BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media. The Authority also found the panellist’s statement was comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply and did not reach the high threshold required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. The fairness standard did not apply. 

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

The broadcast

[1]  The 16 September 2025 broadcast of The Panel featured Deborah Hart and Simon Wilson as guests. Both were introduced at the start of the segment: Wilson as Senior Writer for the New Zealand Herald, and Hart as Chair of the Board of Utilities Disputes Limited, Chair of the Board of the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand, and Independent Chair of the Retirement Villages’ Residents’ Council.

[2]  The first topic of discussion was whether Aotearoa New Zealand should recognise a Palestinian state and sanction Israel:

The Panel host:         Now, just a word on this first. More than 40% of voters think New Zealand should recognise a Palestinian state — this is [what] the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll has found. So, 42.5% said yes, 22.1% said no, 35% said they didn’t know. Meanwhile, priests are still chained to Finance Minister Nicola Willis’s office to say they won’t move until they meet with her to discuss sanctioning Israel. And I thought, go around the panel — Deborah Hart, if you drove past these priests wanting to sanction Israel, would you honk your horn for support?

Hart:                            Ah, no [laughs]. I would quickly write a great big placard, hang it out the side of my car, and it would say something like, ‘release the hostages, abolish Hamas, recognise Israel, stop teaching hatred and Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in Palestinian schools, and then let’s talk about a Palestinian state’. 

The Panel host:         OK, Simon Wilson, if you drove past these priests, would you honk in support? 

Wilson:                       Yeah, my position’s slightly different from that [both Wilson and Hart laugh]. I’d find a nice safe place to park, and I’d go and get them coffee and rolls and see what else they wanted. And honk, and honk. 

The Panel host:         Amazing. What do you think about this? I mean, what do you think, Deborah? 40% of voters think New Zealand should recognise a Palestinian state. Should we? 

Hart:                            Well, I think I’ve answered that, but I think the same poll, interestingly enough, most respondents said the Government should do more to support Israel or its response was about right. That was 10% and 31% respectively. Only 31% said do more to support Palestine. So … there’s plenty of support out there for what the Government’s doing or what people think the Government should be doing. 

The Panel host:         What do you think Simon? 

Wilson:                       I’m not sure what the Government's doing, so I’m not sure how there’s plenty of support for it at the moment. Now, but we are going to find out— extraordinarily, we're going to find out when Winston Peters makes his speech at the UN. Cabinet’s already decided, shouldn’t we be told what our position is? I don’t really understand the need for secrecy on that. 

Hart:                           It’s the theatre, isn’t it? 

Wilson:                       Well, I think it’s the power play, actually. It’s Winston Peters’s power play. I’ll do this and it’s going to be done in my time. It’s extraordinary. Theatre is one way to put it. 

The Panel host:         All right, very good. [Phone number], would you honk in support?

[3]  The remainder of the programme discussed the Save the Chateau Tongariro Hotel petition, and ‘the Government’s plan to make it easier for Eden Park and Auckland to hold big concerts’.

[4]  At the end of the broadcast, the host of The Panel read out the ‘passionate… ream of responses’ regarding Israel and Palestine:

The Panel host:         ‘Absolutely with Deborah Hart's approach to these misguided priests.’ Another one: ‘No, I would not honk support. They’re well-meaning but clueless. They are thinking they're helping Gazans — they are helping the brutal death cult that are holding their own people hostage.’ Another one says, ‘Wallace, I will totally honk my horn. Why do Israelis get to live in a land that belongs to both Israelis and Palestinians? There are wrongs and brutalities both sides. I can’t understand how a panel member can be into genocide’ —

Hart:                            I'm not [Hart and Wilson laugh].

The Panel host:         — says Mary.

Wilson:                       I'm sure you’re not.

The Panel host:         So, a big response to that.

The complaint

[5]  Katherine Wyeth and CK complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. CK also raised the discrimination and denigration standard.

Wyeth

[6]  Hart’s comments in the broadcast were ‘not balanced, accurate or true’. ‘Deborah Hart is a great supporter of Israel’ and ‘represents the Zionist movement’.

