’t know the full safety data, and that’s exactly why we’re looking at the trial,’ and at seven minutes she directly clarified ‘So the trial hasn’t started yet and in fact, just minutes ago it was announced that some more technical details are being ironed out, although it had been given approval previously.’ We consider these statements, and the ensuing discussion about the scope and scale of the trial, served to correct the initial error.

[83]  The complainant argued that even though there were subsequent references to ‘the trial’ not having started yet, ‘the audience would more likely have concluded there were two different trials being discussed, one that was completed and one that was underway’. We do not consider this was likely to be the case. The references in the interview were to ‘the trial,’ indicating there was one key trial at issue. No mention was made of any clinical findings, but there were many references to the independent report’s recommendations. The introduction itself did not refer further to any clinical findings, but did emphasise the report’s recommendations, noting it ‘recommended limiting the use of puberty blockers to research settings and urged for holistic care with caution around irreversible treatments and the recognition of a complex picture of mental health, neurodiversity and social media when it comes to gender’. In this context, we consider the audience was unlikely to be misled in this way.

Conflating transgender healthcare in UK with NZ

[84]  The complainant was concerned Dr Cass ‘conflates the medical situation in the UK with that of NZ,’ noting in particular the following exchange:

Ferguson:      Is it helpful from your perspective as a doctor, as a clinician, as a researcher, is it helpful for a government to step in as New Zealand's has, as the UK’s did, and ban a medication?

Dr Cass:         I think it is. And the reason I say that is because we know that many young people are getting treatments from providers who are not doing proper assessments or worse still getting these medications online. 

[85]  Similar to our findings above, we accept that, taken in isolation, this response from Dr Cass may have led some audience members to believe she was describing the situation in New Zealand, and that young transgender New Zealanders are not getting proper assessments. But considering the interview as a whole, we are satisfied it was made clear at numerous points that Dr Cass is a UK-based medical professional and was speaking to her view on the state of affairs in the UK, including:

• In introductions to the interview: the host noted Dr Cass’s independent report was done for the ‘Health Service in England.’ In re-introducing it around halfway through the interview, the host again stated ‘…our guest is Baroness Dr Hilary Cass, author of the Cass Report, came out a couple of years ago in the UK in connection with medical care for transitional young people’.
• Questions posed to Dr Cass by the host: ‘So what is the current situation in the UK? Are you only able to access puberty blockers for gender dysphoria if you also sign up to this trial?’
• Statements made by Dr Cass: 
  • ‘One of the real challenges here in the UK was that as soon as a young person was started on puberty blockers, that is when you really need to spend more time talking to them, thinking things through, working it out.’
  • ‘…one of the really shocking things, and this applies in not just the UK but in many other places, is we just don't have the follow-up of what happens to these young people into adulthood.’
  • ‘Well, if you listen to our Secretary of State, he has said, continuously, he is being guided by the science. He's not making these decisions for any political reasons, and indeed, actually, the thing that made a huge difference over here was that there was bipartisan agreement as agreement between the Tories and the Labour Party to implement the review.’
  • ‘And this is a normal way of doing independent reviews in the UK.’
  • The rest of Dr Cass’s response to the question about whether it is helpful for a government to step in and ban a medication included reference to a person whose child had been referred to ‘the Tavistock,’ – which is a reference to the Tavistock Centre, a gender identity clinic for children and young people in the UK.

[86]  We further note the host clarified how treatment for gender dysphoria works in New Zealand (towards the end of the interview): ‘I mean, certainly here, the gender affirming care services do have multidisciplinary teams. It is a significant number of different specialists who are part of any decision that may be made.’

[87]  In this context, we do not consider the audience would have been led to believe young transgender New Zealanders were not getting proper assessments, or that Dr Cass was generally speaking to the state of affairs in New Zealand.

[88]  The complainant also considered the host asked Dr Cass ‘to provide medical advice to a NZ audience despite her lack of expertise in our context or population,’ with her question ‘What is the best way for adults to be able to support children going through this?’

