Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on a family who had purchased land in Papamoa only to find that the section had an actual size of 258m2, rather than the 296m2 shown on the property title and in their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The item found that the surveyor was responsible for the incorrect description on the title. However, the item also discussed an extract from an email sent to the purchaser by the real estate agent involved, Wayne Skinner, asking for a notation on the SPA seeking verification of the land site to be removed....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints that it was inaccurate and/or unbalanced for an item on 1News to describe land in central Auckland as being ‘gifted’ by Ngāti Whātua to the Crown in 1840. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate to describe the land in this way in the context of an item focused on Ngāti Whātua’s call to change Auckland Anniversary Day. Further, any harm caused by not including a detailed explanation of the land transfer did not outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A campaign clip for the Ban 1080 Party (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) was broadcast on 10 September 2017 on Māori Television. The clip featured a voiceover discussing the purported use and effects of sodium fluoroacetate (1080 poison) on New Zealand’s flora, fauna and waterways, accompanied by footage of animal carcasses and 1080 baits in water. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme was misleading and breached the Election Programmes Code and the Free-To-Air Television Code. The Authority found that the election programme did not contain statements of fact that were misleading, inaccurate, or indistinguishable from opinion. The claims made within the context of the broadcast were statements of political advocacy and opinion, made for the purpose of encouraging voters to vote for the Ban 1080 Party....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the documentary was alarmist and misleading. The documentary largely comprised the personal opinions and experiences of the interviewees, and contained balancing comment. Not Upheld: Accuracy, BalanceIntroduction[1] A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of herbicides including Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The documentary was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland on 13 March 2014....

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The Authority has not upheld complaints an interview on Saturday Morning between Kim Hill and Dr Kathleen Stock, a gender critical philosopher, breached broadcasting standards, including the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards. The broadcast discussed Dr Stock’s perspective on gender identity and her experiences resulting from voicing her perspective, having resigned from her position following a student campaign that accused her of transphobia. The Authority acknowledged the potential harm of the interview, but ultimately found the importance of freedom of expression outweighed any harm caused. The broadcast was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Stock’s perspective, to which she was entitled, and throughout the interview Hill challenged Dr Stock’s views, leaving the audience with a more balanced impression on the issue....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the talkback programme, Overnighter, host Garry McAlpine invited listeners to call in to discuss the issues facing New Zealand in 2018, one of which was the upcoming cannabis referendum. Mr McAlpine strongly expressed his view, throughout the programme, that cannabis should be decriminalised for medicinal and recreational use. A number of callers, including the complainant, expressed their views on the subject, with some supportive of, and others opposed to, Mr McAlpine’s views. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Talkback radio is known for robust discussion, and broadcasting standards recognise that it is an opinionated environment, with hosts granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of generating robust debate. This programme in particular featured genuine discussion on an important issue in New Zealand....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about an item on 1 News, which discussed the Auckland Council’s vote on the draft proposal for the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax (the Tax). The Authority found the segment, through the omission of key information about the ongoing consultation and the presenter’s use of the terms ‘green light’ and ‘done deal’, was likely to mislead viewers into thinking the proposal voted on by the Council was final and that there was no further period of public consultation. The importance of keeping audiences informed on issues of public and political significance was emphasised by the Authority....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo for Checkpoint, broadcast after the 8am news on 11 May 2021, which included soundbites, showcasing the previous day’s news, concerning a supermarket stabbing in Dunedin. The complaint alleged the promo sensationalised news that was no longer current, suggesting another stabbing had occurred, and unnecessarily repeated scenes of violence when affected families were still suffering and children were likely to be listening. In its context, the Authority found the promo content was not likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and did not breach the children’s interests standard. The programme information, violence and balance standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Balance...

