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 Morning Report interview with Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer concerning the Israel/Gaza war. The complaint alleged the interview was unbalanced because no alternative perspective was presented to counter Ngarewa-Packer’s comments that Israel’s actions in Palestine amounted to genocide and apartheid, among other things, and that those statements were also inaccurate. The Authority acknowledged people may not agree with the terms used by Ngarewa-Packer during the interview and some would find them inflammatory, but ultimately found restricting the broadcaster’s and Ngarewa-Packer’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard, taking into account audience expectations of the interview which was clearly framed as approaching the issue of the Israel/Gaza conflict from Te Pāti Māori’s perspective on New Zealand’s foreign policy response, and the host’s challenging of Ngarewa-Packer’s statements, which alerted viewers to the existence of other views. The Authority also found Ngarewa-Packer’s statements amounted to opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  During the 20 October 2023 broadcast of RNZ’s Morning Report, host Corin Dann interviewed Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer about whether the New Zealand government was doing enough in its response to the Israel/Hamas war, and what Te Pāti Māori considered would be the appropriate response from New Zealand. The interview ran for approximately 10 minutes.

[2]  Key excerpts of the discussion for the purposes of the complaint, include:

Dann:              Well Te Pāti Māori wants the incoming and outgoing government to use the country's strong international voice to insist on an urgent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas…

                                                …

Ngarewa-Packer: I'd like anyone from the government to not only go further, but to come out extremely loud and clear on the condemnation of the killing of thousands of innocent peoples in Palestine… we've got a history in Aotearoa with indigenous peoples and a colonial context. And we're deeply upset as Te Pāti Māori on the absolute failure of our leadership and our own foreign policy - which talks about the interest of a values based approach, and, we talk about supporting peace processes and the two state solution - but we've failed horrifically to do anything proactive since, I guess since the beginning. And we've seen the contradiction in how we have been with Afghanistan and Ukraine in the recent past. So what we need to see in Aotearoa is that we take a strong stance on the killing of innocent peoples - there is not a two sides situation here, we've only got one side living under military occupation - and we had needed to be much stronger… which is why we've called for absolute peace and allowing humanitarian aid in, or the expelling of the ambassador… 

Dann:              If we look at some international relations experts here, we've got Al Gillespie. He says, for example, with no global consensus, New Zealand can do little more than assert and defend the established rules based international order… You say there's only one [side], or seem to be taking a very strong position on one particular side, but he would argue that there is no global consensus. And obviously there's probably not consensus in New Zealand either. 

                                                …

Ngarewa-Packer:      Well, we want to live in peace. And we don't want to be a country that has been quiet because we've got strong allies and geopolitical spaces that are much more aligned with Israel and as tangata whenua we need to make sure that we are not a nation that is backing the displacement and continual apartheid of another indigenous people of another state…

…

Dann:              …I think its complex for everybody. If we look at, say, Spain, I see some left wing politicians there have labelled the situation in Gaza genocide. That's causing a huge diplomatic incident.

Ngarewa-Packer:      Well it is genocide and there's no other way. We can’t dress it up. And again, like I said, Palestinians are not less human than anyone else. And those leading, this apartheid, this genocide, are evil. And we have to acknowledge that just as much as those who did the horrific violence on the 7th of October. We can't pretend that there's only one side of evil going on it.

Dann:              But are you suggesting. Do you think New Zealand should be … using that sort of language? Because that would mean a diplomatic incident with Israel and it would threaten ambassadors being recalled and this sort of thing.

…

Dann:              But you see, there will be people listening to this this morning who are deeply offended that you are suggesting that Israel is a coloniser in a sense. I mean, obviously there are plenty of people who argue that they have their own links in history.

Ngarewa-Packer:       Look everyone has history and has some excuse for doing what they're doing. But again, there has been absolute genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, you know, all the offensive words that we know, as one human to another. It's not acceptable to carry on and to sit quiet just because we have allies or besties who are on one team. We should be taking a stance of sort of, you know, applying peace, making sure we get humanitarian aid in for those that are affected. And this is not a one-off incident. This has been going on for a very long time to Palestinians.