[7]  Given a United Nations Commission of Inquiry¹ has recently concluded that Israel has committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, RNZ's choice to platform Hart is ‘shocking’. Numerous other reports by ‘globally esteemed humanitarian organisations’ and ‘editorials by individuals with the courage to write the truth’ reach the same conclusion.²

[8]  Further, RNZ failed to ‘contextualise [the] complaint in the current situation of Israel committing an active genocide [against] the Palestinian people’.

[9]  ‘As a public broadcaster, RNZ has a duty under its Charter and the Broadcasting Standards Code. Broadcasting Zionist commentary on an unfolding genocide is not public service — it is complicity.’

[10]  Over the last two years, RNZ has ‘failed to interview [Palestinian-Kiwis] or platform Palestinian voices in any way’. RNZ should invite a Palestinian-New Zealander onto The Panel ‘to give a fair and accurate representation of the issues’ discussed.

[11]  ‘Western media outlets have afforded Israel a veneer of legitimacy during the last 2 years of genocide — parroting IDF propaganda verbatim, while silencing Palestinian voices… This amounts to active complicity in propagating genocidal rhetoric.’

CK

Discrimination and denigration

[12]  ‘During the broadcast, Ms Hart made several misleading and harmful statements, including the claim that Palestinians “must stop teaching hatred and Holocaust denial and antisemitism in Palestinian schools”. These comments reproduce official Israeli talking points, perpetuate racist stereotypes that Palestinians are inherently hateful, and amount to a form of discrimination and denigration.’

[13]  ‘By allowing unchallenged claims portraying Palestinians as hateful or antisemitic, RNZ facilitated harmful stereotyping.’

[14]  ‘Genocide denial is internationally recognised as a form of hate speech and contributes to further harm.’

Balance

[15]  ‘No Palestinian voices or directly affected individuals were included, despite the topic being Israel’s actions in Gaza. Referring to an academic based in Australia is not a substitute for including Palestinians themselves.’

[16]  RNZ has demonstrated ‘a broader editorial pattern of imbalance: RNZ frequently platforms Israeli and pro-Israel voices, while systematically excluding Palestinians themselves. This results in skewed coverage that normalises state violence and delegitimises Palestinian existence.’ 

Accuracy

[17]  ‘Ms Hart’s claims were presented without challenge, despite being widely discredited by international human rights organisations.’

Fairness

[18]  ‘The absence of countervailing perspectives, especially from Palestinians, meant the broadcast treated an entire people unfairly.’

Freedom of expression

[19]  ‘RNZ’s response to my complaint dismissed these concerns as merely “expressions of opinion” protected under Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990… Freedom of expression is not absolute, and it does not justify the uncritical broadcasting of racist tropes or genocide denial.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

• ‘The Panel is a current affairs chat show in which two panellists (often with quite different political/ideological perspectives) discuss the issues of the day with the programme host/facilitator, sometimes with the addition of an expert in a specific topic or discipline, where that is required. The programme serves RNZ’s Charter obligations by providing a national conversation/debate about the issues underlying the day’s news stories. It does this in the public interest, encouraging freedom of thought and expression and fostering a sense of national identity.’
• Hart was introduced as Chair of the Board of Utilities Disputes Limited, Chair of the Board of the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand, and Independent Chair of the Retirement Villages’ Residents’ Council. ‘RNZ considers this an adequate disclosure of pertinent affiliations/interests.’
• When asked whether she believed New Zealand should recognise a Palestinian state, Hart said she did not. Wilson said he did. The host then ‘went into more detail about the research findings: ‘42.5% in favour, 22.1% opposed, 35% didn’t know’. Therefore, one panellist was in favour of recognising a Palestinian state, one was opposed, and the host/facilitator ‘remain[ed] neutral by using data to inform the discussion’.
• Hart said, ‘release the hostages, abolish Hamas, recognise Israel, stop teaching hatred and Holocaust denial and antisemitism in Palestinian schools, and then let’s talk about a Palestinian state’. ‘As far as can be verified by RNZ, these are Deborah Hart’s genuinely held views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and she is free to disseminate these opinions in any form, as guaranteed by Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990.’
• Hart and Wilson disagreed ‘over how much support there was in New Zealand for Israel’s position on a Palestinian state. In RNZ’s view this arc of discussion does not support a claim of uncritically platforming a Zionist point of view’ (RNZ’s emphasis). 
• ‘…broadcasters have editorial discretion over who they choose to interview.’
• Response to CK only: ‘We are aware of the desire from a portion of our audience, including yourself, to hear the Palestinian perspective. It is why, for example, Morning Report spoke with Anas Iqtait, from the Australian National University's Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, on the question of recognising a Palestinian state, on 22 September.’³ ‘RNZ endeavours, across its wide array of programmes, to provide many different perspectives on key issues and events, such as the war in Gaza. Deborah Hart, on The Panel, is just one aspect of this.’

