Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on the stories of two families (A and B) and their experiences with The Welcome Home Foundation (now called the Home Funding Group) (together, HFG). Both families claimed that they lost money through their involvement with HFG, which provided financial support and the ability to hold money ‘on trust’ towards a deposit for a home. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of HFG, Luke Atkins, that the broadcast breached the accuracy, fairness and balance standards. While one aspect of the item was found to be inaccurate by the broadcaster, the Authority found that the action taken in the circumstances was sufficient....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about how people use public toilets – discussed how the news presenter's mother used to help him go to the toilet when he was a child – talked about suction toilets on trains in America – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 20 April 2009, the hosts referred to a germ expert who had been interviewed earlier in the programme. This led one of the hosts to talk about the different methods people use to avoid germs in public toilets....

ComplaintOne News – inaccurate to state that Maori have a direct genealogical link with flora and faunaFindingsStandard G1 – clearly identified as a belief – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Maori perspective on the genetic engineering debate featured in an item broadcast on One News on 18 September 2000. It was explained that Maori opposition to genetic engineering was based on traditional beliefs, including that Maori were descended from flora and fauna. Mr R D Hutchins complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was "astoundingly untrue" to suggest that human beings were descended from plants and the various insect, reptile, bird and rat species of New Zealand. TVNZ emphasised that the statement had a cultural context and, within that cultural dimension, the statement to which Mr Hutchins took exception had not breached standard G1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters discussed Civil Defence emergency survival kits – presenter commented on what people should have in their kits, Mormons being prepared for disasters as part of their faith, and whether people should just have a gun and bullets and use them to take other people’s kits – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were inane banter that was not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 7 September 2010, the presenters, Paul Henry, Pippa Wetzell and Peter Williams, discussed Civil Defence emergency kits....

ComplaintOne 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 – Broadcasting Act s. 12 Order: Order made to release field tape to complainant 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 had 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. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-044:Jackson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-044 PDF209. 06 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 147/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M JAMES of Raglan Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

An item on Breakfast discussed Novak Djokovic, his recovery from COVID-19, his comments regarding efforts to contain the virus, and the others infected at a tennis tournament he organised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the presenter’s description of Mr Djokovic as ‘a dick’ breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reference to a New Conservative Party policy of ‘repealing gay marriage’ was inaccurate. The Authority found the statement was not inaccurate or misleading, in light of the party’s advertised marriage policy. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on 1 News in which reporter Maiki Sherman interviewed the Hon Nick Smith about the National Party blocking a proposal to enable Māori to switch more easily between the general electoral roll and Māori electoral roll. The complainant submitted Ms Sherman was aggressive and interrupted Mr Smith and her attitude was racist. The Authority found Mr Smith was not treated unfairly given, in particular, his experience as a politician and the public interest in the issue discussed. Regarding balance, Mr Smith had an opportunity to present his views on the issue and a range of perspectives were presented in the broadcast. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-137 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JAMES HIPPOLITE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 102/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C R TURNER of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dancing with the Stars – remarks made by hosts considered offensive and blasphemous – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments mild and light hearted – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast Dancing with the Stars on 19 June 2005 at 8. 30pm. The two hour special was the finale of an ongoing ballroom dancing competition which partnered New Zealand celebrities with professional dancers. The show was hosted by a female dancer and a well known male television personality. [2] At one point in the show, the male host made a remark about a performance, commenting “on a Sunday too! ”, followed by “Hail Mary!...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Trial by Ordeal – documentary – examined three jury trials of John Barlow charged with double murder – questioned fairness in view of the length of the process – interviewed some participants and set up mock jury to hear evidence – allegedly gratuitous murder reconstructions, offensive and unnecessarily violent, and favoured defence over prosecutionFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – opposing perspectives advanced – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guidelines 10b (cumulative effect) and 10f (repeated gratuitously) – reconstructions, while gruesome, were not gratuitous or repeated unnecessarily – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Trial by Ordeal was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 00pm on 12 February 2004....

ComplaintReel Life: The Truth about Lesbian Sex – documentary examining lesbian sex – indecent – offensive FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – majority – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Reel Life: The Truth about Lesbian Sex was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 2 July 2003. The programme examined lesbian sex, focussing on lesbian relationships. [2] Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item showed scenes of a sexual nature which breached the standard of good taste and decency. [3] Mr Tod’s complaint to TVNZ maintained that the demonstration of sexual aids, combined with the explicit instruction on the performance of several sexual acts, was appalling and indecent. Mr Tod also stated that the programme inappropriately encouraged lesbian sex as an exciting and viable alternative to heterosexual sex....

ComplaintOne News – Australian Governor-General – alleged cover-up of sexual abuse – Merepeka Raukawa-Tait interviewed – suggested Australians were hypocritical as their silence may have contributed to abuse – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – item balanced about matter of Governor-General’s tenure – no uphold Standard 5 – item accurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no evidence of denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Controversy over the allegations that the Australian Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, had covered up sex abuse cases when Archbishop of Brisbane was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 22 February 2002. The Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge in New Zealand, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, when interviewed, suggested that the criticism directed at Dr Hollingworth was hypocritical....