Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dragon’s Den – contestant said that ACC paid $68 million per year for people to hang out washing for people who were unable to do it themselves – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Dragon’s Den was a series in which would-be entrepreneurs pitched their business ideas to five successful business people in the hopes that they might invest. In the episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 19 October 2006, one of the contestants said: The ACC spends $68 million a year on helping people hang out their washing alone – I know, it’s a staggering amount. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – language – “fuck you” – allegedly offensive – warning requiredFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guidelines 1a and 1b – context – warning not necessary – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Spooks is a BBC drama series built around the activities of a fictional counter-terrorism unit attached to MI5. MI5 is the government agency responsible for internal security. In an episode beginning at 9. 30pm broadcast on TV One on 24 February 2004, one character said to another “fuck you”. Complaint [2] Ken Francis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive and the programme should have been preceded with a warning. Standards [3] TVNZ assessed the complaint under Standard 1 and Guidelines 1a and 1b of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiling the Destiny Church and its pastor – interviews with the pastor, former members of the Church, a university lecturer and the director of Cultwatch – allegedly unbalanced and unfair to the Destiny ChurchFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – sufficient opportunity given to the Church and its pastor to present its views on the controversial issues – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church given opportunity to respond to issues raised – not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday shown on TV One at 7. 30pm on 3 October 2004 profiled the Destiny Church and its leader, Pastor Brian Tamaki. The segment gave background information about the church and its recent march to Parliament protesting the Civil Union Bill....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

ComplaintOne News – defence spending – F-16 fighter plane deal – cost misrepresented – inaccurate FindingsStandard G14 – no inaccuracy – cost quoted was approximate and based on reliable source material – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast by TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 24 February 2000 commented that an "expensive" proposed F-16 fighter plane deal with the United States "could cost taxpayers a billion dollars". Mr Hall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the total cost of the project was approximately half of what was reported. TVNZ responded that the billion dollar figure was cautiously based on the opinion of sources with expertise in the area. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Hall referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989IRB Sevens World Series – presenter used the term “MILFs” – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “MILFs” used in a light-hearted and jovial manner – not explained or elaborated on – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the IRB Sevens World Series, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Saturday 5 February 2011, the presenter stated: I can tell you in your absence it’s going off. The party is absolutely awesome. It’s all in good fun, good clean fun as well. I did pop out there, I got snogged by a couple of MILFs and I was also issued a fine by some police officers wearing only Speedos, let’s not go into that....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-071:Dunlop and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-071 PDF264. 43 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-034:Brock and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-034 PDF354. 32 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-044:Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-044 PDF609. 76 KB...

 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....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Following the issue of this decision, the Authority received new information from a third party refuting certain allegations made by the complainant about, and descriptions of, the dairy farm referred to in the decision owned by 'B'. The Authority wishes to note that the descriptions of the farm owned by B used in this decision have been disputed. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Sunday, titled ‘The Price of Milk’, followed a reporter as he visited two dairy farms in the Hauraki Plains. The reporter spent time with two farmers, A and B, to hear their perspectives on their work and the issues facing the industry, such as the impact of dairy farming on New Zealand waterways, abuse of bobby calves and financial struggles....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter was discussing American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship. At the end of the segment the presenter remarked, ‘Yeah, they don’t have very good humour the British, do they? They probably didn’t get [Mr Spieth’s] speech. ’ A complaint was made that this comment was ‘racist and untrue’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comment was not malicious and was unlikely to cause widespread offence, therefore any potential harm caused by the broadcast did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy  Introduction[1] During a sports news segment on Breakfast, the sports presenter discussed American golfer Jordan Spieth’s victory at the British Open Championship....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News reporting on the Government’s financial accounts breached the accuracy standard. The complainant alleged the Political Editor’s statement in the item that “…a bigger tax take has meant the deficit is half what was predicted in the May budget, a saving of more than 9 billion” was inaccurate, as it gave the impression that the lower-than-forecast deficit was achieved entirely from a bigger tax take, when almost a third of the saving came from less Government expenditure than predicted. While acknowledging the statement may have been misleading taken in isolation, the Authority found the brief statement would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

A complaint alleging that an interview on Breakfast with Professor Douglas Pratt, an expert in theological and religious studies, breached broadcasting standards has not been upheld. The interview was exploring Professor Pratt’s views on the possible motivation behind the attacks on 15 March 2019 on two mosques in Christchurch. The Authority found that the interview was not a discussion as contemplated under the balance standard, but rather Professor Pratt’s in-depth, expert opinion, and therefore the balance standard did not apply. The Authority also found that the broadcast did not contain a high level of condemnation towards the Christian community nor the level of malice or nastiness required to breach the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a 1News item reporting on violence in Amsterdam in November 2024 surrounding the Ajax v Maccabi Tel Aviv football match, breached the balance standard. The Authority acknowledged the violence in Amsterdam appeared to be ‘controversial’, but was satisfied that to the extent the item could be seen as ‘discussing’ the alleged causes or instigators of the violence, the item adequately reported the information the complainant considered was missing.   Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a 1News report on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged the broadcast’s framing of the Treaty principles as partnership, participation, and protection (the Three Ps) was ‘incomplete and confused’, and describing the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’ erroneously suggested the Bill was rewriting the Treaty principles. The broadcast stated, ‘there are no principles that have been expressly defined or set out in law’ and recited the Three Ps as the ‘current main three principles’. In the context of the segment, the reporter’s comments were unlikely to mislead viewers, and any potential harm caused was not at a level justifying intervention. Additionally, it was not misleading, in the context, to refer to the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’. Not Upheld: Accuracy...