Queer as Folk – offensive behaviour – homosexuality – paedophilia – offensive language – fuck – blasphemy – God – Jesus Christ; unbalanced – unlawful acts portrayed
Standard G2 – AO time – series challenging – community divided – no uphold
Standard G5 – did not condone illegality – no uphold
Standard G6 – not relevant
Standard G12 – not relevant
Standard G13 – no denigration – no uphold
This headnote does not form part of the decision.
Episodes of Queer as Folk were broadcast on TV4 on 8 and 15 March 2000 beginning at 9.30pm. The 8 March episode showed simulated sex between an adult male and a 15-year-old male, and the 15 March episode included a story line which referred to homosexual activity with the same young man.
The Christian Heritage Party complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 8 March programme depicted "homosexual paedophilic activity" since the boy involved was aged only 15. It noted that it was a criminal offence to have sex with a minor. It also complained about the language used, which it described as offensive. Of particular concern was the frequent use of blasphemy, and the fact that young people would be watching the programme. The CHP raised similar objections to the 15 March episode. It sought to have the series withdrawn.
Mrs F Woodham and Conrad Hille echoed those concerns. In Mrs Woodham’s view, the most important issue was the effect of the programme on minors. Even though it was rated AO, she believed many impressionable young viewers would be watching. She considered the behaviour depicted breached the good taste standard, and was inconsistent with the principles of law. In addition, she contended that the programme promoted a homosexual lifestyle that was to be ridiculed and that it was "degrading and base and nauseating". Mr Hille complained that the behaviour depicted was advocated as being reasonable.
In its responses to the complainants, TV3 noted that the programmes were broadcast at 9.30pm, in adult time, and were preceded by a warning advising viewers that the language and themes might offend. Turning to the complaints that the content was offensive, it advised that some sex scenes and some language had been cut in order to comply with community standards. As for the relationship with the young man, it contended that the depiction in a television drama of illegal acts did not breach any standards. The requirement for balance did not apply to drama, it submitted. It declined to uphold the complaints.
Dissatisfied with TV3’s decisions, the CHP, Mrs Woodham and Mr Hille referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.
The members of the Authority have viewed tapes of the items complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendices. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.
Episodes of the drama series Queer as Folk, broadcast on 8 and 15 March 2000 on TV4 beginning at 9.30pm, examined "the complexity and variety of gay life" as well as "the adolescent exploration of sexual identity".
The CHP complained to TV3 that the 8 March episode "depicted homosexual paedophilic activity". The boy in question, it noted, lied about his age in the drama, stating first that he was 18, and finally mentioning 15. That, it noted, was below the age of consent. The CHP submitted that society did not sanction such acts. It pointed out that it was a criminal offence to have sex with a minor, and that a programme such as this undermined attempts to curb such behaviour in society.
The CHP argued that balance was required when controversial topics were discussed. This did not occur here, it said, noting that parents and peers at the school featured on the programme were portrayed as narrow, bigoted and unacceptable. It added:
No attempt was made to balance the glamorisation of what many would consider to be illegal and immoral.
Further, the CHP continued, the programme was inappropriate for young people to be watching. It noted that TV4’s target audience was young people, and argued that 9.30pm was not particularly late for teenagers to be viewing.
Also of concern to the complainant was the language. The CHP objected to the use of blasphemy, which it said was a criminal offence, as well as being offensive to a significant section of the community. The use of the "f" word was also unacceptable, it wrote.
The CHP complained that the 15 March programme also "depicted homosexual paedophilic activity". While there was no depiction of simulated sex, the dialogue referred to it, the CHP continued.
It repeated its complaint relating to the first programme and its request to have the series withdrawn from broadcast.
Mrs Woodham identified as her major concern the effect of the programme on minors. She noted that it was scheduled in AO time, but contended that many impressionable young people would still be watching. She also objected to the behaviour depicted, in particular the simulated sex scenes between two men. She identified an incident in a toilet which she said set the scene for oral sex.
As the series dealt with the relationship between a 15-year-old male and an older man, she maintained that the broadcaster had not shown respect for the principles of law. Complaining that standard G13 was breached, she argued that the programmes promoted a homosexual lifestyle that was to be ridiculed. She suggested that if homosexuality were to be promoted, then the positive and diverse contribution made by many homosexuals should preferably be depicted.
Mr Hille said that he found the programme offensive and beyond the parameters of good taste because one of the main characters was of an age where it was illegal to be involved in homosexual behaviour. In his view, by the series being screened, this behaviour was advocated as being reasonable. He said he found it unacceptable for it to be broadcast on free to air television and that the series should be discontinued.
TV3 assessed the complaints under standards G2, G5, G6, G12 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:
G2 To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.
G5 To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.
G6 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.
G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their normally accepted viewing hours.
G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:
the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or
in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.
TV3 began by noting that Queer as Folk was a critically acclaimed television drama series, and was broadcast on TV4 at 9.30pm, an hour after the AO watershed. In addition, it was preceded by a warning advising viewer discretion.
The series, it said, sought to "reflect something of the complexity and variety of gay life, as well as the adolescent exploration of sexual identity and its consequences for individuals and families".
TV3 reported that when it was first broadcast in England, the British Broadcasting Standards Commission had, in dealing with complaints about the series, stated that it "took the view that the series had neither encouraged nor condoned paedophilia". TV3 said it agreed with that view. However, in appraising the programme for broadcast in New Zealand, it advised that it had elected to reduce some content, particularly some sex scenes and language, in order to comply with the New Zealand Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
Turning first to the complaint under standard G2, TV3 noted that this was an Adults Only programme, broadcast at 9.30pm, and that it was preceded by a warning. In addition, its appraiser had "significantly reduced" the sex scenes and language for the New Zealand audience.
With respect to the legality of the relationship with the younger man, TV3 noted that while certain activities in real life were illegal, it was not illegal to depict such acts within the confines of a television drama.
Dealing with the complaint that the episodes lacked balance, TV3 responded that the series did not purport to deal with an examination of a controversial issue. It emphasised that it was a television drama. TV3 declined to uphold any aspect of the complaints.
In its referral to the Authority, the CHP emphasised that there were three main matters to which it objected. These included the depiction of "homosexual paedophilic activity" or suggestions of it, the glamorisation of the homosexual lifestyle which it considered was marketed towards young people, and the use of blasphemy and offensive swear words.
The CHP complained that TV3 had failed to apply the facts to the standards complained about. It noted that the test in the New Zealand Code of Practice had nothing to do with whether the programme "encouraged or condoned paedophilia". Turning to the broadcaster’s response under standard G2, the CHP maintained that the standards had nothing to do with the time of the broadcast, nor to what had been cut. The relevant issue, it argued, was whether what was broadcast conformed to community standards. In its view, it did not.
As for the response under standard G5, the CHP argued that if TV3’s submission were accepted, there could never be a breach of that standard. In its view, the whole rationale of the programme had been to explore sexual acts to which most in society would object.
Turning to TV3’s conclusion on the balance standard, the CHP responded that the content was controversial and therefore required balance.
Mrs Woodham advised that she was dissatisfied with TV3’s decision and sought an investigation and review.
Mr Hille said first that he was aware the series was a work of fiction with actors playing the roles. He acknowledged that it sought to reflect the homosexual lifestyle and explore aspects of adolescent sexuality. However, he said, he found the series irresponsible in its handling of the subject of paedophilia. He said he regarded paedophilia as a subject of significant importance because the real life effects on individuals and families could be "life changing, far reaching and life long". Mr Hille disagreed with the British Broadcasting Standards Commission’s conclusion that paedophilia had been neither encouraged nor condoned. It was his belief that it had been condoned. In support of this he referred to the dictionary definition of condone as "overlook or treat as not existing". He argued:
During a television programme the depiction of a criminal act should be recognised, and treated as a crime within the confines of that television programme.
That did not occur in this series, he continued. He said he could only recall one scene in the entire series where the act was indirectly depicted as a crime and then, he said, it was only by inference. In his view, the crime of paedophilia had not been depicted in a balanced, fair, just, reasonable and responsible manner within the series.
