Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A brief item on 1 News discussed a protest in Christchurch against Vero Insurance (Vero) regarding outstanding insurance claims. The item contained footage of the protestors and the newsreader stated that ‘[One of the protestors] says Vero has kept them locked in a virtual prison for seven years. ’ The broadcaster upheld a complaint from Vero under the balance and fairness standards, as Vero ought to have been given an opportunity to comment. Vero referred the complaint to the Authority on the basis it was dissatisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster in response to its original complaint, and it also maintained that the accuracy standard was breached. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the statement complained about was a statement of opinion and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item breached the accuracy standard by claiming a 24-hour period in October 2024 was Dunedin’s ‘wettest day in a century’. In the context of an almost 10-minute-long live broadcast reporting on a regional state of emergency, the comments did not amount to material points of fact. Their inclusion would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the overall item, as its purpose was to provide information to New Zealanders during a natural disaster. Furthermore, live reporting on extreme weather events carries high public interest, and this broadcast did not create harm at a level justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the second part of a two-part documentary, Leaving Neverland, concerning sexual abuse allegations made by two men against Michael Jackson. The Authority took into account the nature of the programme, which was clearly presented from the perspectives of the two men featured and included responses to these and similar allegations, from Michael Jackson and his lawyers. In this context, the Authority found: the broadcast would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress as contemplated under the good taste and decency standard; the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast did not address a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ for New Zealand viewers; the programme was unlikely to mislead viewers and did not breach the accuracy standard; and the fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on Immigration New Zealand’s decision to allow Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (also known as Posie Parker) into New Zealand breached the balance and fairness standards. The complainant was concerned with the broadcast’s description of Parker as ‘anti-trans’ rather than ‘pro-women’, and its link between Parker and people doing Nazi salutes at her events. The Authority found the item was balanced, referring to comments from both the Immigration Minister and Parker herself. It also considered Parker was treated fairly in the broadcast, noting the right to freedom of expression means broadcasters are free to use descriptors they consider appropriate, provided they do not breach broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-118:Felderhof and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-118 PDF386. 53 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-021:Wislang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-021 PDF333. 3 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 36/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B A MUDFORD of Matamata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-103 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IVAN A HANSEN of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the language used in two episodes of The Hotel Inspector, breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. In this context, the language used would not have caused audiences undue offence or harm and it was not beyond what viewers would reasonably expect from the programme. The programme was adequately signposted to enable audiences to protect children. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency and Children’s Interests...

SummaryA trailer for the AO-classified programme Water Rats was shown during the PGR-classified programme Party of Five at about 8. 03 pm on TV2 on 17 November 1998. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the trailer showed a couple in bed, clearly naked and kissing. There was a clear inference that they were having sex, she contended. Given the time of broadcast, the behaviour shown was distressing, she wrote, and was best kept to private bedrooms. The trailer also did not show acceptable behaviour for the time band within which it was screened, Mrs Barker said. TVNZ responded that the scene in the trailer was very brief, contained no frontal nudity and only implied sexual activity. It had screened during a programme which contained references to sexual activity, and in context it was not unsuitable viewing for children under the guidance of an adult....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on battle in Gaza Strip – reported 15 Palestinians killed including teenaged son of one of Yasser Arafat’s close allies – Palestinian combatants described as “militants”– item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – should have described Palestinian combatants as “terrorists” – should have described provocation for incidentFindings Standard 4 (balance) – brief item described incident and views of both sides – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “militants” not inaccurate – item not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item treated both sides of conflict fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast at 6pm on 12 February 2004 reported on a battle in the Gaza Strip between Israeli troops and Palestinians, in which 15 Palestinians were killed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item on New Zealand’s poor record of child abuse – recited list of recent cases of abuse and murder – presenter referred to “father” as perpetrator – allegedly inaccurate and unbalanced Findings Principle 4 (balance) – balance aspect of complaint more appropriately dealt with under Principle 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact rather than particular perspective or opinion – not upheld Principle 5 (accuracy) – item later clarified that perpetrators often male figure other than natural father – overall item not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 30 June 2004, concerned New Zealand’s record of child murder and abuse....

ComplaintOne News – report referred to film "Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me" – "shagged" – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – decline to determine Cross ReferenceDecision No: 1999-163 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast by TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 12 January 2000 described the development of a new open top sports car by Jaguar. In that context, reference was made to the film "Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me". Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that "shagged" was an offensive, aggressive and macho anti-woman term which was unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children were encouraged to watch television....

ComplaintHolmes – Prostitution Reform Bill – interview with Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP who abstained from voting – challenged on decision to abstain – blamed for passage of Bill – held up to ridicule and contempt – unfairFindingsStandard 4 – MP given right to reply to criticism – no uphold Standard 6 – as with Standard 4 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Prostitution Reform Bill was passed in Parliament by one vote on 25 June 2003. In an item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on Thursday 26 June, comment was made that the Bill would not have been passed had Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP not abstained. Mr Choudhary was interviewed regarding his abstention....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ultimate Force – British drama series about SAS unit – showed two women topless – later in episode man’s penis also visible – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – no breach in light of contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Ultimate Force, a British drama centred around the elite British SAS Red Troop unit, was broadcast on TV One at 8:30pm on 18 January 2005. The episode contained two main storylines; first, the efforts of a female soldier to become the first woman admitted to the SAS, and secondly, a hijack of an aeroplane by a group seeking political change in Tibet....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand – contestants were required to crawl face up between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – 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 9 September 2005. During one task, contestants were required to crawl, face up, between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....