The complaint

[3]  On the morning of the broadcast, the New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC) contacted RNZ to raise concerns the broadcast was in breach of broadcasting standards, and requested RNZ provide a similar length interview with someone offering a Jewish perspective, in order to provide accuracy and balance to Ngarewa-Packer’s comments. RNZ did not consider this was necessary and declined NZJC’s request. 

[4]  Subsequently, the NZJC complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, for the following reasons:

Balance

• The interview lasted for over 10 minutes, was broadcast primetime on RNZ’s highest rated programme, and focused solely on the war between Israel and Hamas. NZJC considered ‘that some broadcasts are so significant and controversial that the period of current interest is very narrow’. ‘Ms Ngarewa-Packer's comments were given such a significant platform, and were so ignorant and inflammatory, and made in such a highly charged fast-evolving environment, they required specific and robust challenge that morning. To the contrary, Mr Dann essentially invited her to agree with the accusation of genocide.’
• In the absence of ‘robust “devil’s advocate” questioning from the interviewer’, balance required ‘a focused interview (in close proximity and preferably the same morning) that would counter some of its specific points in close proximity.’
• In support of this argument, the NZJC noted the Authority had previously found that similar controversial comments should have been balanced during the interview.¹ In the previous decision the Authority found these comments to be so extreme and specific that RNZ could not rely on general ongoing coverage to constitute balance.
• The NZJC considered the following perspective was missing: ‘There was no mention of Hamas’ genocidal charter, or how it oppresses its own people and uses them as human shields or the measures the IDF is taking to limit civilian casualties. No mention of hostages held.  And rockets being shot at Israel.’

Accuracy

• The NZJC submitted the following statements in the broadcast were inaccurate (among others):
  
  a)  ‘We talk about supporting peace processes and the two-state solution, but we've failed horrifically to do anything proactive since the beginning.’ NZJC said it was unclear when was ‘the beginning’, but New Zealand has acted, including in voting for the two state solution of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
  b)  ‘It's not a two-sided situation here. We've only got one side living under military occupation.’ NZJC said ‘Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005... Since then (at least until October 7), there has been not one Jew, and no military presence there. Gaza has been self-governing since then. In 2006, there were elections which Hamas won, and it has ruled Gaza ever since.’
  c)  ‘As tangata whenua, we need to make sure that we are not a nation that is backing the displacement and continual apartheid of another indigenous people, of another state.’ Ms Ngarewa-Packer made repeated references and implications about Palestinians being indigenous or tangata whenua. Jewish people ‘have their own links in history.’ ‘History, genetics and archaeology all confirm Jews are the indigenous people in the land of Israel.’
  d)  ‘Well, it is genocide… there has been absolute genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid’. Corin Dann ‘essentially invited Ms Ngarewa-Packer to accuse Israel of genocide. Genocide, defined in international law, refers to acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group… Applying this term to Israel's military actions, in the face of evidence to the contrary (e.g. letter drops, text messages and phone calls to Gazan civilians, and civilian corridors) is grossly inaccurate and inflames public tensions.’ 

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘Ms Ngarewa-Packer has the right to impart information in the form of her political views in this interview. Similarly, as a public service broadcaster, RNZ's role in New Zealand society is to inform the New Zealand public which has a right to know Ms Ngarewa-Packer's views given her party represents six out of the seven Māori electorates in the New Zealand Parliament. That those views may be offensive or highly offensive to some, is not a sufficient threshold to suggest that her views should not be published.’

Balance

• ‘The news angle and substantive issue dealt with in this interview is Te Pāti Māori’s challenge to New Zealand’s foreign policy/stance on the war in Gaza. An official response to that wero was not forthcoming (as described above) so the interview proceeded with Mr Dann and Ms Ngarewa Packer as the participants. The angle and arc of the interview are editorial decisions. RNZ is free to determine the appropriate treatment.’
• RNZ referred to an earlier decision of the BSA addressing RNZ’s coverage of the escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip in 2013. In not upholding the complaint, the BSA stated:²
  “The Authority has said in previous decisions that balance need not be achieved by the “stopwatch”, meaning that the time given to each competing party or viewpoint does not have to be mathematically balanced.³ Further, significant points of view can be provided in a variety of ways in addition to alternative perspectives presented first-hand, including the use of “devil’s advocate” questioning,⁴ or by acknowledging the existence of other significant perspectives.⁵”
• ‘The interview complained of presently was aired in near identical circumstances to the subject of the complaint referred to and the same outcome (a not upheld) prevails when the balance standard is applied to the content which is the subject of [NZJC’s] complaint.’
• ‘RNZ notes that [its] coverage in the period of current interest on this topic has included interviews with [the complainant], the Israeli ambassador and others from the Israeli Embassy let alone a number of quotes from Israeli government officials in [RNZ’s] news coverage.’