Mr Hille complained that the series had depicted the 15 year old not as a victim of paedophilia but of a failed relationship. In his view, that normalised the relationship and undermined the crime of paedophilia. He wrote:
The criminal nature of the crime within the series was not depicted in a balanced, fair, just, reasonable and responsible manner. The portrayal of the reward for the victim of that crime was not depicted in a balanced, fair, just, reasonable and responsible manner. The series was divisive, disrespective of the principles of law which sustain our society.
Mr Hille concluded that as the subject manner was portrayed irresponsibly, it was also contrary to currently accepted norms of taste and behaviour, as well as being disrespective of the principles of law.
Finally, Mr Hille said he respected the efforts TV3 had made in appraising this series for broadcast, and in its decision to reduce some its content to comply with broadcasting standards. However, he said, the series should not have been screened and the broadcaster should be prevented from re-screening it.
He considered that that TV3 should be asked to make a formal apology to the viewing public of New Zealand.
TV3 noted that there were three aspects to the CHP’s referral. These included first, the depiction of homosexual paedophilic activity or overtones suggesting such activity; secondly, the glamorisation of the homosexual lifestyle marketed towards young people, and thirdly, the use of offensive language.
TV3 began by quoting from the British Broadcasting Standards Commission’s Codes of Guidance which state:
A sexual relationship between an adult and a child or between under-age young people can be a legitimate theme for programmes: it is the treatment that may make it improper, or even unlawful. The treatment should not suggest that such behaviour is legal or is to be encouraged. Explicit sexual acts between adults and children should not be transmitted.
It noted that the New Zealand equivalent was standard G5 and maintained that it had applied the facts to the New Zealand standard. However, it argued, it was helpful to look at the response of the BSC (UK) because the programme had been screened there first and had been scrutinised by the Commission. It again noted that the BSC had concluded that the programme "neither encouraged nor condoned paedophilia".
While TV3 did not deny the strict illegality of the relationship between the two characters, one of whom was 15, it noted that the relationship was consensual and therefore in its view, could not be considered paedophilic. It argued the majority of viewers would not term consensual sexual activity between an adult and a 15 year old youth as paedophilic. In general, it said, that term was used for sexual activity with a child, and a 15 year old was not a child.
Next, TV3 made the point that the depiction of illegal acts in the context of a television drama did not automatically offend against standard G5. It continued:
The relationship between Nathan and Stuart is handled in a manner which is not shown as unreservedly positive, the reaction of the characters to Nathan’s age is in fact a recognition of the legal position. Far from demonstrating a lack of respect for the law the programme acknowledges the legal position and does not, therefore, in our view automatically breach G5.
TV3 acknowledged that the programme depicted homosexual activity. That lifestyle, it noted, was at the heart of the programme. It wrote:
The series seeks to reflect something of the complexity and variety of homosexual life, as well as the adolescent exploration of sexual identity and its consequences for individuals and families.
TV3 also emphasised that the programme was a work of fiction. It argued that the relationships of the men were handled responsibly. In its view, given the issues faced by the characters, the series could not be said to have glamorised the homosexual lifestyle. It concluded that as there was now widespread acceptance of homosexual relationships, their portrayal was valid in the context of a television drama.
In response to the CHP’s argument that the time of broadcast was not relevant when considering a complaint under standard G2, TV3 referred to previous decisions of the Authority where context had been determined to refer both to the expectation of the content of the programme as well as the time of the broadcast and the use of warnings. It observed that Queer as Folk had been preceded by an explicit warning for language and content, and had been broadcast an hour after the AO watershed.
In addition, it pointed out that some content had been excised completely. What remained, it maintained, was appropriate for the time of screening and the audience’s expectations. In concluding on standard G2 it wrote:
There is nothing in the homosexual lifestyle per se that offends G2 and in many ways it is discriminatory to suggest that this drama does so.
In response to the CHP’s argument that TV3 had contradicted itself by maintaining that standard G6 was inapplicable, TV3 emphasised first, that it was a drama, and secondly it wrote:
To claim that the theme is controversial because the characters portrayed are gay is both fallacious and discriminatory.
