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 about a comment made on Mike Hosking Breakfast referring to the use of te reo Māori names for government departments as the ‘Māorification of this country’. The complainant argued that the comment implied it was a bad thing to be Māori. While recognising the comments may be offensive to some people, in the context they did not meet the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the standards.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  During a segment of Mike Hosking Breakfast broadcast on Newstalk ZB at 7:55am on 9 April 2024, Mike Hosking interviewed Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on a range of topics. As part of the interview, Hosking asked the Prime Minister about Government departments changing their names from te reo Māori to English as follows:

Hosking:     Health New Zealand, NZTA, apart from that, no one’s moved on Māori names. You said that you’d change Māori names but… when is that happening?

…

Luxon:         It’s not difficult and it’s not going to cost millions of dollars. It’s like, grab the old jpeg file that you put on your old website, and you put on your letterhead and your PR releases and actually just flip it, from English to Māori in number one, number two positions.

…

Hosking:     That’s my point though. If you can’t get them to change their name, how are you going to get New Zealanders to work or the public service on board on stuff they don’t want to do?

[2]  Later in the programme, Hosking read out a text message from a listener which referred to the earlier interview with the Prime Minister. He offered his response to the text:

Hosking [reading out text message]: Mike, Luxon doesn’t get it. It’s not Kāinga Ora but Housing New Zealand.

Hosking:     I tend to agree. I don’t wanna get too bogged down on these things, I think people get a bit angsty over it all. But [the coalition Government] did make a very clear promise and push that the Māorification of this country, uh, is gone too far and it needs to be rectified. And if it is that simple as a jpeg, how come it hasn’t been done? And if they can’t make the public service do something that simple really quickly, how slow is the whole process of the jobs?

The complaint

[3]  Richard Lane complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis Hosking had referred to the ‘Maorification’ of New Zealand, implying that it was a bad thing to be Māori.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  NZME did not uphold Lane’s complaint for the following reasons:

• The host was ‘expressing his views on the current government’s priorities and policies, which included a clear direction to the government departments with te reo Māori names to give greater prominence to their English names’.
• While some people may have been offended by the host’s use of ‘Māorification’, NZME did not consider it indicated an overall negative view of Māori.
• NZME did ‘not consider that the comments made by the host during this segment contain the required level of condemnation to constitute a breach of [the discrimination and denigration’ standard] … we do not consider there was any malice contained in these comments’.

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard¹ 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.² The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

[6]  The discrimination and denigration standard³ protects against broadcasts which encourage the 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

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

[8]  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 - which includes the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of content and programming, as well as the audience’s right to receive that content - against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁴

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[9]  Context is crucial in determining complaints under the offensive and disturbing content standard. The following contextual factors are relevant:

• Newstalk ZB is targeted at adults aged 40 to 59 years old.
• 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.⁵
• There are audience expectations that NZME will, at times, broadcast controversial or unpopular opinions.⁶
• The focus of the broadcast was an interview with the Prime Minister discussing the Government’s policy objectives. The discussion of te reo Māori names for government departments made up a brief part of the overall conversation.
• Hosking’s comment that ‘[the coalition Government] did make a very clear promise and push that the Māorification of this country, uh, is gone too far and it needs to be rectified’ was a brief, one-off comment in response to a text message from a listener.

[10]  In light of the above context, we do not consider the broadcast was likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. We recognise the phrase ‘Māorification of this country’ will be offensive to some listeners (even in the context of a programme known for its controversial opinions). However, the focus of the discussion was the the Government’s policy objectives, in particular those concerning the use of te reo Māori names for government departments, with this phrase used once in passing. For these reasons, we do not consider it meets the threshold to constitute a breach of the standard.

[11]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this part of the complaint.

Discrimination and Denigration

[12]  The complainant has argued that use of the term ‘Māorification’, in the context of the relevant conversation, implied that being Māori is ‘a bad thing’. Māori are a section of the community to which the standard applies.

[13]  ‘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.⁷

[14]  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.⁸

[15]  The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material constituting a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion.⁹

[16]  The contextual factors discussed under the offensive and disturbing content standard are also relevant to this standard.¹⁰

[17]  We accept that ‘Māorification’ was a loaded term to use in the context which, as set out in paragraph [2], addressed concerns about delay in implementing ‘simple’ Government policy changes. We also accept that its use, coupled with ‘is gone too far’ and ‘needs to be rectified’ implies a negative perspective on the use of te reo names by government departments. However, noting the broadcast’s focus on Government policy and the brief nature and focus of the particular comment, we consider the comment did not carry the level of invective towards Māori or reach the high threshold necessary to find a breach of the standard.

[18]  Accordingly, we do not consider there was sufficient potential harm caused by the broadcast 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

John Gillespie 

Acting Chair

26 June 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Richard Lane’s original complaint – 9 April 2024

2  NZME’s response to the complaint – 6 May 2024

3  Lane’s referral to the Authority – 7 May 2024

4  NZME’s confirmation of no further comment – 22 May 2024

 
¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
³ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁵ See Grant & Findlay and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-117 at [30]
⁶ See O’Leary and New Zealand Media Entertainment Ltd, Decision No. 2020-009 at [11] for a similar finding
⁷ Guideline 4.1
⁸ Guideline 4.2
⁹ Guideline 4.2
¹⁰ Guideline 4.3