Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party – woman said “I just can’t trust you” referring to John Key, Leader of the Opposition – allegedly denigrated Mr Key Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E3 (denigration) – statements in the advertisement did not reach the threshold for a breach of the denigration standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was broadcast on TV One on Sunday 2 November at 6. 30pm. It showed a woman in her home giving a drink to a toddler sitting in a high chair. The woman said to camera: You hear people saying, “Helen’s been there a while, give the other guy a go”. And I was thinking, “yeah, sounds fair enough”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of women with bare breasts, and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 7 September 2007, contained video footage of women with bare breasts and women in their underwear. [2] The episode was preceded by a visual and verbal warning that stated: This programme is rated PGR....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Frontseat – contained brief scene from A Clockwork Orange where a man is beaten – programme was classified G and broadcast on a Saturday morning at 7. 55am – allegedly in breach of programme classification and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – scene complained about contained material which was unsuitable for children – broadcaster should have classified as a PGR programme – upheld (majority) Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not exclude material likely to be unsuitable for children – inappropriately classified and broadcast during a G time-band – broadcaster failed to consider the interests of child viewers – upheld (majority)No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Frontseat, a New Zealand-made arts programme, was broadcast at 7. 55am on TV One on Saturday 18 March 2006....

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 1989Te Karere – item on New Zealand fruit exports to Australia – interviewee said “Who is the World Trade Organisation? They are all Pakeha” – allegedly denigratory of PakehaFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6g (denigration) – comment more expression of frustration at lack of Māori input to finding a solution – not intended to be denigratory of Pakeha – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast Te Karere on 24 June at 6am. Te Karere contained an item about the continuing opposition from Australia to New Zealand apple imports. The item included an interview with Mr Maanu Paul, a kiwifruit grower from Whakatane....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about Tauranga surgeon Dr Ian Breeze found guilty of professional misconduct – item described bowel operation which resulted in death of patient as “botched” – patient’s wife interviewed – relatives of other patients interviewed – allegedly breached good taste and decency – allegedly inaccurate, unfair, unbalancedFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “botched” is vernacular – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – matters raised by complainant not required for balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – matters raised by complainant not required for fairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tauranga surgeon Ian Breeze was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 2 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 13 October 2004 examined complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – Tuscany Towers, Ponsonby Crest, Waterford Apartments and Garden Grove....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – stated that animal welfare group had gone “undercover” on a farm to investigate mistreated pigs and that it had gained access through an unlocked door – showed footage obtained by the group of sick and injured animals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not show the group breaking into the farm – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law by screening the footage – public interest in showing mistreatment of animals – 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 Friday 23 July, reported on new footage of pigs at a Levin farm that had been the subject of a previous TVNZ broadcast on animal welfare....

ComplaintOur People, Our Century: "Cradle to Grave" – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate portrayal of history – failure to acknowledge social initiatives of National party FindingsStandard G6 – authored perspective – not a controversial issue – no uphold Standard G19 – not an editorial matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The second programme in the series Our People, Our Century was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 14 February 2000. It was entitled "Cradle to Grave" and interpreted New Zealand’s recent social history through an examination of the lives and experience of three different families. Bruce Fulton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme lacked balance and fairness because it neglected to acknowledge any political party other than the Labour Party....

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 section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Not Going Out – scene showed character dancing with baby – held baby at arm’s length and moved him from side to side – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – character did not shake baby – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no actual violence – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – classified AO and screened at 11pm outside of children’s viewing times – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – characters fictional – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not specify who he considered had been denigrated or discriminated against – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Coronation Street – broadcast during Breakfast – contained brief image of a woman slapping a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – shot of woman slapping a man’s face was very brief – Breakfast was unclassified and targeted at adults – promo unobjectionable in this context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Breakfast was aimed at adults and any children viewing were unlikely to be doing so unsupervised – promo would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast breached the tenant’s privacy. By the time of this repeat broadcast in June 2013, the tenant had not lived at the property for some years, so she was not identifiable from the broadcast. Nevertheless the Authority expressed concern about the production company’s ‘usual practice’ of only notifying and obtaining consent from the landlord, and not the tenant. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction [1] An episode of Renters showed the inspection of a rental property in circumstances where the tenant was not home. The programme was broadcast on 23 June 2013....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-071:Dunlop and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-071 PDF264. 43 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-173:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-173 PDF259. 91 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-019:Seymour and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-019 PDF1015. 04 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....