Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News breached the complainant and her grandchild’s privacy. The item, which reported on the implications of GP shortages in Northland, included footage of the complainant and her grandchild (who was in a moonboot with crutches) leaving a medical centre, and of them in the waiting room. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of health information and encouraged broadcasters to obtain the consent of persons filmed in a medical centre (particularly where children are involved). However, the Authority found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular facts disclosed (being attendance at a medical centre) noting the complainant was initially depicted outside the centre, from a public footpath, where there was no expectation of privacy. No additional information was disclosed by the subsequent footage from within the waiting room. Not Upheld: Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-082 Dated the 26th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by K McILROY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A scene towards the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30 pm on 23 July 1998 depicted a man seizing a policewoman and threatening her with a knife. Mr Parry complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, especially where women were shown as victims, was unacceptable on television. Knives, he wrote, should never be shown used as weapons on television because that led to copycat crimes. TVNZ responded that the showing of knives could not be absolutely banned. What was important, it suggested, was how knives and other weapons were shown and in what context. Here, it wrote, the scene was essential to the drama. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Parry referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-110 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN CLEMENTS of Orewa Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 135/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD (Kapi-Mana) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 12/94 Dated the 5th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHARLES B. HARPER of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/94 Decision No: 46/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PETA BROWN of Port Ohope Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 63/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY MABEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 139/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID TROOP of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that use of ‘Praise the Lorde’, in relation to New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde, breached broadcasting standards. Given the Authority’s guidance regarding blasphemy in its Complaints that are unlikely to succeed publication, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.   Declined to determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing content, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News discussed further charges laid against a man accused of a double shooting in South Auckland. During the item, images of the crime scene were shown, including footage of blood on a pavement. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the footage of blood breached the privacy of those involved (ie, the surviving victim and the victims’ relatives or friends), and that the footage would have disturbed young viewers. No individuals were identified during the broadcast, including the surviving victim or either of the victims’ relatives or friends. In addition, the image of blood was brief and was not graphic or explicit, and viewers could reasonably expect that a news broadcast reporting on a double shooting might contain some footage relating to the crime....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a 1News item reporting on violence in Amsterdam in November 2024 surrounding the Ajax v Maccabi Tel Aviv football match, breached the balance standard. The Authority acknowledged the violence in Amsterdam appeared to be ‘controversial’, but was satisfied that to the extent the item could be seen as ‘discussing’ the alleged causes or instigators of the violence, the item adequately reported the information the complainant considered was missing.   Not Upheld: Balance...

ComplaintBig Train – skit insulted Christians – blasphemy – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – legitimate humour – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A skit during the comedy programme Big Train portrayed an employer and employee as a devil and a Christ-like figure respectively. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 11. 00pm on 17 April 2001. B S G Lambert complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast ridiculed and offended Christians and breached standards of good taste. TVNZ did not consider that the programme had breached standards of good taste. It maintained that the skit had legitimately lampooned religion. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, B S G Lambert referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

SummaryThe Millennium Moment broadcast on TV One on 28 December 1999 during One News beginning at 6. 00pm included an item on nudist clubs. It reported that there were 24 nudist clubs in New Zealand with about two thousand members. Members of one such club were shown relaxing or playing sport. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item would have encouraged children and young people to consider nudism in public as normal when in fact only a small percentage of people were members of nudist clubs. He contended that the content was offensive and unsuitable for broadcast when children were watching television. TVNZ responded that the brief item was one of a series designed to record notable anniversaries and to reflect the diversity of life in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rude Tube – series featured viral video clips from the internet – “Animal Madness” episode included a clip of a man taking “an unscheduled toilet break” in a paddock, and being chased by a donkey apparently attempting to mate with him – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – most viewers would not have been offended – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not amount to “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-007:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-007 PDF322. 28 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-055:John Carter MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-055 PDF359. 68 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....