BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

A 10-second promo for the movie Challengers, broadcast during an episode of Hyundai Country Calendar, showed a teenage girl kissing two teenage boys in succession (all clothed). The Authority did not uphold a complaint the promo breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards. The promo’s content did not go beyond Country Calendar’s PG classification: the visual depiction of the teenagers’ interactions was brief, not graphic, and limited to kissing; and any sexual innuendo was low-level. Overall, the broadcast was not inappropriate for supervised child viewers, nor was it likely to offend a significant number of viewers generally.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests

The broadcast

[1]  A 10-second promo for the movie Challengers was shown during an advertisement break for Hyundai Country Calendar, broadcast around 7pm on Sunday 19 October 2025. The relevant episode of Hyundai Country Calendar was classified PG,¹ and Challengers is rated M.²

[2]  Challengers is about Tashi Duncan, ‘once a tennis prodigy forced to retire due to injury … now a coach married to a struggling champion. Her plan to revive her husband's career takes an unexpected twist when he ends up competing against his former best friend – who also happens to be Tashi's ex-boyfriend.’³

[3]  The shots and dialogue in the promo included:

a)  A girl (Tashi) in her late teens playing tennis while two boys, also in their late teens, watch.

b)  The three teenagers sitting on the floor in a room (fully clothed, apart from one boy’s shirt being unbuttoned), with the girl seated opposite the two boys. The girl says, ‘How often does this happen? Going after the same girl?’

c)  The girl sitting on a bed, telling the boys, ‘Come here.’ The boys run over and sit next to her on the bed and she kisses one, then the other.

d)  A high angle shot of the girl propped back on the bed (fully clothed), staring ahead and smiling.

The complaint

[4]  Sian Williams complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

a)  The promo showed ‘a young teenage girl on a bed first kissing one boy and then another’. This was effectively the only part of the movie depicted, and it was ‘sexual’. 

b)  It was inappropriate to broadcast the promo during Hyundai Country Calendar, a ‘family-friendly’ programme which ‘we have watched with our children for many years’. ‘For my [children] to witness this [promo] is [in] no way acceptable.’

c)  ‘Sexual activity between two teenagers at this time on TV is not acceptable, let alone showing children [it’s okay] to have one girl and two boys being sexual towards each other.’ In choosing this scene for the promo, the broadcaster is ‘normalising this behaviour’.

d)  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) should ‘stop allowing disturbing TV’ before 8pm. ‘Please refine your systems and protect our children.’

Jurisdiction – additional standard raised on referral

[5]  On referring the complaint to the Authority, the complainant also raised the children’s interests standard:

a)  ‘I feel that the broader implications of this advertisement have not been fully acknowledged.’

b)  ‘The promo in question normalises a scene in which a teenage girl is kissing two teenage boys on a bed. As this scene was aired during a PG-rated programme, it is likely to be viewed by children and young teens. Regardless of the film’s overall M rating, the choice to use this particular clip as the key promotional image is highly concerning. It suggests to young viewers that this behaviour is typical and acceptable for their age group, which is not appropriate or responsible messaging.’

c)  ‘…I believe it is vital to consider the influence such media has on tamariki [children] and rangatahi [teenagers/young adults], who are still forming their understanding of healthy relationships, boundaries, and self-respect. Broadcasting this content during family or PG programming exposes young viewers to themes that are not age-appropriate and could contribute to the early normalisation of adult behaviours.’

d)  ‘There needs to be greater accountability for the context in which content is aired, not just the rating of the film itself.’

[6]  Pursuant to section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority can only consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. However, in limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where:

a)  the standard(s) can be reasonably implied into the wording of the complaint; and

b)  implying the standard(s) is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.⁴  

[7]  We consider the children’s interests standard can be sufficiently implied into the wording of the original complaint and doing so is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint. While the original complaint did not expressly raise the children’s interests standard, the complainant’s concerns centred on the broadcast’s potential impact on children and showing what they considered to be unsuitable material during ‘family viewing’ with their children. Also, the offensive and disturbing content standard is aimed at general audiences and would not adequately address the complainant’s concerns about harm to child viewers.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

a)  ‘Country Calendar is aimed at family and adult viewers.’

b)  The relevant episode of Country Calendar is rated PG. ‘There is an expectation that parents exercise discretion around viewing PG certificate programmes with their children.’

c)  ‘Kissing is acceptable during promos screened in G and PG time: the promo only included one brief comment of a mildly sexual nature. The material shown was not overtly sexual as the characters were all clothed and no sexual acts were depicted.’ TVNZ noted the relevant scene in the movie was also limited to kissing.  

d)  ‘While the promo showed kissing, we do not agree that this was inappropriate for supervised child viewers in the context of a PG rated programme, or that it would have offended a significant number of viewers generally.’

e)  This is consistent with a previous decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority.⁵ There, the Authority did not uphold a complaint about a promo for Step-Dave, broadcast during the PGR movie The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, ‘which showed kissing and included brief sexual innuendo’.