The standards

[21]  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.⁴ The standard states:⁵

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.

[22]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁶ The standard states:⁷

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.

[23]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁸ The standard states:⁹

• 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.

[24]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁰ The standard states:¹¹

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

Our analysis

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

[26]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. Our task is to weigh the right to freedom of expression, which is valued highly and enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, against the level of actual or potential harm that might be caused by the broadcast.¹² 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.¹³

Discrimination and denigration

[27]  ‘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.¹⁴ Palestinians are a recognised section of the community protected under the standard.¹⁵

[28]  CK alleged the broadcast — in particular, Hart’s claim that Palestinians must ‘stop teaching hatred and Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in Palestinian schools’ — discriminated against and denigrated Palestinians.

[29]  The guidelines for the discrimination and denigration standard emphasise that a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary for a finding of breach. Content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.¹⁶ Context is an important consideration in assessing whether a broadcast has gone too far.¹⁷

[30]  We acknowledge the statement in question may have left some with a negative impression of Palestinians. However, we do not consider it, nor the broadcast as a whole, contained a ‘high level of condemnation’ or reinforcement of stereotypes.¹⁸

[31]  Hart’s comment was not repeated or sustained. While it also was not directly challenged or rebutted, Wilson’s subsequent remarks expressed support for the idea that New Zealand should impose sanctions on Israel. A listener comment read out at the end of the segment criticised Hart: ‘I can’t understand how a panel member can be into genocide.’ The other two listener comments read out on-air expressed agreement with Hart but did not emphasise or promote negative and unproductive attitudes towards Palestinians.¹⁹

[32]  Additionally, the importance of freedom of expression means the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material that is a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion.²⁰ Although the statement was expressed definitively, as discussed at [44], we consider it was distinguishable as Hart’s opinion.

[33]  Accordingly, we find no breach of the standard.

Balance

[34]  The complainants allege the balance standard was breached as:

a)  the broadcast did not include ‘Palestinian voices or directly affected individuals … despite the topic being Israel’s actions in Gaza’; 

b)  RNZ has demonstrated a ‘broader editorial pattern of imbalance: RNZ frequently platforms Israeli and pro-Israel voices, while systematically excluding Palestinians themselves’; and

c)  over the last two years, RNZ has ‘failed to interview [Palestinian-Kiwis] or platform Palestinian voices in any way’.

[35]  The Authority’s jurisdiction is limited to broadcasting (ie audiovisual content and not text articles or still images), and our primary focus is to determine whether the specific broadcast nominated by the complainants breached broadcasting standards. Accordingly, our analysis will centre on the relevant broadcast of The Panel.²¹ 

[36]  The balance standard only applies to news and current affairs programmes that discuss a controversial issue of public importance. A ‘controversial issue’ is an issue that has topical currency about which there has been ongoing public debate, and an ‘issue of public importance’ is something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, the New Zealand public.²²

[37]  The Panel is a current affairs programme.²³ The relevant broadcast discussed controversial issues of public importance: recognition of a Palestinian state and, in the context of the priests protesting outside Nicola Willis’s office, whether New Zealand should sanction Israel. Accordingly, the balance standard applies.

