Search Rapua

ComplaintI Dreamed of Africa – film – screened at noon on Sunday – nudity – sexual behaviour – unacceptable at that hourFindings Standard 9 – acceptable in context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The film I Dreamed of Africa was screened on TV2 at 12 noon on Sunday 12 October 2003. It was based on the autobiography of a privileged white woman from Italy who settled in rural Kenya. One scene discreetly showed the woman being undressed by her apparently naked husband and the couple kissing, apparently as a prelude to sex. [2] David Ronalds complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such a scene was inappropriate and unacceptable in a film being screened at that time....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – downloadable episode of programme on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint Findings Not a broadcast within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Fair Go, broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2004, featured a property development company of which Kevin Davies was a director. [2] Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd on 4 June 2004, alleging that the programme breached standards of balance, fairness and accuracy. [3] TVNZ declined to accept his complaint, as it was lodged outside the 20 working-day period specified in section 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintIntrepid Journeys – presenter Michael Laws exclaimed "Jesus Christ" – blasphemy – offensive FindingStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – not blasphemy in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Michael Laws was the presenter of the episode of Intrepid Journeys broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 March 2003 in which he travelled through Ecuador. Intrepid Journeys was a documentary series in which well-known New Zealanders toured remote foreign locations which provided some degree of personal challenge. [2] Margie Brown complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the presenter’s use of the phrase "Jesus Christ" as an exclamation during the programme. Such use, she wrote, amounted to blasphemy and was offensive. [3] In response, TVNZ questioned whether the use of the phrase during the programme was blasphemy, as it was not used in a religious sense....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on the England rugby team’s tour of New Zealand – correspondent made disparaging remarks about the efforts of the English team – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not primarily aimed at the type of material complained about – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 22 June 2008, presented a round-up of the English rugby team’s tour of New Zealand. The item began with a One News rugby correspondent detailing which members of the New Zealand rugby team had been injured during the tour and the problems the team was facing....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – skit called “Dr Rangi” – doctor examined female patient’s breasts – became visibly sexually aroused as the female patient responded coyly – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history. An episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 12 March 2007 contained a skit called “Dr Rangi”, which was a send-up of 1970’s sitcoms, involving a Maori doctor. [2] The skit involved Dr Rangi examining a female patient’s breasts and becoming visibly sexually aroused as the female patient responded coyly....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSunday – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin charged with murder of terminally ill mother – some other views advanced – unbalanced ComplaintHolmes – euthanasia – interview with Lesley Martin – no other views advanced – unbalanced FindingsSunday – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item not a debate about euthanasia and included range of personal stories – not unbalanced – no uphold FindingsHolmes – Standard 4 and Guidelines 4a and 4b – item involved interview with current newsmaker – her views about euthanasia balanced by other items during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary – Sunday [1] Euthanasia was the subject of an item on Sunday broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 March 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Edwards at Large – interview with complainant – interviewee ambushed into taking part – unfair, partial and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – interview not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 6 – complainant adequately informed of the reason for her contribution and the role expected of her – conduct of interview not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Lynley Hood was interviewed by Brian Edwards on Edwards at Large about the content of her book “A City Possessed: the Christchurch Civic Crèche case”. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on Saturday 16 August 2003. [2] Ms Hood complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was neither balanced nor impartial and that she had been ambushed into participating in the interview....

ComplaintHolmes – young people mimicking professional wrestling – impressionable people might copy – irresponsible itemFindingsStandard G12 – extensive warnings – no uphold Standard V6 – cautionary tale – appropriate warnings – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item discussing a social problem in the United States involving young people mimicking professional wrestling stunts they saw on television was broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 19 April 2001. John and Barbara Maltby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that impressionable young people in New Zealand might copy the graphic detail shown in the item. They considered that TVNZ had been irresponsible in screening the item. In response, TVNZ noted that the item had been preceded by a lengthy warning and followed by a statement from the presenter urging young people not to follow the example set by some American youth....

ComplaintHolmes – offensive language – presenter said "bugger the international media" – America’s Cup context FindingsStandard G2 – "bugger" not acceptable for common usage, but acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item about the America’s Cup on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 February 2000, the presenter said "bugger the international media". Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word "bugger" breached broadcasting standards which require the observance of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a highly charged America’s Cup campaign, the use of the word "bugger" did not breach broadcasting standards. It did not accept that its use carried the suggestion that the word was now acceptable for common usage. It declined to uphold the complaint....

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....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Party Education Advertisement – National Party leader and Prime Minister John Key stated, “National is building a better education system, with school reports in plain English. . . ” – statement allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air Television Code – advertisement did not state as fact that all school reports would be written in the English language – “plain English” was colloquial way of stating “easy to understand” – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand National Party was broadcast on TV One on 2 November 2011 at approximately 9. 30pm....

TVNZ's request to the Authority to recall Decision 1999-053 and not to issue that decision for publication declined. A PDF of Decision 1999-054 can be downloaded here: Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-054 PDF234. 41 kB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Fair Go item reported on the New Zealand Industrial Fuel Duty Agency (NZIFDA), a business set up to obtain refunds, on behalf of eligible customers, for excise duty placed on off-road fuel usage in some instances. A former employee of NZIFDA criticised the business and the person who ran it. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the person who ran the business, that the item was inaccurate and misleading and used ‘loaded’ language to suggest wrongdoing. The item was clearly framed from the perspective of the former employee, her comments were clearly her personal opinion, the complainant was given a reasonable opportunity to give a response, and his response was fairly included in the programme....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-098–099:McElroy and Pryor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-098, 1993-099 PDF802. 78 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-080:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-080 PDF281. 76 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-031:Terry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-031 PDF262. 84 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News covering police brutality in the United States of America and comments made by its President Donald Trump about deceased victim of police brutality, George Floyd. The item reported Mr Trump was ‘copping more flack’ for his comments and that, ‘celebrating better than expected employment numbers, he bizarrely called it a great day for George Floyd’. To the extent the broadcast may be considered inaccurate or misleading for suggesting an incorrect interpretation of Mr Trump’s comments, the Authority found it was not material. The Authority also considered Mr Trump is a high profile politician and public figure and could have reasonably expected to be subject to such scrutiny. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of exclamations including ‘oh my God’, ‘holy crap’ and ‘bloody’ in an episode of House Rules, broadcast at 7. 30pm, breached the good taste and decency standard. 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. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...