[89]  Dr Cass’s response was clearly indicated as her opinion, to which the accuracy standard does not apply (‘I think the really important thing is […] to support them from a much broader point of view, thinking outside the box of just their gender,’ […] ‘So I think it’s about thinking about them as a whole person and not just thinking about them as their gender and getting locked into that’). While listeners may put more weight on her opinion because she is a medical professional, the controversial and unsettled nature of this area of medicine was made clear during the interview, and we consider the audience was unlikely to be misled to believe this advice was conclusive.

[90]  We therefore do not find a breach of the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[91]  The fairness standard ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. It does not address ‘fairness’ to the audience or whether issues or facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed (which are matters for the accuracy or balance standards).³⁶

[92]  The complainant considered the broadcast was unfair to trans youth, noting they were not asked for their views on the government’s ban on puberty blockers. The standard is directed at individuals or organisations referred to in broadcasts – it does not apply to ‘trans youth’ as a group of people. This concern has been more appropriately dealt with under the balance standard, as it is an allegation of the omission of a significant perspective.

[93]  The complainant also said the programme was unfair as it represented ‘an extremist viewpoint without contextualising it as such or providing an alternative viewpoint’. The fairness standard does not apply to this concern either, which has been more appropriately addressed under the balance and accuracy standards.

[94]  After referring their complaint to us, the complainant submitted Health Minister Simeon Brown and Dr Cass were portrayed as ‘unfairly credible,’ and people who oppose Dr Cass’s position were ‘cast as irrational’. To consider arguments raised on referral, we must be satisfied they can ‘reasonably be interpreted as falling within the wording of the original complaint’.³⁷ As these parties were not mentioned as being treated unfairly in the original complaint, we are unable to consider these arguments now. [38] In any event, we note the standard is directed at protecting parties from unwarranted damage, rather than concerns they are portrayed as ‘unfairly credible’.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
8 July 2026    

