BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
3 News – item about latest season of local drama series Outrageous Fortune – contained clips of sex scenes from the series – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards

Findings
Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – inclusion of sex scenes was gratuitous in a news item – warning did not excuse that level of sexual material – upheld

Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers by including sexual material in a news item broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – upheld

Standard 8 (responsible programming) – guidelines relating to promos and advertisements not applicable to news item – not upheld

Orders
Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement

Section 16(4) – payment of $4,000 costs to the Crown

This headnote does not form part of the decision. 

Broadcast

[1]  An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at approximately 6.35pm on Tuesday 13 July 2010, discussed the commencement of the latest season of local drama series Outrageous Fortune. The news reader introduced the item as follows:

A warning about our next story: it’s not for children, or adults sensitive about sex on screen. For the rest, though, shut the door, draw the curtains and prepare for the return to TV3 of Outrageous Fortune. As [our reporter] reports there are two significant matters outstanding: is Cheryl West dead, and who gets shagged before the first commercial?

[2]  The reporter interviewed one of the programme’s writers and an actor who starred in the programme, about why they thought the programme was so successful, and the fact that it would be the final season of the show. The writer said:

At the heart of things there’s a, you know, there’s this mother who just wants the best for her family and that’s kind of a universal thing that people can get into, and it’s a really conservative show once you get past all the swearing and the sex and the carryings on.

[3]  While he said this, there was a clip of a couple having sex on a chair, fully clothed. The reporter then said, “Ah yes, the sex. For the past five years Outrageous Fortune has bared an awful lot of flesh.” As she said this, the following five clips from the programme were shown one after the other:

• two characters who appeared to be naked, having sex on an outdoor chair
• a clothed couple having sex up against a bathroom wall
• a partially dressed couple having sex outside on a lawn
• a partially dressed couple diving on top of one another and knocking over a couch
• a couple undressing and kissing while lying on a bed.

[4]  While some of the characters appeared to be naked or wearing very little, no genitalia or nudity was displayed in the news item. Immediately following the five clips the writer was shown commenting:

We set ourselves a challenge for the first series that by the first commercial break someone had to be shagging somebody, but then of course everybody got pregnant which is, I suppose, the logical end result of all that shagging, but you know, I think in this series we’ve managed to recapture some of the old glories of, yep, shagging for shagging’s sake.

[5]   As the writer said this the following clips were shown:

• a couple who appeared to be naked, lying down on a bed and kissing
• a couple, who also appeared to be naked, having sex on a bed
• five women dancing and modelling underwear, while men watched them.

[6]  After the writer finished speaking another clip was shown of two characters having sex in a car, while the reporter stated, “The show’s had an almost hormonal effect on viewers. Sex is no longer something that only happens on a Saturday night.”

[7]  The item concluded with the reporter saying that the first episode of the final season, due to be screened that night, would contain “a lot of... this”, as another clip was shown, featuring a woman bouncing on a man’s chest, her breast briefly visible, as he watched with his head between her thighs.

Complaints

[8]  Patricia, Steven and Neal Binnie, Dr MA and JL Brieseman, Barrie Cavill, Sue Godinet, Reverend Paulo Ieriko and Robert Souch made formal complaints to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the item breached broadcasting standards.

Patricia, Steven and Neil Binnie’s complaint

[9]  The Binnies argued that the item had breached standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests. They considered that the item was “completely inappropriate for this viewing time”. With reference to guidelines 1a and 1b to the good taste and decency standard, the Binnies argued that the item was “assembled to show as many clips of sexual intercourse in as many positions as possible and then to talk about how much ‘shagging’ was going on”.

[10]  They considered that the item was “not news, rather it was blatant advertising”, and that the word “shagging” was degrading. The Binnies were of the view that it was “not the current norm to treat sex in this way and it is offensive to promote it as such,” and that the warning given before the item did not excuse its content. They considered that the warning showed that the programme editor recognised that the material was unsuitable for the time of broadcast, and yet was screened regardless. They noted that this was prime time when families and children were watching the news, and reiterated their view that the content was completely inappropriate.

