Search Rapua

 The Authority has upheld a complaint that a promo for The Shallows shown during Finding Dory breached the children’s interests standard. The Authority found that the promo, which featured sinister and scary shark related content, was inappropriate for a child audience which would likely have been disturbed or alarmed by it. The Authority noted the importance of scheduling and editing promos for AO programmes appropriately, taking into account the classification of the host programme, and also the time of broadcast, target and likely audience of the host programme, and audience expectations. In considering the contextual factors, the Authority also found that the promo did not meet the G classification of the host programme. The Authority made no orders, and determined that the publication of the decision was sufficient to publicly notify and remedy the breach and would provide appropriate guidance to the broadcaster and to broadcasters generally....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

An episode of Seven Sharp included an item about a tornado and thunderstorm that occurred in New Zealand and an eye witness account from a resident. Considering the contextual factors and the nature of the programme, the Authority did not uphold a complaint that the language used breached the good taste and decency standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News which reported on the shooting of Jacob Blake by police and the subsequent protests that occurred. The complainant argued the item included false statements, and omitted relevant background information about the incident and about Mr Blake. The Authority found the statements made were not materially inaccurate and were unlikely to mislead viewers in the context, given the wide coverage and commentary available at the time. The Authority also found the omitted background information was not material to the matters reported. The Authority found the balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – item featured a skit in which an actor pretending to be a TV presenter interviewed “Ray”, the stingray that killed prominent Australian Steve Irwin – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – skit clearly satirical – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme Facelift, broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 10 September 2007, featured a skit of the Campbell Live show in which an actor pretending to be a TV presenter interviewed “Ray”, the stingray that killed prominent Australian Steve Irwin. During the skit, the actor playing the stingray discussed how he had not meant to kill Mr Irwin, and coughed up a piece of khaki clothing (Mr Irwin’s regular attire)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint One News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of Ombudsman’s decision, contrary to agreement before interview – field tape sought to assist preparation of complaint OrderOrder made to supply tape to Authority – section 12 Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION The Background An item on One News on 23 November 2000 reported on the case of Joanne Procter who was seeking a taxpayer-funded sex change operation. Her application had been approved by doctors at Waikato Hospital, but that decision had been overruled by the Health Funding Authority. She had taken her case to the Ombudsman, and the Chief Ombudsman ruled that she had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy. A brief comment from the Chief Ombudsman was included in the item....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-100:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1992-100 PDF477 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-083:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-083 PDF350. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-059:Te Reo Takiwa O Ngatihine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-059 PDF686. 17 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 75/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GUY HEPWORTH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-062 Decision No: 1998-063 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland and KATE AND DAVID TURNER of Upper Hutt TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe programme WCW Nitro features professional wrestling bouts staged in front of a live audience. In the episode broadcast on TV2 at 10. 30pm on 20 November 1998, the wife of one wrestler was held and verbally abused while her husband was administered a hiding in wrestling terms by several other wrestlers. Mr Poata complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting and breached both the general standards and the standards relating to the portrayal of violence. He accepted that the sequence might have been staged, but maintained it was unacceptable as it was "choreographed gang rape". TVNZ acknowledged that the wrestler’s wife had been demeaned and the performance breached currently accepted community norms of good taste and decency. It upheld the complaint under the standards dealing with these issues....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday – item on the sentencing of Millie Elder for drug offences – referred to her as the adopted daughter of Paul Holmes – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – the word “adopted” was not used in a pejorative way – statement was true – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News: Midday, broadcast on TV One at 12pm on Monday 31 March 2008, reported on the sentencing of Millie Elder on drug offences. At the beginning of the item, the presenter said: The adopted daughter of broadcaster Paul Holmes, Millie Elder, will be sentenced in the Auckland District Court today on a range of drug charges. Paul Holmes arrived at court to support his daughter, as did her mother, Hine Elder....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reviewed political career of Helen Clark – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item offered limited historical review of Helen Clark's time in Parliament – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 9 November 2008, reviewed the political career of the then leader of the Labour Party, Helen Clark, who was defeated in the New Zealand general election held the previous day. The One News presenter introduced the item by saying: So let's take a look at how Helen Clark's career stacks up. She is Labour's longest serving leader and the only one to win three terms as Prime Minister....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reported on the use of anti-depressants – excerpts from a radio talkback show were used in the item – two excerpts involved the complainant discussing her use of anti-depressant drugs – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable in the item – item did not disclose any private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on the 20/20 programme, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 30 August 2007, examined the use of the anti-depressant drug Aropax and the difficulty some people had experienced when trying to stop using it. The item included excerpts from a radio talkback discussion concerning the use of anti-depressants....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....