[9]  In response to the referral, TVNZ added with regard to the children’s interests standard:

a)  ‘It is an expectation of the Codes that parents monitor their child’s viewing of PG certificate programmes. The actors in the scene are all fully clothed and in the programme itself only kissing takes place in this scene. Kissing is acceptable in G and PG certificate programmes, there is no suggestion in the promo that any other sexual activity is taking place.’

b)  Country Calendar is primarily aimed at mature viewers and can show scenes which require parental guidance.

The standards

[10]  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.⁶ The standard states:⁷

• 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.

[11]  The purpose of the children’s interests standard (standard 2) is to enable parents and caregivers to protect children from material that disproportionately disturbs them, is harmful, or is likely to impair their physical, mental, or social development.⁸ The standard states:⁹

Broadcasters should ensure children¹⁰ can be protected from content that might adversely affect them.

Our analysis

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

[13]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression – which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of content to a broad audience, and the audience’s right to receive that. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value 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.¹¹

[14]  The standards dictate that promos should comply with the classification of the programme during which they screen (the ‘host programme’).¹² The relevant episode of Country Calendar was classified ‘PG’ - Parental Guidance recommended for younger viewers.¹³ Programmes rated PG contain material more suited for mature audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult.¹⁴ Challengers, the movie promoted in the promo, is rated M – suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over.¹⁵ The key question for the Authority is whether the promo’s content was consistent with the PG classification.

[15]  Context is crucial in assessing whether the promo breached either of the nominated standards. In this case, we do not consider the Challengers promo went beyond the host programme’s PG classification, given the following factors:¹⁶

a)  Country Calendar is aimed at a family and adult audience.

b)  Its PG classification indicated parental guidance and supervision was expected during this timeslot.

c)  The promo was 10 seconds long.

d)  The actual visual depiction of the teenagers’ interactions in the promo was brief, not graphic, and limited to kissing between clothed individuals (apart from one boy’s shirt being unbuttoned).¹⁷

e)  The promo did not contain any nudity or explicit sexual references. Any sexual innuendo in the promo arising from the bedroom setting or the dialogue, was low-level.

f)  The Authority has previously found:

i)  Kissing is acceptable in promos or programmes classified G and PG.¹⁸

ii)  Mild and inexplicit sexual references will not unduly disturb child viewers and are consistent with a G classification (noting the PG classification is at issue in this instance).¹⁹

[16]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns about the potential ‘early normalisation of adult behaviours’. Some viewers may consider the content and/or themes of the promo – a teenage girl kissing two teenage boys on a bed – as demonstrating morals or behaviour they would not necessarily want to promote to children in their care. However, the Code recognises:²⁰

It is not possible or practicable for broadcasters to shield children from all potentially unsuitable content. The objective is to allow them to broadcast to a wide audience … while taking reasonable steps to protect children by providing viewers and listeners with information… Parents/caregivers share responsibility for protecting children and should use the information and tools available for this purpose.

[17]  Applying the standards and relevant contextual factors, we do not consider the broadcast was inappropriate for supervised child viewers, nor likely to offend a significant number of viewers generally.²¹ The promo was unlikely to disproportionately disturb or alarm children under the supervision of a parent or caregiver.

[18]   Accordingly, we find no breach of either the offensive and disturbing content, or children’s interests standards, and no harm at a level justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
18 March 2026  

Appendix

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

1  Williams’ original complaint - 17 October 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision - 12 November 2025

3  Williams’ referral to the Authority - 17 November 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral - 17 November 2025

5  Williams’ further comments - 3 December 2025

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments - 3 December 2025

¹ TVNZ+ “Hyundai Country Calendar” <tvnz.co.nz>
² Te Mana Whakaatu | Classification Office “Challengers” <classificationoffice.govt.nz>
³ Te Mana Whakaatu | Classification Office “Challengers” <classificationoffice.govt.nz>
⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
⁵ Duncan and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-083
⁶ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁷ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
⁹ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ A ‘child’ is under the age of 14 years
¹¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹² Guideline 1.6
¹³ TVNZ+ “Hyundai Country Calendar” <tvnz.co.nz>
¹⁴ Guideline 1.4
¹⁵ Te Mana Whakaatu | Classification Office “Challengers” <classificationoffice.govt.nz>
¹⁶ Guidelines 1.1 and 2.3
¹⁷ For a similar finding, see Simpson and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2009-120 at [18]-[19]
¹⁸ Duncan and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-083 at [11]
¹⁹ See Ryan and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-026 at [13], citing Sta. Lucia and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-048 at [33]; Quirke and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-094 at [14]; and Kittel and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-024 at [11]-[12]
²⁰ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 10
²¹ Duncan and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-083 at [11]