The question for the Authority was whether a complaint had been submitted within the time allowed. The complainant submitted two formal complaints about two broadcasts on Fair Go, using the broadcaster’s online complaint form. The broadcaster declined to accept the second complaint on the basis that it was out of time. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989 formal complaints must be lodged in writing with the broadcaster within 20 working days after the programme has screened. The complainant submitted his online complaint shortly before midnight on 28 June, the 20th working day after the broadcast. The definition of “working day” in section 2 of the Act specifies days of the year that are to be excluded but not times of day. The Authority held that the ordinary meaning of a “day” runs from midnight to midnight and that the complaint should have been accepted by the broadcaster. The Authority made an order directing the complaint back to the broadcaster to be accepted and considered as a formal complaint.
Order: Broadcaster to accept and consider complaint as a formal complaint
A 3 News item on the Conservative Party leader and apparent party practices commented on the party’s “distinctly Christian streak”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the discrimination and denigration standard: the item was a legitimate and straightforward news report which did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community.
Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration
In an interview on Radio New Zealand National’s Checkpoint the Executive Director of the Rape Prevention Education Group stated, “I think our focus has to be on the safety of our children, and we know that approximately one in four girls and one in eight boys are likely to experience some form of sexual violence before the age of 16”. RNZ News later reported, “The group’s executive director, Kim McGregor, claims . . .” and repeated the figures. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the statement breached the accuracy standard: the Director’s comment was not a statement of fact but reflected her views and experiences, and was presented from an advocacy perspective, the figures were approximates and, while contentious, were supported by some independent research.
Not Upheld: Accuracy
An item on One News reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The item contained footage of an SPCA raid at the complainant’s property and archive photographs of cats and dogs there. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy, fairness and privacy standards: the reporter’s summary of the court judgment captured the essence of a complex decision; the archive photographs and footage were used as visual wallpaper and would not have misled viewers; the complainant was provided with an adequate opportunity to comment; and though he was identifiable the photographs were legitimately obtained by SPCA, and the use of archive footage was justified, given the ongoing focus on the complainant’s breeding activities.
Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, Fairness
During the ZM drive show Jay, Flynny and Jacqui, one of the hosts told a personal anecdote about a prank she committed in her youth, namely setting off a fire alarm, “resulting in all of Timaru’s fire engines turning up”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comments breached the law and order standard: the anecdote was a light-hearted recollection of the host’s actions in her youth intended to entertain, but with an educational message – the host made comments condemning her own behaviour and noting the repercussions – and the story did not invite imitation or otherwise encourage listeners to break the law.
Not Upheld: Law and Order
At approximately 9.11pm during Kerre Woodham Talkback, the host said, “You fricken moron”, in response to a caller’s comment that having a disability was the result of “inbreeding”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host’s comment breached the good taste and decency and responsible programming standards: the comment was broadcast after 9pm during a talkback programme targeted at adults, it would not have surprised or offended most listeners, and its broadcast in this context was not socially irresponsible.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming
A book reading of Eggs, written by New Zealand author Maxine Alterio, was broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Good Friday morning at 6.50am. The story was told from the perspective of an “at risk youth” who attended a Polytechnic course where she and her classmates looked after eggs in order to learn parenting skills. The story contained mature themes including references to drug taking and sex, as well as some coarse language. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the book reading breached the good taste and decency standard: it was an artistic work and the language and themes were acceptable in the context, and upholding the complaints would unjustifiably limit free speech.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
A “breaking news ticker” was broadcast during an advertisement break which stated, “Breaking News ... Container ship breaks apart ... Tugs racing to the scene ... More on One News at 4.30, 6pm and at tvnz.co.nz”. The information in the ticker was inaccurate. The Authority determined that the breaking news ticker was not a “programme” for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989 because it consisted predominantly of alphanumeric text, which is excluded under the Act, and therefore the Authority had no jurisdiction to accept the complaint.
Campbell Live reported on a woman who, after she miscarried, unsuccessfully sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business. The reporter door-stepped the complainant and her co-owner, and footage of this was broadcast. The Authority upheld that the broadcast breached the fairness, accuracy and privacy standards. No previous attempts had been made to obtain comment before door-stepping the shop owners; covert filming and recording of the conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation; the owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded; and the tone of programme was negative towards the owners and their position was not adequately presented. The owners were identifiable, and the item disclosed private facts. The Authority ordered payment of $500 to the complainant for breach of privacy and payment of $750 legal costs to the complainant.
Upheld: Privacy, Fairness, Accuracy
Order: $500 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy, $750 legal costs to complainant
During an episode of the reality TV series Dog Squad, a dog handler carried out routine checks of vehicles as they entered prison grounds, including a car which had apparently taken a wrong turn near the prison. The occupants of the car (a couple) were questioned, and following the search the dog handler stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay?” The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the privacy standard: the complainant was identifiable and the footage disclosed private facts suggesting drug use, which was a highly offensive disclosure. The Authority ordered $750 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy.
Upheld: Privacy
Order: $750 compensation to complainant