Next TV3 responded to the CHP’s contention that the series was controversial, as demonstrated by what occurred in Britain, and by its being banned in Australia. It observed first that the BSC had received a number of complaints about the series, and that those scenes which it had found to be inappropriate had been removed before screening in New Zealand. It repeated that the relationship depicted was not paedophilic. Further, it said, the depiction of the gay lifestyle should not be considered to be in itself controversial.
TV3 refuted the CHP’s assertion that the series had been banned in Australia, advising that broadcasters in that country had chosen not to screen the series because of their regulatory environment.
Finally TV3 dealt with the complaints about the language. It rejected the CHP’s argument that blasphemy and words such as "fuck" could result in an arrest if used in the street. This, it said, was highly unlikely, given the court’s view of such language.
In reaching its decision that the language did not breach any standards, TV3 said it had taken into account the broad context in which it occurred. In the drama setting, and in light of its likely audience, it did not believe the language was either gratuitous or inappropriate.
In its response to Mrs Woodham, TV3 emphasised that the programme was broadcast at 9.30pm, that it had an AO rating and had been preceded by a warning for content. With respect to the "simulated sexual scenes" complained about, TV3 maintained these were appropriate for the time of screening and the audience expectation of the series. It noted that no actual sexual activity was shown, and that it was only intimated.
Turning to the relationship between the 15 year old and the older man, TV3 said it did not deny its strict illegality but argued that the relationship was consensual and could therefore not be considered paedophilic. It repeated its point that the depiction of illegal acts did not automatically breach standard G5.
Finally, TV3 denied that the programme had ridiculed the gay lifestyle, or caused discrimination against gay men as a result. In fact, it reported, the series was well loved by the community it portrayed.
In its response to Mr Hille, TV3 emphasised that the relationship between the older man and the 15 year old had been shown in real terms with both positive and negative consequences for both characters. While such a relationship was not a strictly legal one, it was not unheard of, or even inherently abusive in nature, TV3 maintained.
TV3 repeated its argument that the relationship between an adult and a 15 year old could not be described as paedophilic because a 15 year old was not a child. It also repeated the view that the depiction of illegal acts in the context of a television drama did not offend standard G2 or G5.
Concluding its response to Mr Hille, it maintained that it had acted responsibly in editing the programme and screening it at 9.30pm. It noted that these actions continued to be criticised by the gay community who were the intended audience of the series. It did not agree that the series had overlooked the age issue in the relationship between the two men. The problem with the relationship, in particular the character’s age was, it contended, very much the focus of and an issue in the series.
First, the CHP argued that the depiction of an illegal act tended to promote it unless in the overall context such a presumption was rebutted. It noted that where there were no adverse consequences, it suggested to society that the boundaries should be changed. Next, it argued that paedophiles wanted to break down taboos about sex with minors, noting that a 15 year old was legally a child for many purposes. It attached sections from the Crimes Act in support of this argument. Paedophilia, it continued, was a problem in our society, as evidenced by the prevalence of images transmitted by the internet and the number of convictions for the sexual abuse of minors. The aim of the law, in its submission, was to protect young people from being preyed upon by adults. That the sexual activity portrayed was consensual was irrelevant, it maintained.
The CHP urged the Authority to send a clear message to broadcasters that programmes such as this had crossed the line as to what was acceptable.
In her final comment, Mrs Woodham repeated that in her view there was no excuse for screening "an illegal sexual relationship between a male minor (15 year old) and an adult male on tv". She noted TV3’s argument that it had been berated by the gay community for editing some aspects of the programme, but added that the broadcaster had also been berated by the public for its screening of the programme in the first place.