Accuracy

• ‘RNZ observes that the term “genocide” is one now widely used in reference to events both recent and past in Gaza and the occupied territories. [RNZ] refer to two recent releases from the office of the Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories as just two examples of the increased usage of this terminology by third parties.⁶ The term was also used in the New Zealand Parliament’s recent debate.⁷’

The standards

[6]  The balance standard⁸ states 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. It ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁹

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹⁰ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹¹ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead.

Our analysis

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

Freedom of expression

[9]  The openness of our society and its liberal character is recognised in the fundamental concept of freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This means there should be a freedom to express and impart ideas or information, and a freedom to receive those ideas or information – a freedom which is fundamental in broadcasting.¹² The inclination is therefore towards freedom and away from restrictions, which are only justifiable to avoid actual or potential harm that may be caused by a broadcast.

[10]  When we consider whether to restrict freedom of expression, we first consider the value of, and public interest in, the type of speech in the broadcast and the information conveyed. In Steven Price’s guide to The BSA and the Bill of Rights¹³ it is noted, ‘The Courts have spoken of a hierarchy of types of speech, with political speech at the core; scientific, religious and educational speech also very important, artistic speech ranking highly, commercial and mass entertainment speech having middling importance and things like pornography, privacy invasions without redeeming public interest and perhaps hate speech usually having low value.’ 

[11]  We have previously acknowledged that the Israeli-Hamas conflict carries high public interest.¹⁴

[12]  There was accordingly high value and public interest in an interview with the leader of a New Zealand political party (political speech), advocating for their desired foreign policy response to the conflict (particularly during a period where there had been little political response from New Zealand due to there being a caretaker government following the 2023 general election), and there is significant benefit in the public knowing about the existence and nature of critical views and perspectives, on either side of the conflict.¹⁵

[13]  In terms of the alleged harm, we acknowledge that the history of conflict in Israel and Palestine is complex and long running, and that society has polarised views on it. We are also mindful that both Jewish New Zealanders, and Palestinian New Zealanders are facing an upswing in vitriol and harassment – with the complainant advising of an unprecedented and frightening level of anti-Semitic incidents. Loaded and inflammatory language in the media may in some circumstances contribute to this harm, and potentially limit those groups’ participation in the ‘marketplace of ideas’.¹⁶

[14]  We nevertheless recognise, as the Supreme Court has, that ‘a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute’, indeed, it may ‘best serve its high purpose… when it stirs people to anger.’¹⁷ When determining complaints, we must be careful not to mistake anger or offence that may be caused by a broadcast for a reason to restrict the right to freedom of expression.¹⁸ As a regulator, our role is to objectively weigh the right to freedom of expression against the harm potentially caused by this particular broadcast, having regard to current community norms and values.

[15]  Ultimately in this case, while we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns, and that some of the comments in the broadcast were inflammatory, we have not found harm sufficient to outweigh the broadcaster’s, or Ngarewa-Packer’s right to freedom of expression. We explain our reasons for this finding below.

Balance

[16]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.¹⁹

[17]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.²⁰ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.²¹

[18]  We are satisfied the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the New Zealand government’s response to the conflict, is a controversial issue of public importance and that it was discussed in this broadcast. Accordingly, the balance standard applies.

[19]  The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints on significant issues such as this are presented to enable listeners to arrive at their own informed and reasoned opinions.²² A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.²³ The standard also recognises that in some cases the requirement to present balance will be reduced, or even negated, where²⁴:

• It is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way in which the programme is presented, that:
  • The programme is not claiming, or intended, to be a balanced examination of an issue;
  • The programme is signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective;
  • The programme is narrowly focussed 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.
• In the context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented.

