BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a political commentator’s use of the phrase ‘not piss … them off too much’ when discussing Coalition Government tensions. The complainant argued the phrase was offensive. In light of the Authority’s Complaints that are unlikely to succeed guidance and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.  

Declined to Determine (section 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 — in all the circumstances, the complaint should not be determined):  Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  Morning Report’s weekly political panel on 18 July 2025, featured a discussion about Coalition Government friction arising from Hon David Seymour’s response to a United Nations letter. It included the following excerpt (emphasis added):

RNZ Commentator:               Then you have Christopher Luxon coming out on Tuesday saying, yes, David Seymour got it wrong, but also that he fully agrees with the sentiment, the content, that the UN letter was total bunk and which seems to have in turn annoyed Winston Peters again because he then came out and denounced megaphone diplomacy, said that he is the one who's going to be making the official response. So, yes, quite untidy indeed from the coalition.

Newsroom Political Editor: Yeah, I mean, I just think here that David Seymour veered wildly out of his lane, right into the path of Winston Peters. He forgot to check his wing mirrors, didn't he, and it looks messy at best, but it's not the first time this has happened either, you know. We've seen this kind of… struggle between the three of them, who gets to have the say, who's in charge on what issue, and Christopher Luxon, again, trying to walk that line and pull them back into line, but not piss either of them off too much, you know, and that's what he was trying to do here. And Winston just came in — and to your point, [RNZ Commentator] — saying, no, my letter will be different. It'll be factual, it'll be accurate, and those will be the key differences.

The complaint

[2]  Sef Truijens complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• ‘“Piss off” is not a term that should be used in national broadcasting as it is offensive language.’
• ‘There are acceptable alternatives available such as “annoy”, “upset” or “anger”. These are common English terms of usage, and I object to bad language being used on national radio instead.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The individual who used the phrase was ‘not a RNZ employee’ and is ‘free to seek, receive and impart information and opinions in any form.’
• Other ways of describing the annoyance politicians can cause each other ‘might not always come immediately to mind in a live, spontaneous discussion panel’.
• ‘The expression to “piss off” is (in 2025) seen as more informal than vulgar by an adult audience and is therefore not considered unacceptably offensive by a majority of listeners.’

Outcome: Decline to determine

[4]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined.

[5]  The decisions of the Authority issued over time, and the Authority’s publication Complaints that are unlikely to succeed¹, provide guidance to broadcasters and complainants about what is acceptable under the broadcasting standards.

[6]  The Authority has consistently found low-level offensive language, including terms like “piss off’’, does not breach the offensive and disturbing content standard, particularly when aired during programmes rated PG or above, or during news bulletins or current affairs programmes such as Morning Report.²

[7]  Given this consistent approach, the Authority considers it appropriate to exercise its s 11(b) discretion in this instance. There is no need for this Authority to address such issues any further.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
23 September 2025 

Appendix

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

1  Trujiens’ original complaint – 18 July 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 22 July 2025

3  Truijens’ referral to the Authority – 22 July 2025

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 31 July 2025

¹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz> (see section on ‘Low-level language’)
² For similar findings, see McCaughan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2020-165; Poll and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2020-175; Lockyer and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-089; Hector and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-086