Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-008:Turner (on behalf of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-008 PDF314. 39 KB...

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. 1991-029:Dewar and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-029 PDF476. 89 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 135 /94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (Rt Hon HELEN CLARK) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on 28 June 2025 reporting, ‘An Israeli newspaper’s claim that soldiers were ordered to fire on unarmed Palestinians queuing for aid in occupied Gaza has been strongly denied by Israel’s Prime Minister. A US- and Israeli-backed aid provider is also rejecting any link between its sites and the deaths…’ The complaint was that the broadcaster avoided evidence of Israel’s responsibility for the killings and ‘still [would] not report who was responsible’, instead putting ‘overwhelming emphasis’ on ‘the denials’. The Authority did not agree, finding the main item led with strong statements and footage conveying Palestinian suffering, and otherwise contained sufficient information and perspectives to meet the requirements of the standards. The particular aspects PSNA would have preferred to be reported (eg the name of the Israeli newspaper) did not, by their omission, render the item inaccurate or misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints about episodes of Shortland Street, which followed the ongoing storyline of a threesome between a married couple and their nanny. The Authority acknowledged that some viewers might find this storyline distasteful and that some scenes and references might have raised questions for children. However, the Authority found that various contextual factors, including audience expectations of the long-running television drama and a warning for sexual material, prepared audiences for the likely content and minimised the potential for undue harm. The sexual material and references contained in these episodes were relatively inexplicit, with no nudity or sexual activity beyond kissing shown. Finally, the fictional sexual activity took place between consenting adults and no illegal or seriously antisocial activity was portrayed during the programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 97/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-044 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Your House Killing You? – featured family in Queensland – father had used a substantial amount of timber treated with Copper Chrome Arsenate (CCA) for landscaping and decking – programme stated that exposure to the chemicals in CCA-treated timber could cause serious health effects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts by relying on scientific experts – mostly expert opinion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Is Your House Killing You? was broadcast on TV One at 8pm on Friday 11 December 2009....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-107 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-131 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HON PETER DUNNE Leader of United New Zealand Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rome – two episodes contained offensive language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language was gratuitous and could have been edited without affecting the storyline – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Two episodes of the historical drama Rome were broadcast on TV One at 10. 25pm on 13 January and at 11. 10pm on 3 February 2008. The 13 January episode contained the following lines: Caesar would’ve fucked Medusa if she’d had a crown. Nice manners, for a whore. Your son will eat shit and die before I make him legal. [I swear] on Juno’s cunt. I am a son of Hades! I fuck Concord in her arse! You can tell your lawyer to shove a taper up his arse and set himself alight....

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”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-063 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by B L SINCLAIR of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed former SIS agent about its operation in the 1970s involving Dr William Sutch and representatives of the Soviet Embassy – former agent said that Dr Sutch had been a spy for 30 years – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements clearly expressions of former agent’s opinion – not facts – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no unfairness to members of Dr Sutch’s family – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Kit Bennetts, a former SIS agent who had obtained High Court approval to publish a book covering aspects of his work, was interviewed on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about improving the safety of the site of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster – reported thousands had died during and after the event – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – although a human and environmental catastrophe, UN and WHO sources suggest deaths of less than 100 – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Fresh concerns about improving the safety of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster site in the Ukraine were covered in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 13 May 2005. It was reported that “thousands of people died during and after the disaster”. Complaint [2] Allan Dewar complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....