[20]  Applying these factors, we do not consider listeners would have expected additional perspectives to be included in this broadcast and do not find any breach of the balance standard, on the basis: 

• The broadcast was clearly signalled as approaching the topic from a particular perspective, being Te Pāti Māori’s view that ‘the incoming and outgoing government [should] use the country's strong international voice to insist on an urgent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas’, rather than claiming to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict.²⁵
• Other perspectives were acknowledged through Dann’s questioning, and listeners would have understood Ngarewa-Packer’s perspective represented one view on the matter. For example, Dann put the following points to Ngarewa-Packer:
  • Ngarewa-Packer’s description of New Zealand’s foreign policy on Israel and Gaza was unfair, and New Zealand had a long history of supporting a two-state solution; 
  • Ngarewa-Packer’s assertion that there was only one side to the conflict was not supported by international relations expert Al Gillespie, who had said there was no consensus on the conflict, either globally or in New Zealand; 
  • whether Te Pāti Māori was also condemning Hamas; 
  • if New Zealand used language such as ‘genocide’, this would likely result in a diplomatic incident with Israel; 
  • some listeners would be deeply offended by the suggestion Israel was a coloniser, noting ‘there are plenty of people who argue that they have their own links in history [to Israel].’
• For this reason, we consider this broadcast is distinguishable from an earlier case referred to by the complainant where the Authority upheld a complaint in relation to an interviewee describing the conflict between Israel and Palestine in terms such as ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid’.²⁶ In that case the Authority found the presenter let the interviewee speak and present his controversial views largely unchallenged for 12 minutes. We do not agree with the complainant’s view that the host’s challenging of Ngarewa-Packer’s comments was insufficient; we consider Dann questioned and challenged many, if not all, of Ngarewa-Packer’s statements in this case.
• RNZ informed listeners it had tried to get other political parties’ foreign affairs spokespersons on the programme to provide other perspectives, but those spokespersons had declined. 
• The standard explicitly allows for balance to be achieved over time.²⁷ Broadcasters are not required to present every perspective on a controversial issue within each and every broadcast discussing that issue. Placing such a requirement on broadcasters would itself unreasonably limit their exercise of freedom of expression and editorial control, and in particular their freedom to present programmes or interviews from a particular perspective.
• As far as RNZ’s reasonable efforts to provide balancing perspectives across its coverage of these issues, we note that we recently declined to uphold a complaint against RNZ in relation to a seven-minute interview with an Israeli/Kiwi soldier, whose comments complainants considered were unbalanced when making several of the points NZJC submitted should have been raised in this broadcast.²⁸
• Application of the standard must also reflect the present broadcasting environment in New Zealand including the proliferation of broadcast media available to audiences and a more discerning viewing/listening public.²⁹ The issues canvassed in the broadcast have been frequently discussed, including in the period of current interest since developments in the conflict from 7 October 2023 on, so it is reasonable to expect listeners to be aware of significant viewpoints on these issues.³⁰

[21]  In these circumstances, any restriction of the right to freedom of expression on this occasion, including the broadcaster’s and Ngarewa-Packer’s, and the audience’s right to hear those perspectives – would be unjustified in our view. We therefore do not uphold the balance complaint.

Accuracy

[22]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[23]  The NZJC identified a number of statements by Ngarewa-Packer that it considered were misleading and/or inaccurate:

• ‘We've failed horrifically to do anything proactive since the beginning.’
• ‘There is not a two-sides situation here, we've only got one side living under military occupation.’
• ‘As tangata whenua we need to make sure that we are not a nation that is backing the displacement and continual apartheid of another indigenous people of another state.’
• ‘it is genocide’. 

[24]  We first considered whether the accuracy standard applied to these statements.

[25]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.³¹ An opinion is someone’s view; it is contestable, and others may hold a different view.³² It is not always clear whether a statement is an assertion of fact or an opinion – this will depend on the context, presentation, and how a reasonable listener would perceive the information.³³ In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:³⁴

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

[26]  We acknowledge Ngarewa-Packer’s comments were likely to be considered inflammatory by some people, and that some of the statements were expressed definitively.