[11]  With regard to guidelines 8b and 8d to the responsible programming standard, the Binnies argued that the item was “a blatant promo” for an AO programme that screened at 8.30pm. They considered that the content would be barely acceptable at 8.30pm, let alone at 6.30pm. The Binnies also argued that the item was advertising Outrageous Fortune, but was presented as a news item, so that it was not clearly distinguishable as an advertisement.

[12]  Finally, the Binnies considered that the item clearly breached Standard 9 (children’s interests). In their view, the content was not only unsuitable for children, but further, “as adults we choose not to watch pornography and regard this sequence of clips as offensive and in very bad taste”.

Dr MA and JL Brieseman’s complaint

[13]  The Briesemans stated that they wished to “object in the strongest possible sense” to the content of the item. They said that, although the item could be a cheap way of promoting the new series, “the gross depiction of sexual activity was gratuitous but, shown in a prime – supposedly family-suitable – time period, totally unacceptable.” They considered that the purpose of time-bands was to maintain standards appropriate for the intended audience, and that the item “fell well short of that intention”. The Briesemans maintained that the item was “a clear breach of common taste and decency standards”.

Barrie Cavill’s complaint

[14]  Mr Cavill argued that the item was “distasteful and virtually pornographic” and unsuitable for screening at 6pm. He acknowledged that the item was preceded by a warning but noted that children and young people could be watching the news unattended. He considered that the “quite graphic sex scenes” and “outright promotion of a programme” were unacceptable in a 6pm news programme. He said, “No wonder the news presenter fanned himself at the end of it. I am alarmed that a sexually explicit item can find its way onto a news programme when many young people are watching.”

Sue Godinet’s complaint

[15]  Ms Godinet considered that the item breached standards relating to good taste and decency and children’s interests. She was of the view that the item was a “sales promotion” for Outrageous Fortune, which she noted was usually screened at 9.30pm due to its explicit sexual content and coarse language. She said that the sex scenes contained in the news item were “unambiguous and tasteless” considering the timeslot and the fact that they were included in the early evening news.

[16]  Ms Godinet said, “while the return of Outrageous Fortune might be ‘news’ in the widest sense of the word and of some interest, it was unnecessary to show adult content such as this at 6pm let alone couples engaged in explicit sexual activity”. She questioned why TV3 would include an item in the 6pm news which required a warning for sexual content.

 Reverend Paulo Ieriko’s complaint

[17]  Reverend Ieriko stated he wished to express his “strongest objection to the sexually explicit activities” shown in the news item. While there was a warning, he considered that “what followed was a blatant and callous disrespect for the personal feelings of ordinary New Zealand parents and families, who would prefer such scenes to remain the normal diet of the watchers of pornography.” Reverend Ieriko said he did “not believe that showing such sexually explicit scenes during family viewing time” was newsworthy or of genuine concern or interest to viewers. He concluded by saying, “The 6pm news time is not the place to trod on standards of public decency.”

Robert Souch’s complaint

[18]  Mr Souch argued that the “gratuitous and offensive sexual content” in the item “could not be construed as ‘news’ at any time and definitely not at a family viewing time of [6pm to 7pm]”. He considered that it would have been unacceptable to many viewers, and that it demonstrated a serious lack of judgement by TV3.

Standards

[19]  TVWorks assessed the complaints under Standards 1, 8 and 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The complainants also nominated guidelines 1a, 1b, 8b, 8d and 9a to those standards. These provide:

Standard 1 Good Taste and Decency

Broadcasters should observe standards of good taste and decency.

Guidelines

1a   Broadcasters will take into account current norms of good taste and decency bearing in mind the context in which any content occurs and the wider context of the broadcast e.g. programme classification, target audience, type of programme and use of warnings etc.

