Radio Pacific – Morning Grill – offensive remarks about the Queen
Principle 1 – contextual matters – no uphold
Principle 7 – no denigration or discrimination – high threshold not reached – no uphold
This headnote does not form part of the decision.
 On the Morning Grill programme broadcast by Radio Pacific on 2 August 2002 at approximately 6.04am, the presenters (Pam Corkery and Paul Henry) discussed the Queen’s recent visit to a mosque in Britain. The presenters focused on the fact that entry into the mosque required the Queen to remove her shoes.
 H B McMeekin complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenters’ comments were "insulting, gratuitous, and ageist".
 In declining to uphold the complaint, the broadcaster submitted that the comments complained about were "lighthearted and were not intended to be offensive."
 Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s response, H B McMeekin referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.
 The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. The Authority determines this complaint without a formal hearing.
 The Morning Grill programme broadcast by Radio Pacific on 2 August 2002 at approximately 6.04am, included a discussion between the presenters (Pam Corkery and Paul Henry) about the Queen’s recent visit to a mosque in Britain. The presenters focused on the fact that entry into the mosque required the Queen to remove her shoes.
 The presenters discussed a photograph they had of the Queen with her shoes removed, about to put on a pair of ballet slippers. One of the presenters commented that it was rare to see a photograph of the Queen’s feet, to which the other presenter said "she’s never, to my knowledge, been photographed naked".
 The presenters continued to discuss the Queen’s clothing, including her handbag and dress. Referring to the Queen’s dress, one of the presenters remarked: "is that well pressed, has that been given a decent iron?" The presenter continued "actually have her legs been given a decent iron?"
 H B McMeekin complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that the presenters’ comments were "insulting, gratuitous, and ageist".
 H B McMeekin wrote:
The NZ listening public can do without these sort of remarks. They are also ageist, especially the leg ironing part.
 The broadcaster assessed the complaint against Principle 1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. It reads:
Principle 1 Good Taste and Decency
In programmes and their presentation, broadcasters are required to maintain standards which are consistent with the observance of good taste and decency.
1a Broadcasters will take into consideration current norms of decency and good taste in language and behaviour bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs and the wider context of the broadcast (eg time of day, target audience).
 In declining to uphold the complaint, the broadcaster advised that "[T]he comments were made in a lighthearted [sic] and were not intended to be offensive."
 Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s response, H B McMeekin contended that the presenters made "cruel and insensitive remarks" about the Queen. H B McMeekin also claimed that the remarks contravened the human rights of an individual. The complainant wrote:
I reiterate that just because the Prime Minister can openly insult the Queen, talkback hosts cannot. Lighthearted remarks are meant to be enjoyed by both sides.
 The broadcaster advised the Authority that it had examined the complaint, and could find no breach of Principle 1. It reiterated that "the comments were made in a lighthearted manner and were not intended to be offensive."
 The broadcaster advised further that:
Principle 7 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice permits the broadcaster to use humour or satire in broadcasting. This is the case with this broadcast.
 H B McMeekin disagreed with the broadcaster’s response, and wrote:
Humour it was not, nor was it lighthearted. It was thoughtless and out of control.
 When it determines a complaint that a broadcast contravenes Principle 1 of the Radio Code, the Authority is required to determine whether the material complained about breaches currently accepted standards of good taste and decency, taking into account the context of the broadcast. The context is relevant, but does not determine whether the programme breached the principle. Accordingly, the Authority has considered the context in which the comments complained about were broadcast.
 The Authority considers that the relevant contextual factors on this occasion are the nature of the programme (light conversational tone), the time of the broadcast (at 6.04am), the programme format and the target audience (adult listeners).
 In addition, while the Authority accepts that some listeners may have found the remarks discourteous, in its view the comments were irreverent rather than insulting. Accordingly, the Authority does not accept that the comments breached current norms of good taste and decency, and it concludes that on this occasion there has been no breach of Principle 1.
 Finally, the Authority notes that the broadcaster raised Principle 7 in defence of its position when, in its response to the Authority, it stated that Principle 7 permitted the use of "humour or satire in broadcasting." The Authority considers that while the comment "actually, have her legs been given a decent iron", could have ageist overtones, it could also refer to the Queen’s immaculate presentation. While ageist remarks are unfortunate, Principle 7, as the Authority has noted previously, has a very high threshold – the portrayal has to be such that it encourages denigration of, or discrimination against, old people. In the Authority’s view, the broadcast fell short of such encouragement. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that Principle 7 was not contravened.
 The Authority observes that to find a breach of broadcasting standards on this occasion would be to apply the Broadcasting Act 1989 in such a way as to limit freedom of expression in a manner which is not reasonable or demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society (s.5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). As required by s.6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Authority adopts an interpretation of the relevant standards and applies them in a manner which it considers is consistent with and gives full weight to the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
For the reasons given above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
17 October 2002
The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint: