Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint received by broadcaster 21 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster declined to consider as a formal complaint – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaintFindingsSection 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act states that complaints must be “lodged in writing with the broadcaster” within 20 working days after the broadcast – broadcaster was not obliged to consider complaint – Authority has no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Nilanka Fonseka wrote a letter of complaint to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) about comments broadcast on 6 February 2006 on ZM radio (90. 9FM). [2] The complaint was received by TRN on 7 March 2006. TRN declined to accept his complaint as a formal complaint, as it had arrived “outside the 20 days allowed since the broadcast to qualify as a formal complaint”....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that comments made by Kate Hawkesby on Early Edition with Kate Hawkesby, about the newly introduced Equity Adjustor Score in the Auckland region, were misleading. The Equity Adjustor Score is a system which uses five categories to place patients on the non-urgent surgical waitlist, including clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity. Hawkesby made statements to the effect that the Score meant Māori and Pacific Peoples were being ‘moved to the top of surgery waitlists’. The Authority found the comments to be materially misleading in relation to the nature and impact of the Score, as they gave the impression that ethnicity was the only, or the key factor, involved in the assessment, and that Māori and Pacific patients would be given immediate precedence on the surgical waitlist as a result, when this was not the case....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a statement on Coast FM news, ‘A herd of international students is about to stampede into New Zealand’, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found ‘international students’ did not amount to a section of the community under the standard. In any event, the statement would not have reached the threshold required for finding a breach. There were issues with the retention of the broadcast by NZME, and the Authority noted this was a serious procedural concern. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme misled the public by giving ‘the impression’ the National Party’s policies would support public services, which was in ‘direct contradiction to their proposed policies’. The Authority considered listeners would have understood the programme as a typical advertisement for the Party, encouraging the public to vote for National. By their nature, such programmes are not factual and are often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy. Further, it is not the Authority’s role to analyse the likely implications of any Party’s policies (which are not quantified promises, guarantees, or statements of fact), and listeners are able to form their own views about any given policy with reference to the broad range of available media coverage and other publicly available information. Not Upheld: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding MPs being infected with COVID-19 and mask-wearing breached multiple broadcasting standards. The Authority found the host’s comment that she would rather get COVID-19 than wear a mask all day was unlikely to seriously violate community standards of taste and decency. The comment did not relate to a recognised section of the community as contemplated by the discrimination and denigration standard or reach a threshold necessary to constitute discrimination or denigration. Nor did the broadcast ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance as required for the balance standard to apply, and the comment at issue was an opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and which was unlikely to mislead the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-099 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE ROWAN PARTNERSHIP of Wanganui Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has declined to determine aspects, and not upheld the remainder of a complaint concerning a talkback call regarding vaccine mandates. The complainant had contacted the station and spoke about her son’s issues re-enrolling at university due to his COVID-19 vaccination status. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards as the host did not accept the complainant’s statements concerning the COVID-19 vaccine and related mandates, and prematurely ended the call with the complainant. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under the balance and accuracy standards as the complainant’s concerns have been recently determined in other decisions. The Authority did not uphold the fairness complaint, finding the complainant was not treated unfairly and in any case it was an editorial choice open to the broadcaster to end the call....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a station identity promo for Newstalk ZB news, which listed the names of the station’s flagship presenters followed by the tagline, ‘all the names you can trust’, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the accuracy standard did not apply, as this was clearly a piece of station branding or marketing (rather than a news, current affairs or factual programme) and the tagline was clearly promotional, rather than making a statement of fact. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made by the presenter of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive regarding a suggestion by a representative of The New Zealand Initiative that New Zealand’s car seat regulations should be relaxed to increase birth rates (with reference to a United States study, ‘Car Seats as Contraception’). The presenter said, ‘And here’s the really challenging thing. Car seat regulations, they reckon might save about 60 children from dying in car crashes in a year across the [United] States, but they stop 8,000 families from having babies. So, you save 60, but you don’t have another 8,000. Maybe you’re better off having the 8,000 and losing the 60 – hey, I said it was going to challenge you. ’ The complaint was that the presenter’s tone and comment was ‘appalling’ and suggested ‘losing 60 kids was not a bad deal’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint which allegedly featured ‘gendered and vulgar’ language on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The presenter suggested the Prime Minister needed to grow ‘a bigger set of balls’ in response to his handling of the resignation of cabinet minister Andrew Bayly. The Authority concluded the presenter’s language, while provocative, was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress among the audience. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Overnight Talk breached the discrimination and denigration, offensive and disturbing content, and fairness standards. A caller to the show advised the host he believed Russia was acting in ‘the least violent way possible’ in its invasion of Ukraine, to which the host responded heatedly, referring to the caller’s opinion as ‘stupid’ and ‘bullshit’. The Authority was satisfied the language used amounted to low-level language, and the host’s comments, while potentially seen as disrespectful by some, did not reach the level necessary to constitute unfair treatment. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply as the comments were directed at the caller as an individual. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness  ...

The Authority has declined to determine an accuracy complaint about a news bulletin referring to ‘Cyclone Gabrielle’ when, at the relevant time, it was a sub-tropical low. Given the sub-tropical low remained an extreme weather event, the Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show, Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME, having upheld Mrs Stokes’ complaint under the fairness and privacy standards, was insufficient. The broadcast, and particularly the hosts’ deceptive conduct, represented a significant breach of broadcasting standards and a lack of understanding of an individual’s fundamental right to fair treatment and to privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Breakfast Show – host joked “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – humour used to convey important message about men’s health to target audience – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Breakfast Show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki between 6am and 9am on Tuesday 14 June 2011, one of the hosts Dean stated, “Alright, so the call is going to go out this morning for a doctor for Men’s Health Week”, and his co-host Nick joked, “Who wants to stick their finger up Dean’s arse?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Sport Farming Show – host referred to man as a “pommy git” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – word “pommy” unlikely to offend, insult or intimidate – expression “pommy git” not derogatory – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a brief interview on the Radio Sport Farming Show, broadcast at 6. 50am on Saturday 31 October 2009, the host asked the interviewee: Don, should the New Zealand farmers be fearing a bloke, a pommy git by the name of Lord Steyn? [2] The interviewee explained that Lord Johan Steyn had been advocating vegetarianism and the discontinuance of farming livestock as methods to battle greenhouse gas emissions....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana. The Authority found the broadcast amounted to a comedic discussion of smoking marijuana that did not go beyond established audience expectations of Radio Hauraki, Hauraki Breakfast or the hosts. The Authority noted that humour and satire are important aspects of free speech, and found that on this occasion, there was insufficient risk of harm to justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard during a segment of Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley on ZM was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the item, which discussed searching for the cheapest alcohol with the highest alcohol by volume (ABV), amounted to alcohol promotion that was socially irresponsible. While the broadcaster upheld the complaint, removed the relevant segment from their online podcast and counselled the content directors and hosts of ZM on their obligations around alcohol promotion, the Authority found this was insufficient to remedy the harm caused by the broadcast – noting, in particular, there had not yet been any public acknowledgement of the breach for the audience. Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour (Action Taken) Order: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about the statement ‘a review has found that the deaths of the two people who were isolating at home in Auckland with COVID were both preventable’ when the finding was that the deaths were ‘potentially preventable’. This would not have materially mislead listeners, noting the interviewee featured after these introductory comments stated the deaths were ‘potentially preventable’ and provided context and detail about the review. Not Upheld: Accuracy...