[38]  The standard, however, does not require the broadcast to include an interview with someone who is Palestinian. Its focus is not on the nature of the interviewees but on the different perspectives shared.²⁴ Panel discussions can be expected to involve the sharing of opposing views. In this case, Hart and Wilson came from very different perspectives. We consider the broadcast presented significant alternative perspectives, given Wilson indicated his support for the priests and, in turn, imposing sanctions against Israel.²⁵

[39]  The requirement to present significant points of view is also likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where:

• It is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way the programme is presented, that:
  • the programme is signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective; and
  • the programme is narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.
• The audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage by other broadcasters or media outlets.²⁶

[40]  The broadcast was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the perspectives of Hart and Wilson and did not purport to be a balanced examination of perspectives. Further, it was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict. Finally, it is reasonable to expect listeners to be aware of significant viewpoints on the issues addressed. Perspectives on the recognition of a Palestinian state, whether New Zealand should sanction Israel, and the priests protesting outside Nicola Willis’s office have been frequently covered in a range of media,²⁷ including by RNZ.²⁸

Accuracy

[41]  The complainants allege Hart’s comments were not ‘accurate or true’. They were ‘presented without challenge, despite being widely discredited by international human rights organisations’. 

[42]  The comment cited by the complainants was that Palestinians must ‘stop teaching hatred and Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism in Palestinian schools’. We did not identify any other statements which may be considered inaccurate or misleading.

[43]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not generally apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.[29] In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant: [30]

• the language used;
• the type of programme;
• the role or reputation of the person speaking;
• the subject matter;
• whether the statement is attributed to someone; and
• whether evidence or proof is provided.

[44]  Although the statement was expressed definitively, we consider the statement was distinguishable as Hart’s opinion:³¹

• Preceding the statement were clear expressions of Hart’s opinion — ‘release the hostages, abolish Hamas, recognise Israel’. 
• The Panel is an opinion-based news and current affairs broadcast. In the relevant context, the host was seeking the guests’ opinions on whether they would ‘honk [their] horn’ in support of the priests wanting to sanction Israel.
• Hart was introduced, in part, as Chair of the Board of the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand. She was not presented as an expert on Palestinian society or school curricula. 
• The subject matter was, broadly, the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Viewers can be expected to understand the complex and emotionally charged nature of this subject. 
• Hart presented no evidence for her claim.

[45]  Audiences can be expected to understand opinion as contestable — and potentially incorrect. Guideline 6.1 states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to or upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based. However, Hart does not cite any facts or factual basis for her opinion about what was taught in Palestinian schools. On this basis, the accuracy standard does not apply.

Fairness

[46]  CK and Wyeth alleged, respectively, the broadcast was unfair because:

a)  ‘The absence of countervailing perspectives, especially from Palestinians, meant the broadcast treated an entire people unfairly.’

b)  Over the last two years, RNZ has ‘failed to interview [Palestinian-Kiwis] or platform Palestinian voices in any way’. RNZ should invite a Palestinian-New Zealander onto The Panel ‘to give a fair and accurate representation of the issues’ discussed.

[47]  The fairness standard requires broadcasters to deal fairly with individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. Palestinians are not an ‘organisation’ for the purpose of the standard, and the standard does not address whether issues are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed.³² Both complainants’ concerns are better addressed under the balance and accuracy standards, above.

Freedom of expression and editorial discretion

[48]  CK expressed concerns about their complaint being dismissed by RNZ ‘as merely “expressions of opinion” protected under Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990’. ‘Freedom of expression is not absolute, and it does not justify the uncritical broadcasting of racist tropes or genocide denial.’

[49]  As outlined at [26], the Authority’s task is to weigh the right to freedom of expression, enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, against the level of actual or potential harm that might be caused by the broadcast.³³ The free and frank expression of opinions is a hallmark of the right to freedom of expression. It is of critical importance regarding news and current affairs broadcasts and requires a high level of harm for the Authority to be demonstrably justified in limiting it. As outlined above, we have not identified any harm at a level justifying our intervention.