In his final comment, Mr Hille repeated that his principal concern was that the portrayal of the "paedophilic relationship" had been presented in an unbalanced manner. He suggested that TV3 had agreed with his evidence but opposed his conclusions, noting that it had failed to contradict his contention that there was an unbalanced portrayal of the relationship. In his view, TV3 was confused when it acknowledged that the relationship was not strictly a legal one, but yet it could not be considered paedophilic. Mr Hille said he considered the statement that the 15 year old was not a child, and that the relationship was not paedophilic because it was consensual to be irresponsible. He emphasised that the issue of consent was irrelevant. To the argument that the British Broadcasting Standards Commission had found the series neither encouraged nor condoned paedophilia, Mr Hille responded that New Zealanders should not be swayed by decisions made in the country and society in which the series was made, and that "we should seek to reflect what is acceptable for our own society and country."
Mr Hille repeated that the series condoned paedophilia, did nothing to show restitution for the victim, did not penalise the perpetrator, marginalised the illegality of the relationship, sought to normalise the relationship, and portrayed the crime in an unbalanced manner.
Concluding, Mr Hille emphasised that his complaint was on a matter of principle. He maintained that the series had been fundamentally flawed in its handling of the criminal subject matter. He said his complaint had been lodged in order to obtain a favourable ruling which would set a clear precedent for the future regarding programmes dealing with any criminal activity.
The complainants alleged that the series breached community expectations of good taste and decency because it condoned or promoted paedophilia, condoned illegal sexual activity, glamorised homosexuality and contained bad language including blasphemy. The Authority addresses each of these in turn.
Two of the complainants contended that the programme condoned or promoted paedophilia when it portrayed the relationship between an adult male and a 15 year old male. The Authority does not accept that paedophilia was in issue in the series. The accepted medical definition of a paedophile is a person who has a sexual desire directed towards children ie young people who are pre-pubertal. In this case, the relationship was between an adult and a 15 year old, and there was no suggestion that the adult had an interest in pre-pubertal children which would classify him as a paedophile. The Authority rejects this aspect of the complaints.
Illegal sexual activity
All of the complainants objected to the series’ portrayal of an illegal sexual relationship which, they noted, is expressly prohibited under New Zealand law.
TV3 argued that the portrayal of criminal activity was a legitimate subject for a television drama, and maintained that the relationship had been handled responsibly and shown to have negative consequences for both participants.
The Authority acknowledges that a sexual relationship between an adult male and a 15 year old is illegal in New Zealand, regardless of whether it is consensual. The question here is whether the portrayal of such a relationship in the context of a drama series is in breach of community expectations of good taste and decency under standard G2. Acknowledging TV3’s argument that the portrayal of illegal activity is a legitimate subject for a television drama, the Authority concludes that the theme in this series does not breach the standard. It considers this matter further below when it deals with this aspect under standard G5.
Glamorisation of homosexual activity
The CHP’s complaint under this head was that the homosexual lifestyle was glamorised because it was accepted uncritically and apparently condoned.
In considering whether the implied depiction of homosexual activity in Queer as Folk is a breach of standard G2, the Authority takes into account the context in which it occurs. It notes first that the series was broadcast at 9.30pm, clearly signalling that it was intended for adults; that each programme was preceded by a warning advising viewer discretion; that the series was classified as AO; that some scenes which were broadcast in the United Kingdom were excised before it was broadcast in New Zealand; and that it was broadcast on TV4, which is a channel targeted at a young adult audience. Furthermore, advance publicity about the series would have alerted viewers to the fact that its focus was on the lives of a group of homosexuals, as would the series’ title.
In conjunction with a consideration of these contextual matters, the Authority is also required to reflect community standards when it adjudicates on a matter of good taste and decency. It acknowledges that for many people in the community, the depiction of homosexuality is unacceptable. In a recent survey commissioned by the Authority, 1000 New Zealanders were asked to rate a hypothetical scenario (devoid of context) in a television movie, broadcast after 8.30pm, which showed two men in bed having sex. The top half of their naked bodies was shown. Almost 51% of respondents considered such a scene totally unacceptable, while over 35% found it totally acceptable. There was a marked difference in the level of acceptability according to the age of respondents, with those in the age group 55–64 and over 65 more likely to find this scene totally unacceptable. The Authority acknowledges those views. It accepts that the series – which was largely intended for a gay audience – was challenging to many viewers, particularly those not in TV4’s target audience.