1b   The use of visual and verbal warnings should be considered when content is likely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers except in the case of news and current affairs, where verbal warnings only will be considered. Warnings should be specific in nature, while avoiding detail which may itself distress or offend viewers.

Standard 8 Responsible Programming

Broadcasters should ensure programmes:

• are appropriately classified;
• display programme classification information;
• adhere to timebands in accordance with Appendix 1;
• are not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress; and
• do not deceive or disadvantage the viewer.

Guidelines

8b    All promos (including promos for news and current affairs) should be classified to comply with
        the “host programme” (the programme in which they screen):

• Promos for AO programmes shown outside AO time should comply with the classification of
  the host programme;

8d    Advertisements and infomercials should be clearly distinguishable from other programme
        material.

Standard 9 Children’s Interests

During children’s normally accepted viewing times (see Appendix 1), broadcasters should consider the interests of child viewers.

Guideline 9a

Broadcasters should be mindful of the effect any programme or promo may have on children during their normally accepted viewing times – usually up to 8.30pm – and avoid screening material that would disturb or alarm them.

Broadcaster's Response to the Complainants

[20]  TVWorks argued that “a short montage of some sex scenes from the series which illustrated the writer’s reference to sex as a major characteristic of the series, screened 37 seconds after the warning” which preceded the item. Looking first at Standard 1 (good taste and decency), the broadcaster contended that to constitute a breach of the standard, the broadcast material must be unacceptable in the context in which it was shown, including the programme’s classification and time of broadcast, the target audience, and the use of warnings.

[21]  On this occasion, TVWorks considered it relevant that the item was part of a news programme which screened at a scheduled time each day and had an adult target audience. It alleged that it was “accepted” that although the news was broadcast prior to 8.30pm, it was unlikely that children would be watching unattended. It noted that news was unclassified due to its distinct nature.

[22]  Second, the broadcaster said, “In recognition of the challenging material within the story (that emphasised sex as a key feature of the success of the show) the newsroom wrote a very clear and explicit warning”. It said that the newsroom considered that the warning and the half-minute delay before the material was shown gave viewers “enough time to make another viewing choice if they found sexual content offensive, or did not wish their children to view the story.”

[23]  TVWorks maintained that the newsroom had also taken care “to limit the material to the less revealing sex scenes available to them and to ensure no nudity was shown”. It said that the news team considered that the content was relevant to the story about the much-anticipated return of the series and its success. Finally, the broadcaster said that 3 News was “aware that its audience expects and enjoys a smattering of humour in its presentation of issues and events of public interest where appropriate, and this material served to satisfy this expectation.” It reiterated that viewers who were “unlikely to find the story entertaining were given ample warning about its content.”

[24]  TVWorks concluded by saying it supported the newsroom’s decision to broadcast the sexual material and it declined to uphold the complaints under Standard 1.

[25]  With regard to the Binnies’ complaint under Standard 8 (responsible programming), the broadcaster maintained that the item was a legitimate news story of general interest to the public, “albeit of a lighter entertainment value”. It said that the guidelines nominated by the Binnies “relate to programme promos and therefore have no application to this news item.” It considered that the Binnies’ concerns about Standard 8 had been adequately addressed under Standards 1 and 9 and it declined to uphold that part of their complaint.

[26]  Turning to Standard 9 (children’s interests), TVWorks accepted that some parents were likely to consider the material in the item to be unsuitable for younger children and it noted the newsroom’s “attempts to address this with a clear warning about its lack of suitability for children while still illustrating the story’s main points with entertaining footage that will capture the audience’s interest.” It reiterated its view that children were unlikely to watch the news unsupervised, because they were more likely to watch programming targeted at them on other channels. It said, “Therefore the warning was a vital consideration of children’s interests. As is always the case, it is then for the parent or supervising adult to make a viewing choice according to their own values”.

[27]  TVWorks concluded by saying that, although it agreed the material was likely to be unsuitable for children, it had adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting a “clear and considered warning” and providing a reasonable period of time to allow parents and caregivers to “make a decision not to watch ‘sex on screen’ as signalled in the warning”. It therefore declined to uphold the complaints under Standard 9.

