Search Rapua

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM Breakfast – presenter drank a yard glass on his 21st birthday – broadcast allegedly advocated excessive alcohol consumption and broadcaster not mindful of children Findings Principle 8 (liquor) – tone of item accepted practice as normal – socially irresponsible promotion of liquor – upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7b (children) – socially irresponsible to broadcast drinking of yard glass during children’s normally accepted listening times – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Presenter Cam’s 21st birthday was celebrated on the ZM breakfast show at about 8. 20am on 13 February 2007. While in the carpark with another presenter, Cam attempted to drink a yard glass. A yard glass is a drinking vessel – traditionally one yard long – containing about two litres of beer....

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about the use of the word ‘gypped’ during a segment of Sarah, Sam and Toni has not been upheld. The Authority found the host’s use of this word on this occasion did not carry any malicious intent and therefore did not reach the threshold required to be considered a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority did not uphold the complaint, they acknowledged that the casual use of this term and its variants may cause offence to some members of the public and noted care is required when using expressions relating to sections of the community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints that comments by Leighton Smith about climate change issues were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Mr Smith provided his views in response to a news item, saying that climate change was not predominantly man made and was instead due to ‘normal variability’. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the requirements of the accuracy standard do not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion. In this case, the Authority considered it was clear that Mr Smith’s statements amounted to statements of opinion in a talkback context....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Hauraki – skit implying that Polynesian women suffer significantly less post natal depression than other ethnic groups because additional children result in increased welfare benefits – allegedly encouraged denigration or discriminationFindingsPrinciple 7 and Guideline 7a (denigration and discrimination) – skit was obvious attempt at humour – falls within exception in Guideline 7(a)(iii) – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] On Radio Hauraki at around 7. 05am on Monday 20 September 2004, one of the presenters announced recent findings by the Auckland University of Technology that Samoan women have one of the lowest rates of post natal depression in the world. He said that researchers wanted to find out “why Samoan women escaped the baby blues” so that they could help other women....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Pirates – hosts discussed the act of people photocopying their naked bottoms on the office photocopier – one of the hosts photocopied his bottom on the radio station's photocopying machine and encouraged listeners to do the same – host invited listeners to exchange photocopies with him via facsimile – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – hosts' actions were inoffensive and harmless – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Pirates breakfast show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 7....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast of the song Long Gone by Six60, which included four instances of the line ‘Someday, when you give a fuck’, censored so the word ‘fuck’ was partially silenced. In the context, including the nature of the programme and intended audience, the Authority found the song was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress, or harm to children. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A host on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ (stupid or absurd). The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments were disgusting and unsuitable for broadcast in the middle of the day. While parts of the broadcast were crude, the content did not go beyond audience expectations of Radio Hauraki or this programme. Most regular listeners would have taken the comments as humorous and light-hearted, and would not have been unduly offended. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] In a regular segment called ‘Penis or Genius’ on Hauraki Breakfast Regurgitated, one of the hosts was required to argue that free-range eggs were ‘penis’ – used by the programme to denote something that is ‘stupid’ or ‘absurd’....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Sport – played soundtrack which conveyed the impression that a woman was having sex with a bull – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – soundtrack was gratuitous and prolonged – theme of bestiality would have offended a significant number of listeners – played when children were likely to be listening – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 10. 15am on Sunday 22 October 2006, the presenter of Radio Sport played an audio track containing sounds which conveyed the impression that a woman was having sex with a bull. The soundtrack lasted for 34 seconds, after which the presenter made the following comments: My god is there nothing those people won’t get up to up there....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about an item on Hauraki Drive with Thane Kirby, which alleged that Mr Kirby made a comment suggesting COVID-19 contact-tracing information could be used to contact attractive women. There was an issue with identifying the correct time of broadcast, and the broadcast complained about was not retained by the broadcaster, despite the complainant signaling she would be taking the matter further with the Authority. The Authority also noted the broadcaster should have responded early to the complainant so that she had an opportunity to resubmit her complaint within the required timeframe. Without being able to listen to the actual words used in the broadcast, the tone, and the surrounding context, the Authority concluded it must decline to determine the complaint, which it recognized was a very unsatisfactory outcome....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a broadcast in which two co-hosts made fun of the third for giving his pet pig a name shared by ‘one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party’, and the three of them joked about distinguishing names associated with Hitler and the Nazis by spelling them differently. The Authority noted the comments may be considered distasteful, in that they trivialised the notoriety of Hitler and the Nazis, but found they did not meet the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging Weekend Collective breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The programme referred to protesters occupying Parliament grounds as ‘vermin’. In light of the Authority’s recent finding that the standard does not apply to the protesters, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about Mike Hosking’s statement on Mike Hosking Breakfast that the Duchess of Sussex was a ‘shallow, self-absorbed, attention-seeking, woke bandwagon-riding hussy’. The Authority found it was not likely to cause widespread, undue offence in the context. Although the discrimination and denigration standard applied, as the word ‘hussy’ may refer to and reflect upon women as a section of society, the comments did not meet the threshold justifying regulatory intervention. Not upheld: Good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a satirical segment would have been offensive to Christians. The segment was an imagined promo for reality show The Block, set in Jerusalem and featured contestants who shared the names of biblical figures, including Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Thomas and Judas. The promo was broadcast on Good Friday. The Authority did not consider the broadcast’s content would have unduly offended or distressed the general audience, and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The broadcast did not cause actual or potential harm at a level which justified limiting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority found it was appropriate to decline to determine a complaint about the mispronunciation of Māori place name ‘Matamata’ during a radio item on Newstalk ZB. While it recognised the importance of the proper pronunciation and use of te reo as an official New Zealand language, it noted concerns about unintentional mispronunciation cannot be properly addressed under the broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

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 not upheld a complaint that a radio host’s description of a rugby match between the Blues and the Crusaders as ‘a battle of good versus evil’ breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the comment was used to describe a competitive sporting rivalry between the Blues and the Crusaders and in context it was not likely to cause undue distress or harm. The Authority determined that the comment was not unfair to the Crusaders as it was a general comment about the nature of the match, and that there was no identified section of the community for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and the value of hearing the authentic New Zealand voice. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...