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 under the discrimination and denigration standard about a Mike Hosking Breakfast segment discussing the ‘demise’ of footwear company Allbirds. Hosking, referring to the problem of ‘dupes’, said ‘the Chinese will steal it from you, and they will make it for less’. The Authority accepted some listeners would find the comments offensive but, in context, found they were likely to be seen as referring to the business practices of some companies rather than Chinese people. The comments did not carry the invective or malice at a level that amounts to encouraging the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people.

Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  The 2 April 2026 broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast included an item discussing the ‘demise’ of Allbirds, a footwear and apparel company co-founded by a former New Zealand professional footballer. The relevant segment follows:

Guest A:         Maybe the price point was a bit high for what the product was, because to me it looked like– I don't know, I didn't feel like you would trust that shoe because wasn't it all wool and…

Hosking:         It certainly didn’t look robust.

Guest B:         Yeah, merino, yeah. Hey, well listen, if entrepreneurs come back, what about the sugar-filled Hosking Pale Ale? It tastes like a can of Bailey's.          

Hosking:         No, no, I don't think so. Dupes, dupes [are] your other problem, of course. The moment– I've come to the conclusion that unless you've got something that the Chinese can't copy, you'll do well. If you haven't got something the Chinese can’t copy, then you're toast. Because no matter what you invent, the Chinese will steal it from you, and they will make it for less.

Guest B:         And slog it on Temu and it’ll be 25 bucks.

Hosking:         And that’ll be the end of that.

The complaint

[2]  William Zhang complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  ‘These remarks made a sweeping negative generalisation about Chinese people as a racial/ethnic group. The statement did not criticise any specific company, policy, or proven instance of intellectual property infringement.’

b)  ‘That is racist stereotyping and devalues the reputation of a section of the community on account of race.’

c)  It ‘reinforces harmful racial stereotypes that Chinese people are dishonest, copy others or steal innovation’.

d)  ‘Broadcasting these comments on a mainstream national breakfast radio programme normalises prejudice against Chinese people and contributes to racial stigma.’

e)  ‘Public broadcasters and major talkback hosts should be held to a higher standard than unsupported racial generalisations.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  ‘Comments will not breach the standard simply because they are critical of a particular group, because they offend listeners, or because they are rude’.¹

b)  ‘While we acknowledge that the language used may have caused offence to some listeners, taking into account the brief nature of the remarks, the absence of malice or nastiness, the talkback forum in which they were made, and the importance of freedom of expression, we do not consider the comments met the high threshold required to justify regulatory intervention.’

c)  ‘The comments arose in the course of a light, wide-ranging discussion about Allbirds, including its pricing, perceived product quality, and broader reasons for its commercial trajectory.’

d)  ‘Properly viewed in context, the comments reflect a generalised and rhetorically expressed view about the challenges of competing in international markets where products can be replicated and sold at lower cost, rather than an attack on Chinese people as a section of the community.’  

The standard

[4]  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.² The standard states:³

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.

Our analysis

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

[6]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁴

Discrimination and denigration

[7]  The complainant has argued the statements – that ‘unless you've got something that the Chinese can't copy’, then ‘no matter what you invent, the Chinese will steal it from you and they will make it for less’ and ‘slog it’ – implied that copying, theft and dishonest conduct are ‘inherent racial traits’ of Chinese people, reinforcing negative stereotypes.

[8]  The discrimination and denigration standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993. Chinese people are a recognised section of the community and, accordingly, the standard applies.

[9]  ‘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.⁵

[10]  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.⁶ The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material constituting a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion.

[11]  Context is an important consideration in assessing whether a broadcast has gone too far. The following factors may also be considered:⁷

a)  the language used

b)  the tone of the person making the comments

c)  the forum in which the comments were made

d)  whether the comments were repeated or sustained, or corrected or rebutted

e)  whether the comments made a legitimate contribution to wider debate or carried public interest.

[12]  We consider the following factors are relevant:

a)  Newstalk ZB is targeted at adults aged 40 to 59 years old.

b)  Mike Hosking Breakfast is a radio talk show that discusses news and current affairs. Hosking is well-known as a broadcaster who frequently offers strong, provocative opinions.⁸

c)  There are audience expectations that NZME will, at times, broadcast controversial or unpopular opinions.⁹

d)  The segment was focused on the ‘demise’ of Allbirds. The relevant comments made up a brief part of the overall conversation.

e)  Guest B refers to Temu, the Chinese e-commerce company which sells an enormous variety and volume of products at low prices.¹⁰

f)  Hosking’s tone was conversational rather than malicious.

[13]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns and accept some listeners would find the comments offensive. On a plain interpretation of the words, ‘no matter what you invent, the Chinese will steal it from you’ could be seen as describing a negative stereotype about people from China. However, the comments were in reference to issues with product ‘dupes’ in light of the ‘demise’ of Allbirds. They were brief and addressed a business practice.

[14]  Given this focus on product ‘dupes’, the tone used, and the specific reference to Temu, we consider listeners were likely to interpret the comments as directed at the practices of companies, such as Temu and Shein, which have been criticised for selling mass produced and duplicated products at low prices.¹¹

[15]  Although we can understand the complainant’s discomfort with the comments, we do not consider they carried invective or malice at a level that amounts to encouraging the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people. Accordingly, we do not consider there was sufficient harm to warrant regulatory intervention and the consequent restriction of the broadcaster’s and audience’s right to 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
29 July 2026  

 
Appendix

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

1  Zhang’s original complaint – 3 April 2026

2  NZME’s decision – 5 May 2026

3  Zhang’s referral to the Authority – 11 May 2026

4  NZME’s response to the referral – 25 May 2026

¹ Citing Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
³ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵  See O’Leary and New Zealand Media Entertainment Ltd, Decision No. 2020-009 at [11] for a similar finding
⁶ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁷ Guideline 4.3: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ See Grant & Findlay and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-117 at [30] for a similar finding
⁹ See O’Leary and New Zealand Media Entertainment Ltd, Decision No. 2020-009 at [11] for a similar finding
¹⁰ Shanti Mathias “What is Temu and why is it suddenly everywhere” Stuff (online ed, 11 May 2023)
¹¹ Conor Murray ”What to Know About Temu: New Chinese-Owned Fast Fashion App Draws Comparisons (Good and Bad) To Shein” Forbes (online ed, 17 February 2023); and Sharon Pruitt-Young “Why Indie Brands Are At War With Shein And Other Fast-Fashion Companies” NPR (online ed, 20 July 2021)