Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about a man convicted of defrauding ACC who later successfully appealed to the Supreme Court – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item focused on one man and his successful appeal to the Supreme Court – touched on criticisms of ACC’s conduct which could be controversial and of public importance – broadcast statement from ACC addressing criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item omitted information that may have been useful – but did not contain any inaccuracies which amounted to a breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 12 June 2009, featured a man who had been convicted of defrauding ACC, and later won an appeal to the Supreme Court....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 109/95 Dated the 26th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN GOLDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary Station identification promos broadcast on TV One included the slogan "Together We’re One", and the logo "Celebrating New Zealand". Mr Seymour complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the promos encouraged the denigration of Maori and, in particular, discrimination against the legitimate expression of Maori cultural and political beliefs. They promoted, he wrote, an ideology that was inherently assimilationist. TVNZ responded that the reference to "One" was to TV One. The promos implicitly reflected a "one-ness" between TV One and its viewers, and placed that theme in a determinedly bi-cultural context which recognised cultural diversity, it replied. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Seymour referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Back Benches – Mt Albert by-election special – programme featured candidates from Labour, National, Green, ACT and United Future – candidates campaigned for votes and addressed various issues facing the electorate – allegedly in breach of balance and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issues of public importance – criteria used by broadcaster to select participants was justifiable – a variety of significant viewpoints was presented – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – ALCP did not take part and was not referred to – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Back Benches was broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 9pm on Friday 10 June 2009....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-002:Helm and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-002 PDF321. 84 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-006:Dewar and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1991-006 PDF407. 29 KB...

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported on a new prenatal test for Down Syndrome. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item discriminated against people with Down Syndrome and was unbalanced because it did not show a situation where identifying a baby with Down Syndrome was viewed positively. Comments suggesting that a low probability of having a baby with Down Syndrome was ‘good news’ were clearly the personal opinions of the interviewees and were not endorsed by the programme. The item itself made no judgement about the test or the outcome of testing in terms of whether a foetus diagnosed as having Down Syndrome was a good or a bad thing. The item was squarely focused on the benefits of the new test in that it was more accurate, and less invasive than other procedures....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-011:Sugrue and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-011 PDF551. 41 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-062 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GERALD MOONEN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 54/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

SummarySome customer complaints that Telecom had "hijacked" users of other telephone companies were investigated in an item on 3 National News, broadcast between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 1 December 1997. "Hijacking" involves diverting customers, without their permission, from other telephone companies to the "hijacker". The solicitors for Telecom New Zealand Ltd complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and unbalanced in both its preparation and presentation in alleging that Telecom was the only company involved in this activity, and that it was occurring on a substantial scale. A balanced item would have reported that unauthorised diversions were rare, and were undertaken by other companies as well, the complainant wrote. On the basis that the item accurately reported Telecom's claim that other companies signed up customers against their will, TV3 declined to uphold the first part of the complaint....

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Winston Peters and NZ First had been cleared by the Electoral Commission following allegations they had failed to declare donations – also reported that ACT Leader Rodney Hide had been found by the Commission to have broken the electoral rules by failing to declare rent-free office space – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item reported Electoral Commission’s findings – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – previous media coverage meant most viewers would have known about the $80,000 donation – broadcaster entitled to make editorial decision to focus on that aspect of the Commission’s decision – contrast between decisions about NZ First and ACT was overstated but Rodney Hide’s comments adequately explained the situation – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-137 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JAMES HIPPOLITE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...