The Authority’s task is to determine whether, taking into account the contextual considerations and community views, a drama depicting what TV3 described as "something of the complexity and variety of gay life, as well as the adolescent exploration of sexual identity and its consequences for individuals and families" breached the good taste standard. In reaching its decision on this point, the Authority is required to balance the right to freedom of expression as provided in s.14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 with the express provision in s.4 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which requires broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency.
Having weighed up the competing rights and freedoms and considered the relevant contextual factors, the Authority concludes that, while Queer as Folk was not to all viewers’ taste, the series did not breach standard G2.
Bad language, including blasphemy
The CHP identified bad language, including blasphemy, as breaching the good taste standard.
The Authority is not persuaded that the language – including the alleged use of blasphemy – exceeded community expectations in the context of this drama, bearing in mind the relevant contextual considerations identified above. It declines to uphold this aspect.
Overall, the Authority concludes that there was no breach of standard G2.
The complainants contended that the series’ portrayal of an illegal relationship breached standard G5. The CHP submitted that the whole rationale of the programme was to explore sexual acts to which most in society would strongly object.
TV3 emphasised the dramatic context, acknowledging that the relationship portrayed was, in real-life, illegal. It also pointed out that it had not been shown as "unreservedly positive" and that the legal position had been acknowledged. For that reason, it argued, there was no breach of the standard.
The Authority accepts that this drama series depicted what could have been real-life situations, including an illegal relationship, but notes that it was clearly a work of fiction featuring actors playing the principal roles. The question is whether the fictional portrayal breached the requirement for the broadcaster to respect the principles of law. The Authority is not persuaded that the series condoned breaking the law, thus threatening the standard. It accepts that the relationship in question, and the gay lifestyle depicted were legitimate subjects for a dramatic work and considers that the series lacked the level of advocacy of illegal behaviour required to undermine the principles of law. It is reinforced in this view when it notes that the relationship was not depicted as being free of difficulties. It declines to uphold the complaints under this standard.
The CHP argued that as the subject matter was controversial, balance was required.
TV3 responded that a comparable programme about heterosexual lifestyles would not be considered controversial, and to claim that the them was controversial because the characters were gay was both fallacious and discriminatory.
The Authority observes that the standard is not relevant to a drama series. Accordingly, it declines to uphold this aspect.
Mrs Woodham argued that the series was unsuitable for children, and noted that many teenagers would have been watching it at 9.30pm.
TV3 responded that as the programme was classified AO, was preceded by a warning and broadcast an hour after the 8.30pm Adults Only watershed, there was no breach of this standard.
In the Authority’s view, the precautions taken by TV3 to ensure that the programme was properly signposted as being intended for an adult audience, was preceded by a warning, and was broadcast an hour after the adult watershed demonstrated that it had been mindful of children. It declines to uphold this aspect.
Mrs Woodham complained that the series promoted a homosexual lifestyle which was to be ridiculed.
The Authority does not agree that the series portrayed the characters in such a manner as to encourage denigration of or discrimination against gay people. It declines to uphold this aspect.
The Series overall
In response to the requests to withdraw the series from broadcast, the Authority notes that on the basis of its having watched two episodes, its conclusion on that point is self-evident.
For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
20 July 2000
The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:
1. The Christian Heritage Party’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 14 March 2000
2. CHP’s Complaint to TV3 – 20 March 2000
3. TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaints – 4 April 2000
4. CHP’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 27 April 2000
5. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 26 May 2000
6. CHP’s Final Comment – 8 June 2000
The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:
1. Mrs F Woodham’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 26 April 2000
2. TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 28 April 2000
3. Mrs Woodham’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 May 2000
4. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 29 May 2000
5. Mrs Woodham’s Final Comment – 8 June 2000
The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:
1. Conrad Hille’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (forwarded to
TV3 Network Services Ltd) – received 22 March 2000
2. Mr Hille’s Complaint to TV3 – 14 April 2000
3. TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 27 April 2000
4. Mr Hille’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 23 May 2000
5. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 13 June 2000
6. Mr Hille’s Final Comment – 21 June 2000