[27]  However, for the reasons below, we consider listeners were likely to interpret the statements as Ngarewa-Packer’s analysis, comment or opinion and on that basis the standard did not apply:

• The programme was clearly signalled in the introduction as Te Pāti Māori’s – and by extension Ngarewa-Packer’s – opinion on how the New Zealand Government should respond to the Israel/Hamas conflict. It was not an in-depth investigatory piece purporting to establish the facts or long history of the conflict.
• Ngarewa-Packer frequently used language signposting her comments as her views and the views of Te Pāti Maori, for example ‘I’d like’, ‘we’re deeply upset’, ‘I think’, ‘I speak from someone who…’, ‘I speak from a very clear perspective’, ‘we want’, ‘my point is…’
• No evidence was provided for Ngarewa-Packer’s claims.
• Listeners could reasonably be expected to understand they were hearing one-sided, political advocacy on New Zealand’s foreign policy and on how New Zealand should respond to the conflict. We recently made similar findings concerning an interview signalled as presenting an Israeli perspective.³⁵
• In our view, statements such as ‘We've failed horrifically to do anything proactive since the beginning’ and ‘it's not a two-sides situation here’, necessarily rest upon a value judgement and subjective analysis on the sufficiency of New Zealand’s foreign policy and on which side of the conflict should be supported – rather than being statements of fact which could easily be proven or disproven.
• We consider the same can be said about Ngarewa-Packer’s references to ‘occupation’, ‘colonisation’, ‘apartheid’, and ‘genocide’, noting the use of these terms is hotly debated and requires subjective assessment and value judgement. They cannot reasonably be categorised as statements of fact against which standards of accuracy can be assessed. 
• Ngarewa-Packer’s statements regarding displacement of an indigenous people included no claim or suggestion that Jewish people are not indigenous to the land of Israel, as alleged by the complainant. The comments appeared more to reflect her opinion of the similarities she sees between the experience and treatment of Māori, and that of Palestinians given the actions of the Israeli Government.

[28]  Even if any of Ngarewa-Packer’s comments could be interpreted as statements of fact, or as being opinions based on erroneous facts, the Authority’s task is not to confirm their accuracy or inaccuracy – noting we are not in a position to make determinations on the geo-political situation in Israel and Palestine.³⁶ The Authority’s role is to assess whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy in the circumstances.

[29]  We have previously recognised the importance for broadcasters of striking a balance between informing the public and avoiding being used as a vehicle for propaganda.³⁷ In this case, even if some of Ngarewa-Packer’s comments were unable to be verified or ultimately proved incorrect, we are satisfied RNZ exercised reasonable efforts and struck the appropriate balance:

• In our view, there was no reason to suspect Ngarewa-Packer’s comments to be anything other than her, and Te Pāti Māori’s, genuinely held beliefs and position on foreign policy.
• Many of the statements complained of reflect accusations that have been made by entities (or their representatives) such as the United Nations, Amnesty International and the Red Cross – noting the International Court of Justice is still assessing an allegation of genocide against Israel – and would not be readily identified as false.³⁸
• The interview was live, and the host pushed back on many of the comments complained of, reducing the likelihood of the audience being misled.³⁹

[30]  The free and frank expression of opinions is a hallmark of the right to freedom of expression and of critical importance when it comes to the broadcasting of news and current affairs. There is significant benefit in the public understanding what policies and actions New Zealand political parties are advocating for, in response to the conflict. Overall, we have found no harm under the accuracy standard sufficient to justify regulatory intervention or limiting the broadcaster’s and Ngarewa-Packer’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
7 May 2024    

Appendix

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

1  NZJC’s formal complaint – 15 November 2023

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 15 December 2023

3  NZJC’s referral to the Authority – 17 January 2024

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 23 February 2024

¹ Maasland & Others and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-118
² Bolot, Finlay and Gautier and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-008
³ See, for example, New Zealand Defence Force and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-121, and New Zealand Food and Grocery Council Incorporated and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2007-126
⁴ See, for example, Boyce and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2011-163, Signer and Bailey and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2011-111, and Brooking and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2009-012
⁵ See, for example, Butler et al and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2009-063
⁶ Press release | Special procedures “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people” United Nations (16 November 2023) ; Press release | Special procedures “Gaza is ‘running out of time’ UN experts warn, demanding a ceasefire to prevent genocide” (2 November 2023)
⁷ “Labour’s Damien O’Conner goes against party policy in calling Israel’s actions in Gaza ‘genocide’” RNZ (online ed, 8 December 2023)
⁸ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁰ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹² Adam & Crawford and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-067 at [20]
¹³ Steven Price “The BSA and the Bill of Rights – a practical guide” (May 2012), pages 9 - 10
¹⁴ Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004
¹⁵ Amy Ross and others Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: a Literature Review (Reuters Institute, 2022) at 10
¹⁶ See Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZHC 104, [2018] 2 NZLR 471 at [89] where the Court was ‘mindful also that by delegitimising a group, insulting publications can have the potential to limit that group’s participation in the “market”.’
¹⁷ Moncrieff-Spittle v Regional Facilities Auckland Limited [2022] NZSC 138 at [115] citing Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 (1949) at 4; and see R v Morse [2010] 2 NZLR 625, [2009] NZCA 623 per Glazebrook J, dissenting, at [89] and [120]; appeal allowed in Morse v Police [2012] 2 NZLR 1, [2011] NZSC 45
¹⁸ Adam & Crawford and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-067 at [24]
¹⁹ Guideline 5.1
²⁰ Guideline 5.1
²¹ Guideline 5.1
²² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
²³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²⁴ Guideline 5.4
²⁵ Guideline 5.4
²⁶ Maasland & Others and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-118
²⁷ Guideline 5.2
²⁸ Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004
²⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
³⁰ “Interviews with IDF Spokesperson and UN worker in Gaza” Newshub Nation (online video, 28 October 2023); Russell Palmer “New Zealand politicians speak out over Israel-Hamas violence” RNZ (online ed, 8 October 2023); Michael Neilson “Concern over lack of NZ political response to Israel-Hamas war” NewstalkZB (online ed, 20 October 2023); Anneke Smith “Israel-Hamas war: Fear of violence in New Zealand rises amid latest conflict” RNZ (online ed, 19 October 2023; Alexander Gillespie and Robert Patman “As the Israel-Gaza crisis worsens, what are NZ’s diplomatic options?” RNZ (online ed, 28 October 2023); Sharon Brettkelly “Israel v Hamas: The without end” RNZ (online ed, 18 October 2023)
³¹ Guideline 6.1
³² See Buchanan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-087 at [10]
³³ As above
³⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³⁵ Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004
³⁶ As above
³⁷ As above
³⁸ For occupation see: “Fifty years of occupation: Where do we go from here?” International Committee of the Red Cross (2 June 2017) , and “Israel’s Occupation: 50 Years of Disposition” Amnesty International (7 June 2017) ; for ‘apartheid’ see: Michael Lynk “Israel’s 55-year occupation of Palestinian Territory is apartheid – UN human rights expert” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (25 March 2022) , and “’Israel practices apartheid,’ say Israeli law professors” Middle East Monitor (30 March 2023); for ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ see: “Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide” United Nations press release (19 October 2023) , and Francesca Albanese “UN expert warns of new instance of mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, calls for immediate ceasefire” United Nations Human Right Office of the High Commissioner (14 October 2023) ; and for ‘colonisation’ see: Francesca Albanese “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” (21 September 2022) A/77/356
³⁹ Corin Dann’s challenges included: statements that Ngarewa-Packer’s description of New Zealand’s foreign policy on Israel and Gaza was unfair, and New Zealand had a long history of supporting a two-state solution; statements that Ngarewa-Packer’s assertion that there was only one side to the conflict was not supported by international relations expert Al Gillespie, who had said there was no consensus on the conflict, either globally or in New Zealand; querying whether Te Pāti Māori was also condemning Hamas; querying what Israel was supposed to do in response to 1200 of its people being murdered, and asking whether Israel did not have the right to defend itself; querying whether New Zealand should be using language such as ‘genocide’, noting that if it did, this would likely result in a diplomatic incident with Israel; and stating that there would be listeners who would be deeply offended by the suggestion that Israel was a colonizer, and that ‘there are plenty of people who argue that they have their own links in history [to Israel].’