Referrals to the Authority

[28]  Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s response, the Binnies, the Briesemans, Mr Cavill, Ms Godinet, Reverend Ieriko and Mr Souch referred their complaints to the Authority under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Binnies’ referral

[29]  The Binnies considered that it was not only the possibility of children watching the news, but that “this is not material that we want to have foisted on us at 6.35 in the evening”. Similarly, they considered that a warning was not an adequate excuse; “the material is simply unsuitable for 6.35pm.” The Binnies maintained that it was not sufficient to consider that unsupervised children were unlikely to be watching the news, and that the item clearly breached Standard 9. Finally, they disagreed with TVWorks’ arguments under Standard 8, and considered that “although this was in a news programme, this was clearly a promo and was included purely to entice people to watch the programme later.”

The Briesemans’ referral

[30]  The Briesemans considered that the 30-second delay referred to by TVWorks, between the warning and the sexual content, did not justify the use of “totally unacceptable material in what is supposed to be a family viewing period”. They argued that, although the news was unclassified, there were still time-bands to ensure that standards were maintained and children protected.

Mr Cavill’s referral

[31]  Mr Cavill maintained that “this was not an item of news... I do not consider the promotion of a TV programme as being news.” He considered that, regardless of the warning, “most parents would not expect this type of news item at 6pm” and it was possible that children were watching on their own while parents were busy doing other things. Mr Cavill argued that the item was sensational and designed to draw viewers in, and that while the broadcaster had a right to free speech, “there must be responsibility with this right”. He said he liked watching the 6pm news and should not have to “quickly switch off the set for a few minutes while this type of thing is showing”.

Ms Godinet’s referral

[32]  Ms Godinet argued that the promotion of a programme was not newsworthy, and the context that it was a successful programme “does not justify it being inserted into the news as a news item”. She considered the item was “a cynical promotion of a product masquerading as ‘news’”.

[33]  Ms Godinet considered that TVWorks’ decision suggested that it was acceptable to broadcast Adults Only sexual content in an early evening timeslot before 8.30pm so long as a warning was broadcast. She was of the view that the item could have shown other clips from Outrageous Fortune and achieved the same outcome “without resorting to explicit sexual content”.

[34]  Ms Godinet argued that TVWorks had not addressed her primary concern which was children’s interests and the fact that 6pm was an accepted viewing time for children. She considered that its decision implied that some parents would have thought the item was suitable for children, or that it was suitable for older children, and that overall the broadcaster was attempting to change the norm, which was “no Adults Only content before 8.30pm”. She said she had taken from the broadcaster’s decision that it believed “we can show what we want before 8.30pm as long as we show a warning first and especially if it serves our financial interests”.

Reverend Ieriko’s referral

[35]  Reverend Ieriko argued that the target audience of the news was “the public in general as well as the family in particular – parents and children of all ages,” and that the broadcaster had failed to maintain those viewers’ standards of good taste and decency. He considered that the broadcaster did not have the right to decide unilaterally what were “current norms of good taste and decency” and that its right to freedom of expression should not be a licence to disregard the feelings of the viewing public.

Mr Souch’s referral

[36]  Mr Souch maintained that including sexual content of this nature in a news timeslot was “unsuitable and uncalled for”. He considered TVWorks’ argument that there was “a short time lapse between announcing such content was to follow and its actual showing” to be “laughable”.

Authority's Determination

[37]  The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. The Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Standard 1 (good taste and decency)

[38]  When we consider an alleged breach of good taste and decency, we take into account the context of the broadcast. On this occasion, the relevant contextual factors include:

• 3 News was broadcast at 6pm during children’s normally accepted viewing times
• it was an unclassified news programme
• the programme had an adult target audience
• the news reader issued a verbal warning before the item stating, “it’s not for children, or adults sensitive about sex on screen”
• Outrageous Fortune was rated Adults Only and screened at 8.30pm.

