"Charles Wooley interviewing Jacinda Ardern on 60 Minutes would have to go down as the most patronising interview for a long time," one critic said.
Another said she was disgusted at Wooley's "sexist comments" and was left wondering if there would be any focus on Ardern's achievements.
"I assumed 60 Mins would have a second half of the Jacinda interview after the break that talked about her policies and political achievements. But... nothing. All we got was sexist comments about her looks and baby talk. Ugh. Absolutely s**tful journalism... *changes channel*", she wrote.
An Australian social media user said he felt embarrassed Ardern had to endure such a "repugnant" interview.
"Some of these questions on #60mins to the NZ Prime Minister are so repugnant...then he makes a comment about how attractive she is...blurk x a million...I'm embarrassed that @jacindaardern & her husband had to endure them."
"Absolutely cringeworthy. The things women have to put up with," another said.
One female viewer took the liberty of apologising to Jacinda Ardern.
"So sorry that our Australian reporters were gross. You have huge fans in this kiwi-au house," she said.
Another praised Ardern for her political achievements and suggested she could give a few tips to Australia's MPs.
"Hey Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, If you would like to take a short trip to Australia to give our politicians some tips you would be welcome with open arms. What an incredible woman. You are the type of politician our country needs."
Wooley also came under fire for questioning the young leader, who is pregnant, about her due date.
"One really important political question that I want to ask you, and that is, what exactly is the date that the baby's due?" he said.
When Ardern told him it was due on June 17, Wooley said: "it's interesting how much people have been counting back to the conception date".
Ardern initially appeared shocked, before laughing off the comment.
When Wooley pushed for a response, Ardern said the baby was conceived when the election was over "not that we need to get into those details".