Search

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of So Dumb its Criminal broadcast at 9. 30pm on Duke breached the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast, hosted by Snoop Dogg, featured a panel of Black comedians commenting on clips of criminals making ‘dumb’ mistakes. The commentary by the panel included multiple uses of the n-word, jokes about white people and ‘white privilege’, and what appeared to be a reference to a fictional kung fu character when describing one of the people featured. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the use of the n-word, it noted this word has been ‘reclaimed’ by the communities affected by it, and was used in the broadcast by Black comedians joking amongst themselves....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the New Conservative Party. The complainant argued the Party’s policy to remove ‘gender ideology’ from schools, as referred to in the programme, amounted to discrimination against the transgender community. While acknowledging some may consider the policy to be discriminatory and offensive, the Authority found the party’s statement highlighting its policy to remove gender ideology from schools did not reach the high threshold necessary for a finding of discrimination against the transgender community in the context of an election programme. In making its finding, the Authority took into account the significant public interest in election programmes in informing voters of party policies, and the robust political environment in the lead-up to the general election. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Discrimination and Denigration)...

The majority of the Authority upheld (in part) a complaint about a segment on Marae discussing the bounds of the right to freedom of expression, in the wake of Posie Parker’s ‘Let Women Speak’ events. The complaint argued the segment was unbalanced, disproportionately favouring views of participants against the events, and inaccurate in multiple respects. The Authority found the segment adequately presented significant viewpoints through the inclusion of multiple guests, through the host’s questioning and in the introductory segment. The Authority considered most of the alleged inaccuracies were unlikely to have significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole. The majority found one of the comments in the broadcast (relating to the characterisation of Parker) was materially inaccurate and this issue created harm sufficient to justify a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Upheld by Majority: Accuracy, Not Upheld: Balance No Order...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint an item on 1 News was unbalanced for raising the possibility that Labour could lose the 2023 election. The balance standard did not apply to the concerns raised, and the broadcaster adequately responded to the concerns in the original complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an interview on Breakfast. In a discussion concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech, the host stated to ACT Party Deputy Leader Brooke van Velden ‘You mentioned that, division was from the previous Government. I mean, come on, you look at the Treaty of Waitangi. You must be able to read the room in terms of how the nation is feeling towards that Bill by your party. ’ The complainant considered the host’s implication that this division was caused by ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that the question was comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

A promo for James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man aired during the programmes The Chase at 5. 10pm and 1News at 6. 50pm on TVNZ 1. The 14-second promo featured James Mustapic and Art Green sitting at opposite ends of a bathtub, with Mustapic asking Green for dating advice on behalf of his mum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the promo breached the children’s interests standard due to nudity, noting only their chests and legs were visible, and there was no suggestion of sexual behaviour. In the context, the Authority found the promo was consistent with a G classification and would not have adversely affected children. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

