Search Rapua

A segment on Seven Sharp reported on an electric tugboat named ‘Sparky’ going to meet the first cruise ship to come to Auckland following the COVID-19 pandemic. Sparky was described as ‘the world’s first fully electric ship-handling tug,’ which the complainant alleged was inaccurate. While the Authority acknowledged that this detail was likely technically inaccurate, in the context of a human interest piece focused on Sparky’s mechanical features, it found this was unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 128/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 113/94 Decision No: 114/94 Dated the 17th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR J P DOWNS of Dunedin and TRISH O'DONNELL of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-166 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARY KENNEDY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An item on Breakfast discussed shortages in the supply of cat food. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s and guest’s use of the phrases ‘fussy puss’ and ‘are pussies fussy’ breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that the phrases would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and were unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. With regard to the children’s interests standard, noting that children were not the target audience for the programme and were unlikely to understand any sexual innuendo in the terms, the Authority considered any potential harm did not reach a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an MP who reactivated Dutch citizenship – possible breach of law – MP’s lawyer presented as constitutional specialist and not as legal representative Standard 5 – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster – role as lawyer since reported in other programme – action considered insufficient Standard 4 – balance – not considered by broadcaster – referred to AuthorityProcess Application by complainant for Discovery – declined Application by complainant for Interlocutory Decision – declinedFindings Standard 4 – item’s focus on possibility of by-election – balanced – not upheld Action Taken – a correction broadcast at the time of error should have occurred – now a year later, no order appropriate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2003-485-2658 PDF1. 96 MBComplaintOne News – item about children kidnapped by "Lord’s Resistance Army" in Uganda – raped – tortured – forced to murder – unsuitable for children at that hourFindingsStandard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9c and 9e – majority – children treated badly – upholdStandard 10 and Guideline 10g – majority – warning necessary in view of violent, disturbing and alarming material – upholdNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The brutality suffered by the children kidnapped by the self-styled Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News, beginning at 6. 00pm on Saturday 5 July 2003. It was reported that as many as 20,000 children had been kidnapped over a period of 17 years and had been tortured, mutilated, raped or forced to kill....

ComplaintPromo – 60 Minutes – "pissed off" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the effects of broadcast on children – broadcaster not mindful of explicit material in promo FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV One at 6. 50pm on 10 November 2001. The promo was for an item on Dean Barker, New Zealand’s America’s Cup skipper. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about Mr Barker’s use in the promo of the phrase "pissed off". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint60 Minutes – allegation of bullying in RNZ Navy’s gunnery section – sensational – unfair – unbalancedFindingsStandard G4 – Navy spokesperson responded to detailed allegations – no uphold Standard G6 – full opportunity for Navy to respond – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 60 Minutes, entitled "Breaking Ranks", told the story of one former naval rating who spoke of brutal assaults in the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) gunnery section. Because he had broken the code of silence by accusing instructors of assault, the item reported that he had been forced to leave the Navy. Pauline McIntosh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was based on unsubstantiated evidence and lacked balance....

ComplaintOne News – item concerning Prime Minister’s announcement not to attend at Waitangi for services – included archival footage of Prime Minister upset at previous Waitangi Day service – tasteless – unfair FindingsStandard 1 – historical significance – contextual relevance – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to Prime Minister – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2003 concerned the Prime Minister’s announcement that she would not attend services at Waitangi on Waitangi Day. The item included archival footage of the Prime Minister crying at a previous Waitangi Day celebration. [2] Mr Penrice complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item should not have included this historical footage of the Prime Minister....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 61/95 Dated the 6th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARION HANCOCK of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 100/94 Decision No: 101/94 Dated the 20th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaints by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR and ALCOHOL HEALTHWATCH Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/94 Dated the 18th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by VOTERS' VOICE BINDING REFERENDUM INC. of Papakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item investigating Waka Kotahi’s communications around its use of glyphosate. The complainant stated the item was unbalanced as it did not present views supporting glyphosate’s safety. The Authority found, as the broadcast was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger debate around glyphosate use, no further balancing material relating to glyphosate safety was required. It noted the item had signalled the existence of other views and glyphosate’s safety was the subject of ongoing media coverage. Accordingly, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware it was the subject of competing points of view and were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance...

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...