Search Rapua

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne Late Edition – news item regarding school students suspended for possession of cannabis – interview with Executive Director of WellTrust – discussed drug use by children – unbalanced – inaccurate – misleading Findings Standard 4 – period of current interest ongoing – no uphold Standard 5 – mixture of fact and opinion – no uphold Standard 6 – not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item about school students who were suspended for possessing bags of cannabis was broadcast on One Late Edition, shown on TV One at 10. 35pm on 22 November 2002. The item included a live interview with the Executive Director of WellTrust (Pauline Gardiner), a Wellington drug education organisation, about drug use by children....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed former SIS agent about its operation in the 1970s involving Dr William Sutch and representatives of the Soviet Embassy – former agent said that Dr Sutch had been a spy for 30 years – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements clearly expressions of former agent’s opinion – not facts – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no unfairness to members of Dr Sutch’s family – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Kit Bennetts, a former SIS agent who had obtained High Court approval to publish a book covering aspects of his work, was interviewed on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown – three people suffering from serious mental illness – released into community – tragic results – documentary said to be unbalanced and inaccurate, and to have denigrated the mentally ill Findings Standard 4 – item’s focus on three cases where the mental health system had failed – balanced in view of narrow focus – not upheld Standard 5 – accurate in view of item’s focus – not upheld Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no discrimination against or denigration of mentally ill in view of item’s focus – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Three cases involving people suffering from serious mental illness who were released into the community with tragic results were examined in a documentary broadcast on TV One. The programme Documentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown was screened at 8....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ultimate Force – promo – depicted two women kissing – 7. 00pm Sunday – offensiveFindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – context – heterosexual and homosexual relationships are dealt with similarly – time of broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Ultimate Force was broadcast on TV One at about 7. 00pm on Sunday 11 January 2004. The promo included two women kissing. Complaint [2] Alvin Allan complained formally to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster. He contended that the visual of the two women “engaged in a passionate kiss” breached the requirements for good taste and decency....

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as story subject’s waiver was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues Decision on application for hearingDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTURY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm. On behalf of a victim, named as "Sally", Fair Go reported her dissatisfaction with the complainant and investigated the propriety of a pamphlet of this kind. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 26 June 2002....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint under the good taste and decency standard about the use of coarse language in the American action comedy film Beverly Hills Cop. Taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the AO classification, time of broadcast at 8. 30pm during adult viewing time, clear warning for frequent use of coarse language, and audience expectations of the film and TVNZ DUKE, the Authority was satisfied the broadcaster gave viewers sufficient information to regulate their own, and their children’s, viewing. In the context, the broadcast did not threaten community standards of good taste and decency and the broadcaster adequately enabled child viewers to be protected from potentially unsuitable content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reporting on then Leader of the Opposition and National Party leader Hon Simon Bridges travelling from Tauranga to Wellington during COVID-19 Level 4 lockdown breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that the item, which was focussed on MPs breaking lockdown rules, was misleading in putting Mr Bridges in that category.  The Authority acknowledged that, during the time of the broadcast, there was confusion surrounding the scope of the rules, particularly as to what constituted an essential service. However, the broadcaster had access to information suggesting Mr Bridges was engaged in an ‘essential service’ and, given the level of harm potentially caused by portraying a senior Member of Parliament as breaking lockdown rules, had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that this particular item did not mislead the public. Upheld: Accuracy No Order...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2011-485-840 PDF137. 27 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – discussed anniversary of massacre at Aramoana – interviewed policeman who was involved – said “fucking” twice – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority’s research suggests majority of viewers would consider “fucking” unacceptable before 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during Coronation Street – contained sexual references – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – sexual references were fleeting and innocuous – consistent with viewer expectations of Coronation Street and PGR timeband – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, was broadcast on TV One between 7. 30pm and 8. 30pm on 12 July 2011, during Coronation Street which was rated PGR. [2] In the promo, the characters were shown talking about their quiz topic strengths, while thinking about their personal lives, as follows: Emma: I like animals and I know a bit about cooking. . ....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a Seven Sharp item referring to Wilson Parking breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item covered a dispute between a carpark customer and Wilson Parking. A Fair Go consumer advocate also provided general advice to people about their rights in relation to parking fines. In the context of providing general information to viewers from a consumer advocacy perspective, the advice did not breach the accuracy standard. The Authority also found the broadcast did not breach the fairness standard. It noted that Wilson Parking had been given an opportunity to comment on the specific customer’s situation and, as a multinational company, could reasonably have been expected to be aware that the programme would use the specific situation to discuss the company’s wider operations. It could have expanded the statement provided to the broadcaster.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on Seven Sharp regarding an advertisement by Fluoride Free NZ. Mark Atkin, on behalf of Fluoride Free NZ, complained that the programme was in breach of the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that the segment did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance, as required for the balance standard to apply. The Authority also found that none of the points identified by the complainant were inaccurate. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News segment breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The Authority found that people who hold the views represented in the segment do not amount to a ‘recognised section of the community’ for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also found that, while the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it was balanced by the inclusion of multiple points of view from several parties. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

An item on Breakfast discussed Novak Djokovic, his recovery from COVID-19, his comments regarding efforts to contain the virus, and the others infected at a tennis tournament he organised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the presenter’s description of Mr Djokovic as ‘a dick’ breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder broadcast at 7. 15pm during Shortland Street contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the sexual references in the promo were inappropriate for broadcast in this timeslot. The reference to oral sex was inexplicit, would not likely have been understood by most younger viewers and did not exceed expectations of the regular audience of the host programme, which frequently contains mature themes. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children's InterestsIntroduction[1] A promo for Embarrassing Bodies Downunder contained a brief reference to the effect of pineapple on the taste of semen as follows: Presenter: What might pineapple do to something in your body? Woman: Change the taste of your semen. . . ? Presenter: Have you given it a crack?...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...