[39]   In our view, the numerous clips of couples having sex or engaging in sexual activity went well beyond what is acceptable in a 6pm news item. Under Appendix 1 of the Code, news and current affairs programmes are, due to their distinct nature, unclassified. However, the latitude extended to these programmes is for material which, although sometimes disturbing to younger viewers, is justified because it is news and in the public interest. Promoting Outrageous Fortune through the use of extensive sexual material was, in our view, neither newsworthy nor in the public interest.

[40]  We note that the three minute item contained a total of ten clips from Outrageous Fortune containing sexual material, six of which explicitly showed couples having sex. We consider that TVWorks acknowledged that this content was Adults Only by indicating in the warning that it was “not for children”. The use of a warning does not allow the broadcast of sexual material deserving of an AO classification prior to 8.30pm. Further, not only was the material unsuitable for children even when supervised by an adult, we consider that such explicit sexual content would have been well beyond the expectations of the majority of adult viewers when broadcast at 6.35pm during 3 News.

[41]  We therefore find that the news item was inconsistent with current norms of good taste and decency. Having reached this conclusion, we must consider whether to uphold the complaints as a breach of Standard 1.

[42]  We acknowledge that upholding the Standard 1 complaints would place a limit on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. In Turner and TVNZ,¹ the Authority determined that upholding a complaint under Standard 1 would be prescribed by law and a justified limitation on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression as required by section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. In our view, the primary objective of Standard 1 is to protect against the broadcast of sexual content, violent material, and language that exceeds current norms of good taste and decency in the context in which it was shown.

[43]  We find that upholding a breach of the good taste and decency standard on this occasion would be commensurate with our finding that the item contained sexual material unsuitable for supervised children, and well beyond what adult viewers would expect to see in an early evening news programme. In this respect, upholding the complaints clearly promotes the objective of Standard 1, and therefore places a justified and reasonable limit on TVWorks’ freedom of expression. Accordingly, we uphold the complaints that the item breached Standard 1.

Standard 9 (children’s interests)

[44]  Standard 9 requires broadcasters to consider the interests of child viewers during their normally accepted viewing times – usually up to 8.30pm.

[45]  As outlined above, we consider that the inclusion of sex scenes in the item was unsuitable for child viewers even when accompanied by an adult. We are satisfied that the broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers in broadcasting explicit sexual material during 3 News at 6.35pm.

[46]  Having reached this conclusion, we must now decide whether to uphold the complaints as a breach of Standard 9.

[47]  We acknowledge that upholding the children’s interests complaints would place a limit on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. In Harrison and TVNZ,² the Authority determined that upholding a complaint under Standard 9 would be prescribed by law and a justified limitation on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression as required by section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. In that decision, the Authority described the objective of Standard 9 in the following terms:

In the Authority’s view, the purpose of the children’s interests standard is to protect children from broadcasts which might adversely affect them.

[48]  With that in mind, we must consider whether it would be a reasonable and proportionate limit on TVWorks’ freedom of expression to uphold a breach of Standard 9 on this occasion. We find that upholding the children’s interests complaints is justified by our finding that the broadcaster failed to protect child viewers from unsuitable sexual material during their normally accepted viewing times. In this respect, upholding this part of the complaints clearly promotes the objective of Standard 9, and therefore places a justified and reasonable limit on TVWorks’ freedom of expression.

[49]  Accordingly, we uphold the complaints that the inclusion of sexual content in the item breached Standard 9.

Standard 8 (responsible programming)

[50]  Standard 8 requires that programmes and promos are correctly classified and screened in appropriate time-bands. Referring to guidelines 8b and 8d, the Binnies argued that the news item was an advertisement or promo for Outrageous Fortune which was screened too early in the evening and was not clearly distinguishable from programme content.