The Authority has upheld part of a complaint about satirical comedy series, James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man, finding it was unfair to the complainant, James Mustapic’s father, and action taken by the broadcaster (having upheld two aspects of the fairness complaint) was not sufficient to remedy potential harm to the complainant. Comments were made throughout the series which the Authority found created a negative impression of James’ father and had the potential to adversely affect him and his reputation – meaning the broadcaster should, in the interests of fairness, have informed him of the nature of the programme and his participation prior to broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement, ‘the Government's shiny new Investment Boost scheme allows businesses to claim back 20% off their tax bill when purchasing new assets’, in a 1News item reporting on features of Budget 2025. The complaint concerned an inaccurate reference to deductions being from the ‘tax bill’ of a business rather than its ‘taxable income’. The Authority found the statement overstated the tax savings available under the Investment Boost scheme which was a material error in the context. As the correct information was readily available to TVNZ, it also found reasonable efforts were not made to ensure accuracy. Upheld: Accuracy No order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on 2 July 2025 reporting ‘a ceasefire in occupied Gaza could be on the cards with all eyes tonight on Hamas and whether it’ll accept the latest proposal. It follows Donald Trump announcing on social media that, quote, “Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise a 60-day ceasefire”. ’ Key points of the complaint included: 1News persistently reports Israel’s actions ‘in the passive voice’, avoiding attributing responsibility to Israel (including for breaking an earlier ceasefire); stating the October 2023 attacks killed ‘around 1200 people’ was incorrect as it did not account for deaths inflicted under the Hannibal Directive; and TVNZ’s sources did not support the statement that Hamas had a ‘red line’ that it ‘must remain in control of Gaza’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about offensive language on My Kitchen Rules. The Authority found three instances of language across a 90-minute programme was not outside the expectations of the programme’s M-L classification (M – suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over; L – language may offend); the classification and onscreen warning provided sufficient information to make an informed viewing decision or to exercise discretion; and the broadcast would not cause widespread undue offence in the context. For the same reasons, the Authority was satisfied the broadcaster took adequate steps and provided sufficient reliable information to ensure children could be protected from potentially unsuitable content.   Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about two Breakfast interviews discussing the Government’s decision to reduce New Zealand’s methane emissions target – first with the Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, then 45 minutes later with New Zealand Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon. The complaint was that the interview approaches varied between the two interviewees, creating an ‘unfairness and imbalance’ for viewers. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as significant perspectives were presented within the broadcast and both interviewees had ample opportunity to explain their positions. Further, the style and type of questions raised in each interview were a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Wild Kai Legends breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The complainant submitted the pig-hunting techniques shown in the programme were not in line with good practice and may have constituted mistreatment under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. They considered showing such techniques to a likely viewership of hunting enthusiasts would encourage them to hunt in a similar way. The Authority considered, from the footage shown, there was nothing to indicate the techniques were a significant departure from generally recommended practice, nor that the pigs were subjected to undue cruelty. In any event, the broadcast could not be said to be actively encouraging or promoting the particular techniques or style of hunting. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment of Seven Sharp misrepresented the seriousness of coeliac disease. The segment, which was focused on the benefits and risks of being part of clinical trials to test new medicines, briefly showed a sign saying, ‘Coeliac Disease Leaving You Bloated? ’, with an image of a puffer fish, and noted those suffering from ‘bloat’ might consider signing up for a trial. The complainant considered comparing coeliac disease to ‘a bit of bloat’ was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority noted the broadcast did not describe the disease as ‘a bit of bloat’. The fleeting references to bloating as a symptom of coeliac disease were not material to the segment and would not have misled the audience to believe it was the only symptom, or the most serious symptom, of the disease. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the privacy of the child of the alleged cat killers. The accused were not named, shown, or otherwise identified in the item, so no individual, and specifically the child, could be linked to them, meaning the child was not ‘identifiable’ for the purposes of the privacy standard. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp reported on alleged ‘cat killers’ in Raglan after 30 cats went missing in past the year. A reporter travelled to Raglan and interviewed a local filmmaker who recently released a short documentary that aimed ‘to find out why it was happening and who was behind it’....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the Government’s response to protests about seismic surveying, or ‘blasting’, in New Zealand waters. The item featured an interview with a representative of Greenpeace, who said that the Government could act now to stop seismic blasting, as the practice was harmful and could ‘interfere with [whales’ and dolphins’] communication and breeding… deafen them… and separate calves from their mothers’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was inaccurate and unbalanced because it presented Greenpeace’s views as fact....

In an episode of Seven Sharp, journalist Laura Daniels presented regarding creating a European inspired holiday from within New Zealand, in the context of COVID-19 travel restrictions. It included a scene where she pretended to eat cigarettes from a plate. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast was inappropriate for children to watch and breached the children’s interests standard. Taking the contextual factors into account, in particular the audience expectations of Seven Sharp, the Authority found the segment was unlikely to adversely affect children. Not Upheld: Children’s Interests...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the leaders’ debate between Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and Hon Judith Collins breached broadcasting standards. The programme carried a high level of public interest. Both debate participants were senior politicians who had a clear understanding of the nature of their participation in the debate and were given fair opportunity to respond to the questions raised. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Fairness...