[50]  Similarly, Wyeth said RNZ’s choice to include Hart as a guest on The Panel is ‘shocking’, given a United Nations Commission of Inquiry³⁴ has recently concluded that Israel has committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. While broadcasters must always take reasonable efforts to avoid misleading the public with respect to matters of fact, and otherwise comply with applicable broadcasting standards, the selection of programmes, opinions and interviewees to feature is a matter of editorial discretion.³⁵

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
3 December 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Wyeth & CK’s original complaints - 17 and 24 September 2025

Wyeth

2  RNZ's decision - 18 September 2025

3  Wyeth's referral to the Authority - 19 September 2025

4  RNZ's confirmation of no further comments - 30 September 2025

CK

5  RNZ's decision - 25 September 2025

6  CK’s referral to the Authority - 29 September 2025

7  RNZ's confirmation of no further comments - 14 October 2025

¹ United Nations Human Rights Council Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide S-16 UN Doc A/HRC/60/CRP.3 (16 September 2025)
² Dr Omer Bartov “I’m a genocide scholar. I know it when I see it.” The New York Times (online ed, 15 July 2025); Raz Segal “‘A Textbook Case of Genocide’: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza” Democracy Now! (online ed, 16 October 2023); “Amnesty International investigation concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza” Amnesty International (online ed, 5 December 2024); “UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war” United Nations Officer of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (online ed, 14 November 2024); “Our Genocide” B’Tselem <btselem.org>; and Gideon Levy “It's Not Just War. It's Genocide – and It's Being Done in Our Name” Haaretz (online ed, 30 July 2025)
³ Anneke Smith “NZ not recognising Palestine ‘difficult to justify’ — Middle East expert” RNZ (online ed, 22 September 2025)
⁴ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁵ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹¹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [9]
¹³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁴ Guideline 4.1
¹⁵ Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [53]
¹⁶ At [54]
¹⁷ Guideline 4.3
¹⁸ Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [55]
¹⁹ In contrast, see Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No 2023-085 at [45]
²⁰ Guideline 4.2
²¹ Brewers Association of New Zealand Inc and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-048 at [20]-[21], citing Seafood New Zealand Ltd and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-083 at [5]-[7]
²² Guideline 5.1
²³ Stopford and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-075 at [14]
²⁴ Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [17]
²⁵ For a similar finding, see Ellis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-083
²⁶ Guideline 5.4
²⁷ For example, see: 1News Reporters “Priests protest over Gaza at National ministers' offices” (online ed, 15 September 2025); Samuel Sherry “Priests chain themselves to Nicola Willis' office - plan to stay all night” Newstalk ZB (online ed, 15 September 2025); Lloyd Burr “Finance Minister Nicola Willis calls protesting priests at her office ‘intimidating’” Stuff (online ed, 16 September 2025); Scottie Reeve “Chained-up priests have made Gaza our generation’s Springbok Tour moment - Rev Scottie Reeve” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 17 September 2025); and Madeleine Chapman “New Zealand is punching above its weight in cowardice” The Spinoff (online ed, 27 September 2025)
²⁸ For example, see: Ellen O’Dwyer “New Zealand Palestinian angry, upset at government's decision on statehood” RNZ (online ed, 28 September 2025); “Priests chain themselves in front of electorate office, other protesters trespassed” RNZ (online ed, 15 September 2025); Russell Palmer “New Zealand's sanctions on Israel too little, too late - opposition parties” RNZ (online ed, 11 June 2025); “Thousands demand sanctions against Israel in Auckland” RNZ (online ed, 13 September 2025); Pretoria Gordon “Wellington protest urges Israeli sanctions, Palestinian statehood” RNZ (online ed, 4 October 2025); Myra Williamson “UN finding of genocide in Gaza adds pressure on NZ to recognise a Palestinian state” RNZ (online ed, 21 September 2025); and Morning Report “Hamas the 'centre and the cause of this problem' in Gaza - David Seymour” RNZ (online ed, 16 September 2025)
²⁹ Guideline 6.1
³⁰ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³¹ For a similar finding, see Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [19]
³² Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
³³ Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [9]
³⁴ United Nations Human Rights Council, Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide S-16 UN Doc A/HRC/60/CRP.3 (16 September 2025)
³⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand