Formal Complaint re The Hui

Warner Bros Discovery

Tēnā koe

PART ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF MATTER AND IMMEDIATE RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 Jurisdictional Foundation and Identification of Broadcast

This formal complaint is lodged pursuant to the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and in accordance with the formal complaints procedure established by Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand. The matter concerns a specific episode of the current affairs programme The Hui, produced by Great Southern Television and broadcast by Warner Bros. It is available on both free-to-air, Three Now, and the Hui’s YouTube channel.

1.2 Statement of Principal Grievance

The broadcast in question contains a fundamental and prejudicial misrepresentation of New Zealand law that strikes at the heart of human rights protections in this jurisdiction. Specifically, the programme asserted or fundamentally conveyed that the prohibited ground of discrimination of "sex" under section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 excludes "gender identity" from its ambit. This assertion constitutes a grave misstatement of the established legal position in Aotearoa New Zealand, directly contradicting the authoritative and consistently maintained interpretation of Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | The Human Rights Commission—the statutory body charged with the administration and interpretation of human rights law in this country. Through this misrepresentation, the broadcast effectively nullifies the primary legal protection against discrimination available to transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse citizens.

1.3 Immediate Relief Required

Given the severity of this misrepresentation and its potential to cause irreparable harm, we hereby demand the immediate and permanent removal of the subject episode from all Warner Bros. Discovery platforms, including but not limited to broadcast television, on-demand streaming services (specifically ThreeNow), and all associated digital archives and platforms. This remedy is necessitated by the gravity of the legal falsehood disseminated and the urgent need to prevent its continued propagation.

1.4 Procedural Notice and Timeline

This complaint is submitted within the statutory 20-working-day period following the original broadcast, as required by the formal complaints process. We expect a substantive response that upholds this complaint and confirms implementation of the demanded remedial action within 20 working days of receipt. Should Warner Bros. Discovery fail to provide a satisfactory resolution or to implement the specified remedial action, this matter will be referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for determination forthwith.

PART TWO: THE LEGAL FALSEHOOD—ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMME'S FUNDAMENTAL ERROR

The programme's failure transcends mere interpretive difference or editorial perspective. It constitutes a fundamental misstatement of operative law in New Zealand through the presentation of an incomplete and misleading account that ignores authoritative legal interpretation.

2.1 The Statutory Framework: Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993

Section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 establishes "sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. While a superficial reading might suggest the absence of explicit reference to "gender identity," competent legal analysis—and indeed competent journalism—requires examination of how this provision operates in practice through authoritative interpretation and application. The programme's failure to undertake this elementary inquiry represents a dereliction of journalistic duty.

2.2 The Authoritative Legal Position: Established Interpretation and Application

The protection of transgender individuals under New Zealand law is not a matter of debate or uncertainty—it is firmly established through consistent authoritative interpretation of section 21(1)(a). The programme's omission of this crucial legal reality transforms what should have been factual reporting into dangerous misinformation. The Crown Law Opinion of 2006 concerning this matter is the Government’s current definitive position. 

The Definitive Position of Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | The Human Rights Commission

The Human Rights Commission, vested with statutory authority to "promote, by education and publicity, respect for and observance of human rights" and to "make public statements in relation to any matter affecting human rights," has maintained an unequivocal position on this matter for many years.

The Commission's official guidance states categorically: "The Human Rights Act protects you from discrimination based on: Sex - your sex and gender identity." This interpretation is neither novel nor tentative—it represents the settled and authoritative view consistently articulated across numerous official publications. In its comprehensive guidance document "Trans rights are human rights," the Commission confirms that "the government has considered that the ground of 'sex' includes people who are transgender" and that this interpretation "helps give effect to international human rights standards and guidance." The Commission's seminal Transgender Inquiry report, "To be who I am," has served as a cornerstone of policy and legal understanding since 2008.

For a current affairs programme purporting to investigate human rights matters to disregard or omit the definitive position of the Human Rights Commission constitutes an inexcusable breach of basic journalistic standards.

Corroboration from Government and Legal Institutions

The Commission's interpretation enjoys universal support across government and legal bodies:

• Employment New Zealand: This government agency, responsible for providing authoritative guidance on employment rights and obligations, states unambiguously: "Discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Human Rights Act 1993 includes the grounds of gender identity. Transgender people are protected under the Human Rights Act 1993 from unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender identity in the workplace."
• Community Law Centres o Aotearoa: As the primary provider of free legal information to the public, Community Law clarifies in its manual that while the law explicitly protects against discrimination because of sex, "In practice, this includes gender identity."
• New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) Guidance: The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, in its authoritative guidance on NZBORA, explicitly defines the "Sex" ground as encompassing "pregnancy, childbirth, and gender identity."

The unanimity of authoritative legal sources is absolute. Every institution responsible for implementing, enforcing, and educating the public about human rights law in New Zealand affirms that gender identity falls within the protection of the "sex" ground. The programme's failure to report this established legal reality constitutes an egregious misrepresentation of material fact.

PART THREE: ANALYSIS OF BROADCASTING STANDARDS VIOLATIONS

The programme's fundamental legal error precipitates clear and serious breaches of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, to which Warner Bros. Discovery is bound.

3.1 Violation of Standard 6—Accuracy

Standard 6 mandates: "Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs and factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not materially mislead the audience." The broadcast comprehensively violated this standard:

• Material Inaccuracy: The scope of anti-discrimination protection under law constitutes a quintessential "material point of fact." The broadcast's presentation of an inaccurate account through omission of authoritative interpretation renders it factually false.
• Material Misleading of Audience: The programme induced the audience into the false belief that transgender and gender-diverse individuals lack fundamental legal protection against discrimination—a significant distortion of their actual legal status and rights.
• Failure of Reasonable Efforts: The broadcaster demonstrably failed to exercise "reasonable efforts" to ensure accuracy. The correct information is publicly accessible through official sources, including the Human Rights Commission and Employment New Zealand. Elementary due diligence would have prevented this error.

3.2 Violation of Standard 4—Discrimination and Denigration

Standard 4 provides: "Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability..." The programme's misrepresentation directly contravenes this standard:

• Protected Community: The BSA has explicitly confirmed that "trans people are a recognised 'section of the community' protected by the discrimination and denigration standard."
• Encouragement of Discrimination: By falsely asserting that transgender people lack legal protection under the HRA, the programme actively encourages discriminatory conduct. It signals to employers, landlords, service providers, and the public that discriminatory treatment of transgender individuals carries no legal consequence.
• Denigration Through Delegitimisation: The BSA defines denigration as devaluing the reputation of a community section. By denying the existence of legal protections, the programme frames transgender identity as insufficiently legitimate to warrant legal recognition—a clear act of denigration.
• Validation of Harmful Tropes: The BSA has warned that complaints relying on transphobic tropes—including denial of gender identity's validity—are unlikely to succeed.¹⁷ A broadcast that validates such tropes by attributing them legal authority clearly breaches the standard's protective intent.

3.3 Violation of Standard 5—Balance

Standard 5 requires: "When controversial issues of public importance are discussed... broadcasters should make reasonable efforts... to present significant viewpoints."

• Issue of Public Importance: The legal status and rights of transgender citizens unquestionably constitute a matter of public importance.
• Omission of the Most Significant Viewpoint: In any discussion of Human Rights Act interpretation, the Human Rights Commission's viewpoint is not merely significant—it is paramount. The programme's complete failure to present this authoritative perspective while platforming a legally incorrect position as fact represents a fundamental breach of balance requirements.

Table 1: Systematic Analysis of Broadcasting Standards Breaches

PART FOUR: CONTEXTUAL HARM AND BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST

These broadcasting standards violations must be assessed within their social context—a documented environment of escalating hostility and violence toward transgender and gender-diverse communities. The broadcaster's duty of care is heightened when dealing with vulnerable populations, a duty catastrophically breached in this instance.

4.1 Amplification of Harm in a Hostile Environment

The programme's legal falsehood was not broadcast into a vacuum but into a documented climate of increasing anti-transgender hostility:

• The Disinformation Project Findings: Independent research has identified a "measurable rise in both volume and tone of transphobia" in New Zealand's online spaces. Researchers document language that is "significantly more violent," including rhetoric that "denies that trans people exist, or that they should be allowed to exist." One researcher characterised the discourse as approaching "genocidal" language. The broadcast's false assertion that this community lacks legal protection directly feeds this delegitimising narrative.
• The Counting Ourselves Survey Data: This comprehensive health and well-being survey reveals the real-world consequences of societal hostility. The 2022 report documents "alarmingly high" psychological distress rates, with 77% of participants reporting high or very high levels—six times the general population rate.²² Nearly one in five participants reported threats of physical violence based on their gender identity within the past four years.
• The Misinformation-Harm Nexus: Dr. Jaimie Veale, principal investigator of Counting Ourselves, states unequivocally: "Misinformation about trans people, especially trans women, legitimises hate and violence."²² When a national current affairs programme broadcasts profound misinformation, it lends institutional credibility to dangerous falsehoods, directly contributing to the climate of fear and violence endured by this vulnerable community.

4.2 Betrayal of Professional Standards and Corporate Responsibility

This broadcast represents not merely legal and social irresponsibility but a fundamental betrayal of stated professional commitments:

• Great Southern Television's Stated Mission: The producer markets The Hui as "a source of high-quality, credible and Māori-orientated investigative journalism." Broadcasting a fundamental legal falsehood that elementary fact-checking would have corrected is antithetical to "high-quality, credible" journalism. The company's claim to pursue "Great Stories" with "indie sensibilities" cannot justify stories that misinform the public and endanger minority communities.
• Core Journalistic Ethics: The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics establishes four foundational principles: seek truth and report it; minimise harm; act independently; be accountable and transparent. This broadcast failed comprehensively: it neither sought nor reported legal truth; it maximised rather than minimised harm; and through this complaint, Warner Bros. Discovery is called to account.
• Warner Bros. Discovery's Public Trust: As a major national broadcaster, Warner Bros. Discovery occupies a position of significant public trust and influence. This position carries heightened responsibility to ensure content accuracy and to avoid contributing to the marginalisation of vulnerable communities. That responsibility has been profoundly breached.

PART FIVE: CONCLUSION AND FORMAL DEMAND

5.1 Summary of Grievances

The episode of The Hui broadcast by Warner Bros. Discovery contained a gross misrepresentation of material legal fact concerning protections for transgender people under section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993. This error resulted from egregious journalistic failure and precipitated clear breaches of Standards 4 (Discrimination and Denigration), 5 (Balance), and 6 (Accuracy) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards. The broadcast of this misinformation into a known environment of hostility and violence against trans and non-binary communities caused foreseeable harm and contravened fundamental broadcasting responsibilities.

5.2 Reiteration of Required Remedy

Given the extreme gravity of these breaches, the indefensible nature of the journalistic failure, and the ongoing harm perpetuated by this misinformation, we reiterate our demand for immediate and permanent removal of this episode from all Warner Bros. Discovery platforms—broadcast, on-demand, and online. The severity of the misrepresentation precludes adequate remedy through correction or apology; only complete removal can prevent continued harm.

5.3 Final Notice

We trust the Warner Bros. Discovery Standards Committee will accord this matter the gravity and urgency it demands and will act expeditiously to remedy this serious breach. We await formal written confirmation that this complaint has been upheld and the demanded action implemented within the statutory 20-working-day timeframe. Should the response prove unsatisfactory or fail to materialise, this complaint will be referred immediately to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for independent determination.

Ngā mihi nui,

Paul Thistoll

CEO

Rights Aotearoa

02040063160