[51]  While we accept that the item did appear to promote the commencement of the upcoming series, we consider that it was still a news item, broadcast in the 6pm news, and not a promo or an advertisement as envisaged by Standard 8. Further, we consider that the complainants’ concerns have been appropriately dealt with under Standards 1 and 9 above.

[52]  Accordingly, we decline to uphold this aspect of the Binnies’ complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast by TVWorks Ltd of an item on 3 News on 13 July 2010 breached Standards 1 and 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

[53]    Having upheld the complaints, the Authority may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We invited submissions on orders from the parties.

Complainants’ Submissions on Orders

The Binnies’ submissions on orders

[54]   The Binnies submitted that TVWorks should be ordered to broadcast a statement summarising the Authority’s decision and apologising for breaching broadcasting standards. They also considered that the broadcaster should be ordered to pay $5,000 costs to the Crown.

The Briesemans’ submissions on orders

[55]  Mrs Brieseman submitted that the Authority should order TVWorks “to refrain from broadcasting such items during family viewing time” under section 13 of the Act. She also considered that the broadcaster should be required to pay “an appropriate amount in costs” to the Crown.

Mr Cavill’s submissions on orders

[56]  Mr Cavill did not make any submissions on orders.

Ms Godinet’s submissions on orders

[57]   Ms Godinet submitted that the broadcaster should be required to broadcast an apology acknowledging that it did not consider the interests of child viewers. She considered that TVWorks should be directed to undertake education about “the adverse effects of sexual images on children and the effects of this type of ‘child abuse’”. She said that the broadcaster needed to acknowledge the importance of protecting children from unsuitable sexual material.

[58]   Ms Godinet argued that TVWorks should be ordered to refrain from broadcasting advertising for one news episode and to publish a statement explaining why it had been ordered to do so.

[59]   Finally, the complainant considered that “more appropriate than a fine would be an order to pay a sum of money to a government organisation that deals with child sexual abuse or family violence charity that counsels abused children,” although she acknowledged that the Authority may not have the power to make such an order.

Rev Ieriko’s submissions on orders

[60]  Reverend Ieriko submitted that the Authority should order TVWorks to broadcast a statement, and pay costs to the Crown.

Mr Souch’s submissions on orders

[61]  Mr Souch submitted that “having regard to TV3’s cavalier attitude to genuinely concerned members of the public a meaningful order should be made against them”. He considered that TVWorks should be ordered to broadcast two “formal acknowledgements” of the Authority’s findings at both the beginning and the end of 3 News. He also argued that the broadcaster should be ordered to pay the “maximum fine” of $5,000 which he considered should be paid to a relevant charity.

Broadcaster’s Submissions on Orders

[62]  TVWorks maintained that the item was newsworthy, and that it was acceptable to broadcast challenging material in the news so long as an adequate warning was given to viewers. It considered that the material included in the item was “relatively moderate”, and argued that the breach was not “flagrant or... deliberate” but was the result of a “careful decision”.

[63]  With regard to children’s interests, the broadcaster was satisfied that it had satisfied the requirement to be mindful of child viewers by broadcasting a clear warning “well ahead of any footage that might cause concern”.

[64]  In the circumstances, TVWorks submitted that publication of the decision would sufficiently inform broadcasters and the public about the Authority’s expectations surrounding sexual content in the early evening news, while representing “the least possible restriction to editorial independence in news reporting”.

Authority’s Decision on Orders

Broadcast statement and apology

[65]  On this occasion, we agree with the complainants that an order requiring TVWorks to broadcast a statement summarising the upheld aspects of our decision is appropriate. We consider that broadcasting the statement once during 3 News in accordance with our usual procedure is appropriate (rather than twice as submitted by Mr Souch).

[66]  We note that apologies are broadcast only rarely and in exceptional circumstances, and we do not consider that any such circumstances exist which would warrant the broadcast of an apology on this occasion.

Costs to the Crown

[67]  We are also of the view that, given the seriousness of the breaches of Standards 1 and 9, an order of costs to the Crown is warranted. Having regard to all the circumstances, we have concluded that an order of $4,000 is appropriate.

