Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two items broadcast on One News in respect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – no mention of occupation by Israel – West Bank described as “disputed” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsAuthority has no jurisdiction to accept referralThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News broadcast two items at 6pm on Monday 23 May 2005. The first item covered United States’ First Lady Laura Bush’s visit to Jerusalem, where the report noted she visited “Jericho, on the disputed West Bank”. [2] The second item covered a visit by President Sharon of Israel to the United States, where he encountered opposition from Jewish groups to the planned withdrawal from Gaza by Israel. Correspondence [3] Serena Moran, on behalf of the Wellington Palestine Group, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, in respect of both items....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – programme about work of New Zealand police – filmed execution of search warrant at complainant’s property – programme included footage of street, driveway and house, the complainant and other occupants – stated complainant was subsequently convicted for possession of cannabis and fined – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – MA had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – MA did not provide consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of privacy – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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…...

ComplaintTaste New Zealand – profiles of some food entrepreneurs included one on Ron Hubbard – did not refer to his membership of the Food and Nutritional Advisory Committee and that Committee’s attitude to soy – unbalanced FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – Standard 4 – item did not deal with controversial issue – standard not relevant – no uphold – advise that future marginal complaints may be considered vexatious and trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Taste New Zealand is an entertainment series about the food industry. The episode broadcast at 8. 00pm on TV One on 25 September 2002 presented some profiles about a number of successful food entrepreneurs. Ron Hubbard of Hubbard Foods Ltd was one of the entrepreneurs featured. [2] Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

ComplaintIt’s Your Money – item on two men looking for love – criticism of The Company Company Ltd, which provides organised singles events – unfair, unbalanced, inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – programme not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – Company able to respond on the programme to criticisms made – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of It’s Your Money which screened on TV2 at 8pm on 12 February 2001 was sub-titled "Looking for Love". The programme looked at the experiences of two men, each of whom had spent time and money trying to find a female partner. The programme examined the various options open to the men, such as dating agencies, internet dating, and event organisers, and explored whether clients of these organisations were getting value for money....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

ComplaintOne News – item reported the issue of a safety advisory notice for an oil heater sold through the Warehouse – following item reported death of two girls in fire thought to have been caused by gas heater – complaint that items unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – each item balanced – not upheld Standard 5 – each item accurate – not upheld Standard 6 – juxtaposition of items created misleading impression – unfair – upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The issue of a safety advisory notice about the Brio Five Fin oil heater, sold through The Warehouse stores, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 30 August 2003 beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News Update – included images of abused Iraqi prisoners – pictures shown during general programming – allegedly unsuitable for children – failure to consider children’s viewing interests Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – interests of children considered – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violent disturbing material not shown – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News Update is broadcast on TV One highlighting news stories of the day which usually then screen on the evening news programmes. On 8 May 2004 at approximately 4. 55pm a One News Update broadcast images of tortured Iraqi prisoners. Complaint [2] Karen Pratt complained about the images shown of the Iraqi prisoners....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq, shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – broadcast was in the public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 30 September 2004 showed video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq. The video showed Mr Bigley shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government. [2] The introduction to the piece indicated that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had shifted position slightly and hinted that some contact with the hostage takers might be attempted. Complaint [3] J M Copland complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male nudity – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on teenagers FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 April 2002 at 9. 40pm on TV One included a scene with a full frontal view of a naked man. [2] Graham Jacobsen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too explicit, was not excused by the broadcast of a warning, and breached standards relating to teenager’s viewing interests....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

ComplaintOne News – file footage of partly naked meningitis victim – unconscious – privacy FindingsPrivacy principles (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) – facts not highly offensive and objectionable – public interest and consent defences – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary File footage of an unconscious man then suffering from meningococcal meningitis was shown during an item on One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00 and 7. 00pm on 30 April 2000. Kathleen Hobo complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the footage breached the man’s privacy, as he was filmed naked, except for a disposable nappy. In its response, Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, said that the man’s mother had consented to the filming before the original broadcast, and that it considered the rebroadcast footage was neither voyeuristic nor exploitative....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dragon’s Den – contestant said that ACC paid $68 million per year for people to hang out washing for people who were unable to do it themselves – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Dragon’s Den was a series in which would-be entrepreneurs pitched their business ideas to five successful business people in the hopes that they might invest. In the episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 19 October 2006, one of the contestants said: The ACC spends $68 million a year on helping people hang out their washing alone – I know, it’s a staggering amount. . ....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 70/94 Dated the 22nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JARDINE INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-059:Te Reo Takiwa O Ngatihine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-059 PDF686. 17 KB...

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....