Appendix

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

1  SL’s formal complaint to RNZ – 21 February 2026

2  RNZ’s response – 25 February 2026

3  Further correspondence between SL and RNZ

4  SL’s referral to the Authority – 27 February 2026

5  RNZ’s further comments – 10 March 2026

6  SL’s further comments – 24 April 2026

7  RNZ’s further comments – 30 April 2026

¹ Hilary Cass “Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people: Final report” (April 2024) <webarchive.nationalarchives.govt.uk>; see also: NHS England “Implementing advice from the Cass Review” <england.nhs.uk>
² Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission “Ban on puberty blockers serious human rights infringement” (21 November 2025) <tikatangata.org.nz>
³ Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated v Minister of Health [2025] NZHC 4045 [17 December 2025]
⁴ See for example: New Zealand Society of Endocrinology “NZSE position on the ban of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for the treatment of gender dysphoria or incongruence” <endocrinology.org.nz>; The Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists “Puberty blocker pause could harm vulnerable young people, psychiatrists say” (20 November 2025) <ranzcp.org>; and New Zealand Nurses Organisation | Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa “Puberty blocker ban will hurt young people: Child and Youth nurses” (20 November 2025) <nzno.org.nz>
⁵ Citing Media Council decision: Parker et al against Radio New Zealand, Case Number 372, Council Meeting 8 September 2025
⁶ The complainant cited the following organisations as being against the puberty blocker ban: New Zealand Society of Endocrinology, Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa | Māori Medical Practitioners Association, The Professional Association for Transgender Health (PATHA), The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, New Zealand Nurses Organisation, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa, New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine, Youth Health Aotearoa, and The Paediatric Society of New Zealand.
⁷ “Dame Sue Bagshaw: Puberty blockers” RNZ (online ed, 22 November 2025)
⁸ The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners | Te Whare Tohu Rata o Aotearoa “Safety measures for the use of puberty blockers, Submission to Ministry of Health, January 2025” <rnzcgp.org.nz>
⁹ “Dr Hilary Cass: Puberty blockers” RNZ (online ed, 21 February 2026)
¹⁰ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹¹ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹³ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁴ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁵ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁶ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁸ See: “Saturday Morning” RNZ <rnz.co.nz>; and Cape and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-013 at [17]
¹⁹ See Te Whata and Mediaworks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-141 at [12]
²⁰ Guideline 4.1: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
²¹ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
²² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
²³ Beehive “New safeguards for puberty blocker prescribing – Hon Simeon Brown” (19 November 2025) <beehive.govt.nz>
²⁴ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²⁵ Balance: Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²⁶ Guideline 5.2: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²⁷ “Puberty blockers ban delayed by judicial review” RNZ (online ed, 17 December 2025); Craig McCulloch “New Zealand pushes pause on puberty blockers pending UK trial” RNZ (online ed, 20 November 2025); Lillian Hanley “Govt’s puberty blockers move attracts strong reactions” RNZ (online ed, 20 November 2025); “Dame Sue Bagshaw: Puberty blockers” RNZ (online ed, 22 November 2025); Dr Jaimie Veale (Comment & Analysis) “Puberty blockers: Why politicians overriding doctors sets a dangerous precedent” RNZ (online ed, 23 November 2025); Lillian Hanly “Halt to puberty blockers curses ‘young transgender women to stigma’” RNZ (online ed, 21 November 2025); “Puberty blocker regulation ‘based on politics’, legal injunction filed” RNZ (online ed, 1 December 2025); Rudi Maxwell “NZ has halted access to puberty blockers. What does the rest of the world do?” RNZ (online ed, 24 November 2025); Mary Argue “Hundreds march in Wellington to support access for puberty blockers, gender affirming care” RNZ (online ed, 23 March 2025); “Transgender health professionals worried about public consultation over gender affirming healthcare” RNZ (online ed, 22 November 2024); and Ruth Hill “Criticism of puberty blockers misguided, trans girl’s mother says” RNZ (online ed, 22 April 2024)
²⁸ “Puberty blockers ban delayed by judicial review” RNZ (online ed, 17 December 2025)
²⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
³⁰ Melissa Davey “Puberty blocker bans in Queensland and NZ risk extreme harm to trans youth, UK expert warns” The Guardian (online ed, 19 December 2025); Varsha Anjali “Puberty blocker ban: What it could mean for transgender teens and their families in New Zealand” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 22 March 2026); Julia de Bres, John Fenaughty “The overwhelmingly positive experiences of trans youth on puberty blockers” The Spinoff (online ed, 22 November 2025); “Govt halts puberty blockers for new gender dysphoria patients” 1News (online ed, 19 November 2025); Marc Daalder “Cabinet overrode health advice in decision to ban puberty blockers” Newsroom (online ed, 22 December 2025); Rachel Thomas “Clinicians praise careful NZ approach on puberty blockers” The Post (online ed, 23 November 2024); Glenn McConnell “Health Ministry urges caution over prescribing puberty blockers” Stuff (online ed, 21 November 2024); and Isaac Davison “Puberty blockers to be prescribed more cautiously in New Zealand after review” Newstalk ZB (online ed, 21 November 2024)
³¹ See for example: Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) (19 November 2025) “PATHA condemns puberty blocker ban” <patha.nz>; New Zealand Society of Endocrinology “NZSE position on the ban of gonatropin-releasing hormone analogues for the treatment of gender dysphoria or incongruence” <endocrinology.org.nz>; Royal Australasian College of Physicians (21 November 2025) “Puberty blocker prescribing in Aotearoa New Zealand statement” <racp.edu.au>; and The Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (20 November 2025) “Puberty blocker pause could harm vulnerable young people, psychiatrists say” <ranzcp.org>
³² See for example: Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora (2024) ‘Impact of Puberty Blockers in Gender-Dysphoric Adolescents: An evidence brief’ <health.govt.nz> at page 3: ‘Evidence about the impact of GnRHa on clinical and mental health and wellbeing outcomes is scarce, with available evidence largely of poor quality. […] Given the dearth and poor quality of evidence, and New Zealand-specific evidence, there is an urgent need for high-quality, longitudinal data and research to help us understand the specific needs of gender-dysphoric adolescents in New Zealand.’
³³ Wikipedia “(last edited: 23 June 2026) “Cass Review” <en.wikipedia.org>
³⁴ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
³⁵ Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
³⁶ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
³⁷ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
³⁸ For a similar finding, see United Flower Growers Ltd and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-075 at paras [18] – [21]