[68]  With regard to the submissions by Ms Godinet and Mr Souch that this sum should be paid to a relevant charity, we note that the Authority does not have jurisdiction to make such an order.

Other orders

[69]  Mrs Brieseman argued that the broadcaster should be ordered “to refrain from broadcasting such items during family viewing time”, and Ms Godinet submitted that TVWorks should be directed to undertake education about “the adverse effects of sexual images on children and the effects of this type of ‘child abuse’”. We note that the Authority does not have the power to make such orders under sections 13 or 16 of the Broadcasting Act.

Orders

The Authority makes the following orders pursuant to sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989:

1.    Pursuant to section 13(1)(a) of the Act, the Authority orders TVWorks Ltd to broadcast a statement approved by the Authority. That statement shall:

• be broadcast within one month of 15 January 2011
• be broadcast during 3 News
• be broadcast at a time and on a date to be approved by the Authority
• contain a comprehensive summary of the upheld aspects of the Authority’s decision.

The Authority draws the broadcaster’s attention to the requirement in section 13(3)(b) of the Act for the broadcaster to give notice to the Authority of the manner in which the above order has been complied with.

2.    Pursuant to section 16(4) of the Act, the Authority orders TVWorks Ltd to pay to the Crown costs in the amount of $4,000 within one month of 15 January 2011.

The order for costs shall be enforceable in the Wellington District Court.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Peter Radich
Chair

15 December 2010

Appendix

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

Patricia, Steven and Neil Binnie’s complaint

1                  Patricia, Steven and Neil Binnie’s formal complaint – 14 July 2010
2                 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 27 July 2010
3                 The Binnies’ referral to the Authority – 4 August 2010
4                 TVWorks’ responses to the Authority – 13 August and 25 August 2010
5                 The Binnies’ submissions on orders – 27 October 2010
6                 TVWorks’ submissions on orders – 19 November 2010

Dr MA and JL Brieseman’s complaint

1                  Dr MA and Mrs JL Brieseman’s formal complaint – 13 July 2010
2                 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 27 July 2010
3                 The Briesemans’ referral to the Authority – 13 August 2010
4                 TVWorks’ response to the Authority – 19 August 2010
5                 Mrs Brieseman’s submissions on orders – 7 November 2010

Barrie Cavill’s complaint

1                  Barrie Cavill’s formal complaint – 13 July 2010
2                 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 27 July 2010
3                 Mr Cavill’s referral to the Authority – 7 August 2010
4                 TVWorks’ responses to the Authority – 13 August and 25 August 2010
5                 TVWorks’ submissions on orders – 19 November 2010

Sue Godinet’s complaint

1                  Sue Godinet’s formal complaint – 18 July 2010
2                 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 27 July 2010
3                 Ms Godinet’s referral to the Authority – 28 July 2010
4                 TVWorks’ response to the Authority – 10 August 2010
5                 Ms Godinet’s submissions on orders – 6 November 2010
6                 TVWorks’ submissions on orders – 19 November 2010

Reverend Paulo Ieriko’s complaint

1                  Reverend Paulo Ieriko’s formal complaint – 13 July 2010
2                 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 27 July 2010
3                 Reverend Ieriko’s referral to the Authority – 23 August 2010
4                 TVWorks’ response to the Authority – 25 August 2010
5                 Rev Ieriko’s submissions on orders – 28 October 2010
6                 TVWorks’ submissions on orders – 19 November 2010

Robert Souch’s complaint

1                  Robert Souch’s formal complaint – undated
2                 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 27 July 2010
3                 Mr Souch’s referral to the Authority – 21 August 2010
4                 TVWorks’ response to the Authority – 30 August 2010
5                 Mr Souch’s submissions on orders – 9 November 20105
6                 TVWorks’ submissions on orders – 19 November 2010

¹Decision No. 2008-112

²Decision No. 2008-066