Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who is a long-standing voluntary euthanasia campaigner. The item also discussed the history of attempts to legalise voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand and overseas. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item lacked balance. The item did not solely approach voluntary euthanasia from the personal perspective of the interviewee. It included a wider discussion of the voluntary euthanasia debate and law reform that triggered the requirement for presentation of alternative views, which were not presented within the programme or within the period of current interest. Upheld: Controversial Issues No Order  Introduction [1] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who has been a voluntary euthanasia campaigner for the last two decades....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of the dairy industry in the Waikato region. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of dairy farming, and breached a number of other broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. The item was not inaccurate or misleading in the ways alleged by the complainant; rather, it focused on instances of bad practice within the dairy industry and did not suggest these were commonplace. Furthermore, the item did not breach the privacy of a local farming family, as they were not identifiable or otherwise referred to in the footage....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-055:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-055 PDF429. 31 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-011:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-011 PDF516. 75 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Seven Sharp one of the presenters made comments about Guy Fawkes celebrations and fireworks. The complainant alleged that the presenter's comment, 'Did you know a burning sparkler is five times hotter than boiling water? ' was inaccurate. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was trivial. The presenter was giving her opinion about the likelihood of fireworks being banned and her mention of the temperature of sparklers would not have materially altered viewers' understanding of the item. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During her 'final word' segment on Guy Fawkes night, a Seven Sharp presenter gave her views on the likelihood of fireworks being banned in future, saying: We've got Guy Fawke's tonight, guys....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – episode showed contestant eating live dragonflies – complainant alleged such behaviour was barbaric – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – well-established programme screened after the AO watershed – item distasteful but did not breach standards of good taste and decency – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factorwas screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 18 December 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factoras a reality programme in which contestants are challenged to take part in activities which they find frightening, repellent, or disgusting. The programme had a Christmas theme and the segment that was the subject of the complaint involved a contestant eating live dragonflies....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against advertisement for Charlie’s Soda – studio discussion among four men about whether the decision was out of step with society and demonstrated a double standard between advertising and television programmes – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – discussion was confined to one advertisement – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 31 January 2008, discussed the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement for Charlie’s Soda was in breach of advertising standards. According to the item, the ASA ruled that the advertisement breached a standard which required advertisements not to use sexual content to promote an unrelated product....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interview with Frank Bainimarama – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Mr Bainimarama is a controversial political figure who should expect robust criticism – Mr Bainimarama dealt with fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any statements of fact that were inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 15 November 2010, featured an interview with Frank Bainimarama. The presenter introduced the item by saying: When Commodore Frank Bainimarama expelled our High Commissioner from Fiji last week, it was just the latest in a string of tit-for-tat showdowns. . . He’s resisted being interviewed about the diplomatic stand-off until now....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – episode contained violent scenes – allegedly in breach of programme classification and violence standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – programme contained disturbing adult themes and violence – unsuitable for children even when supervised by an adult – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence went beyond PGR classification – inadequate warning – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The first episode of Shortland Street for 2009 was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on Monday 19 January. It began with a brief recap of the final episode from 2008, in which one of the characters, Ethan Pearce, was shot in his home. Ethan was shown covered in blood struggling to move out through his yard and onto a beach, where he died....

ComplaintMusic Video – "Beautiful Day" – offensive behaviour – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – kissing shown – not offensive – no uphold Standard G12 – content acceptable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A music video was broadcast on TV One at about 8. 00am on Sunday 8 October 2000 between a religious programme and a children’s programme. The song "Beautiful Day" was sung by U2. Barry Marshall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the video contained "licentious behaviour" which he considered offensive. In his view, it was unsuitable for broadcast at any time, but particularly so when placed between two "quality programmes". TVNZ responded that the song’s lyrics were not unsuitable for child viewers and that the visuals of a couple kissing did not exceed community norms of decency and good taste....

Summary An episode of Dharma and Greg was broadcast on TV2 on 14 October 1998 between 7. 30-8. 00pm. A male character described two women as "deaf Cockney humpbacks". Mr Kirkland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the portrayal of deaf people in the programme was discriminatory and paternalistic, and perpetuated a stereotypical view about deaf people being stupid. He sought an apology from the broadcaster. TVNZ pointed out that this was a comedy programme in which the two characters regularly assumed character roles. In this case one decided to be a humpback who was hard of hearing while the other adopted a Cockney accent. A male character said to them "Hello deaf Cockney humpbacks". TVNZ said it found nothing in this exchange which suggested that deaf people were intellectually limited, nor anything that would encourage discrimination against deaf people....

Summary A news item reported that an 18 month old girl was rescued from a fiercely burning home as a result of the heroism of a fire officer. The item was screened on One Network News, broadcast between 6. 00-7. 00 pm on 15 July 1999, and repeated on Breakfast beginning at 7. 00 am the following morning. Mr Le Comte complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that footage showing the young unconscious girl receiving medical treatment was an invasion of her dignity and privacy. As the item had emphasised the fire officer’s heroism, had not disclosed offensive facts and had not ridiculed the young girl, Television New Zealand Ltd did not accept that the item had breached her privacy. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of The Simpsons breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. Considering the relevant contextual factors, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, to undermine widely shared community standards or to cause harm to children. The Authority considered the episode did not contain material beyond what viewers could reasonably expect from the programme. The Authority also found the item did not contain any graphic depictions of violence. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on 28 June 2025 reporting, ‘An Israeli newspaper’s claim that soldiers were ordered to fire on unarmed Palestinians queuing for aid in occupied Gaza has been strongly denied by Israel’s Prime Minister. A US- and Israeli-backed aid provider is also rejecting any link between its sites and the deaths…’ The complaint was that the broadcaster avoided evidence of Israel’s responsibility for the killings and ‘still [would] not report who was responsible’, instead putting ‘overwhelming emphasis’ on ‘the denials’. The Authority did not agree, finding the main item led with strong statements and footage conveying Palestinian suffering, and otherwise contained sufficient information and perspectives to meet the requirements of the standards. The particular aspects PSNA would have preferred to be reported (eg the name of the Israeli newspaper) did not, by their omission, render the item inaccurate or misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Warning: This decision contains language and themes that some readers may find offensive. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]National Treasure is a four-episode fictional mini-series telling the story of a famous comedian’s life falling into chaos following allegations against him of historical sexual abuse. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the word ‘fuck’ in the first two episodes, or a conversation about oral sex in the first episode, breached the good taste and decency or children’s interests standards. The Authority acknowledged that some viewers may find this content challenging or offensive....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 74/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DENNIS WALKER of Havelock North Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...