Search Rapua

Summary An episode of Havoc 2000 Deluxe was broadcast on TV2 at 10. 20pm on 14 December 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about three skits contained in the programme, which he considered were in breach of broadcasting standards relating to good taste and discrimination/denigration. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a late night time slot and the programme’s AO certificate, it did not consider that the skits complained about posed a threat to the good taste standard. It also commented that the approach taken by the presenters, Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy), was well established and recognised by its viewing audience, who expected to see material which verged on the outrageous....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – reality series following lifeguards at Piha Beach – question whether the Authority has jurisdiction to accept the complaint FindingsMr Wallis’ original email was not a valid “formal complaint” – TVNZ responded appropriately to Mr Wallis – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept referral on the basis that TVNZ did not respond to his “formal complaint” under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Piha Rescue, a reality series following the work of lifeguards at Piha Beach, was broadcast on 16 January 2012 on TV One. [2] Phil Wallis emailed TVNZ’s “Viewer Correspondence” email address on 3 February 2012 expressing concerns about “Episode 1 from series 8” of the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – during interview with Kiwi actor, presenter commented “I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning the presenter was unpopular – upholding complaint would be unreasonable limit on right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, the presenters interviewed a Kiwi actor. One of the presenters stated: I’ve actually got to make a confession right here and right now [laughter from actor]… what a bang-up geezer [name] is, because I did an interview with [name] about two weeks ago....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-163:Minister of Customs (Hon Murray McCully) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-163 PDF325. 12 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of the complainant looking at the camera and giving the finger. The Authority upheld the complaint that this breached the complainant’s privacy. The footage of his private property had been filmed more than eight years earlier, and the complainant had made it clear he wanted no involvement in the programme. Despite repeated objections, his image continued to appear in the opening titles of series four of the programme. Upheld: PrivacyOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] The opening title sequence of an episode of Neighbours at War showed a brief image of a man looking at the camera and giving the finger. The episode was broadcast on 5 December 2013 on TV2....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a 1 News item on fire dangers posed by lithium batteries was inaccurate for including footage of a vehicle which was not confirmed to have been affected by a lithium battery fire. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material and would not have significantly impacted viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1News where a reporter repeatedly asked Winston Peters ‘Has the Prime Minister asked you to pull your head in? ’ The complainant alleged these comments were rude and biased. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as while some members of the audience may have found the questioning rude, it was within audience expectations of programmes such as 1News and was unlikely to cause widespread offence and distress. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item reporting on the Government’s proposed reform of the Retirement Villages Act 2003. The complainant alleged the segment was unbalanced for not explaining changes to payments in connection with the sale of vacated units will only be applied to new retirement village residents, and not current residents. The Authority found the broadcast provided significant perspectives regarding the proposed reform and did not purport to provide a comprehensive examination of the Government’s proposed changes.  In addition, the standard allows for balance to be achieved over time within the period of current interest, and the broadcaster had covered the issue of impacts on existing residents in reports the next morning. Not Upheld: Balance   ...

SummaryA comment made in an item on the programme Midday which was broadcast on TV One on 9 June 1998 referred to the relationship between mortgage rates and wholesale interest rates. Mr Rawson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that because New Zealand banks operated under a fractional reserve system, the comment was inaccurate and misleading. TVNZ advised Mr Rawson that it had undertaken research into his complaint which had verified the item’s statement that banks borrowed from the wholesale money market to lend to their customers, and that when wholesale interest rates rose, lending rates for mortgages generally rose too. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawson referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men and Scrubs promo – male character in Scrubs promo stated "I don’t like doing things I'm not good at", to which female character responded, "Yeah, that's why we don't have sex much" – male doctor in Scrubs promo talking to a female nurse said "My post-op is going in and out of consciousness. You know what I'd like to go in and out of?...

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – host introduced the episode by saying “Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Eating Media Lunch was a series broadcast on TV2 that lampooned aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The host introduced the episode broadcast at 10pm on Friday 2 November 2007 with the following words: Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother. [2] The episode was preceded by a verbal and visual warning which said: This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains language and sexual material that may offend some people. Complaint [3] Martin Taylor made a formal complaint about the introduction to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – episode contained violent scenes – man hit another’s head on a rock – man hit with baseball bat – unconscious man put in car and car set alight – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme contained disturbing adult themes and violence – unsuitable for children even when supervised by an adult – upheld by majority No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Shortland Street was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on Tuesday 2 September 2008. It began with a car chase involving one of the central characters, Dr Craig Valentine, who was eventually forced off the road and down a bank....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show – host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog” – alleged frequent use of the word “fuck” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 23 September 2005. During the introductory sequence, the host referred to one contestant as having “wanked off a dog”. Complaint [2] Malcolm Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference to “wanking off a dog” was disgusting, and in breach of good taste and decency....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2003-485-2658 PDF1. 96 MBComplaintOne News – item about children kidnapped by "Lord’s Resistance Army" in Uganda – raped – tortured – forced to murder – unsuitable for children at that hourFindingsStandard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9c and 9e – majority – children treated badly – upholdStandard 10 and Guideline 10g – majority – warning necessary in view of violent, disturbing and alarming material – upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The brutality suffered by the children kidnapped by the self-styled Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News, beginning at 6. 00pm on Saturday 5 July 2003. It was reported that as many as 20,000 children had been kidnapped over a period of 17 years and had been tortured, mutilated, raped or forced to kill....

ComplaintHolmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate – unbalanced – unfair to leader of opposition FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – live debate – robust discussion – similar allocation of time to present views – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A Holmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate programme was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 22 July 2002. It featured Ms Helen Clark and Mr Bill English, the leaders of the two main political parties. It was a general election programme, broadcast live with a studio audience, and the leaders were questioned on their party policies. [2] Mr Hugh Webb complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and that Mr English was treated unfairly....

Summary In a review of events surrounding the Erebus crash, it was reported that the then CEO of Air New Zealand had told a senior pilot "I’ll cut your f-ing balls off". The remark was quoted in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on 28 November 1999 at 7. 30pm, the 20th anniversary of the crash of the Air New Zealand plane in the Antarctic. Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive, unacceptable and entirely unnecessary, particularly in a programme which dealt with a subject still painful for the friends and relatives of those killed. TVNZ emphasised the context in which the remark was made and suggested the comment reflected the bitterness and unresolved questions arising from the disaster. In its view, the phrase spoke volumes about the emotions aroused by the debate....