A segment on Sunday Morning interviewed Dr Maxime Taquet to discuss his research on long COVID. The complaint was the segment breached the accuracy, balance and discrimination and denigration standards as it (amongst other reasons) portrayed long COVID as a psychological rather than a neurological disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast did not imply long COVID was a psychological disorder. It also did not breach the balance or discrimination and denigration standards as the broadcast clearly signalled it was presenting Dr Taquet’s views and did not discriminate against, or denigrate, people affected with long COVID. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Parliamentary Question Time – showed Deputy Prime Minister at times when he was not answering or asking questions – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard S6 (balance) – programme did not approach the proceedings from any particular perspective – balance not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Coverage of Parliamentary Question Time was broadcast on Sky News at 2pm on 7 April 2005. Complaint[2] Michael Gibson complained that the broadcast was unbalanced because it focused on the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, at times when he was not asking or answering questions. The coverage had shown Dr Cullen “grinning and derisively showing a dismissive attitude towards the Opposition”, he said. [3] Mr Gibson argued that the broadcaster had broken the same rules which had caused TV3 to be banned from filming in Parliament recently....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint from the New Zealand Forest Owners Association alleging an item about the sale of a sheep and beef station, Huiarua, to an overseas buyer breached the accuracy and balance standards. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as the majority of the item was about the sale of a specific piece of land, and the period of interest is ongoing. The broadcaster also noted it would endeavour to include forestry perspectives in future items covering the issue. In context, it was not misleading for the item to not discuss the ‘special forestry pathway’ under the Overseas Investment Act, and the distinction between production forestry and carbon farming was not material to the item. While there were aspects of the issues discussed which were not included in the item, it would not have misled viewers to an extent justifying regulatory intervention....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a question during a social welfare debate on Morning Report suggesting an ACT Party policy ‘smacks of eugenics’. In the context it was not outside audience expectations for Morning Report and political debate. It would not have caused widespread offence. The complaint did not raise any issues under the balance standard. The question was comment and analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Ms McKee and the ACT Party were treated fairly in the context of the debate. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on The Project discussed the building of a new gambling venue in Tokoroa set to contain 30 gambling machines (‘pokies’). The segment was critical of the South Waikato District Council’s (SWDC) role in the authorisation of this new venue, and also one of the Councillors’ roles as both a Councillor and manager of one of the clubs involved in the creation of the proposed new venue. The following evening one of the programme hosts issued an on-air apology to the Councillor, clarifying inaccurate statements made about their involvement in the decision-making process. The Authority upheld SWDC’s complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks did not sufficiently remedy the harm caused by the breaches. The Authority found that the statement the following night did not remedy the harm caused to SWDC by the broadcast, only the Councillor....

The Authority has found a statement on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive breached the accuracy standard. During the programme, the host discussed advice to Aucklanders to stay away from regions in New Zealand over the summer due to the vulnerability of communities with lower vaccination rates. The Authority found it was misleading to only mention the vaccination rate of the Bay of Plenty region when talking specifically about Ōpōtiki, which had a lower vaccination rate than the region as a whole. Where the host was contradicting advice from local authorities about the risks associated with visiting certain areas over the summer, it was important to provide listeners with the correct information. The Authority noted the host could have contextualised the comments more clearly, and the vaccination rates for Ōpōtiki were available on the same government site as the DHB rates. Upheld: Accuracy Not Upheld: Balance No Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an interview with Waikato University senior lecturer in psychology Dr Jaimie Veale was inaccurate and unbalanced. While the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance, the selection of a transgender woman to the New Zealand Olympic team, it was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective. It focused on one aspect of the issue, the potentially stigmatising effect of the debate on trans people, and was part of a range of media coverage on the issue. The Authority also found there was nothing inaccurate or misleading in the way Dr Veale was introduced. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief Nine to Noon segment discussing the latest developments in a site investigation at the former Ivon Watkins-Dow (Dow) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth lacked balance and accuracy. Noting the nature of the programme, the perspectives included in it and other media, and that the period of current interest for issues at Paritūtū was ongoing, the Authority found reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints. The Authority also found none of the matters alleged to be inaccurate or misleading were materially inaccurate or misleading in the context. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

A complaint that segments on Morning Report which discussed the abortion legislative reform process were unbalanced was not upheld. First, the Authority found the complaint amounted to a ‘formal complaint’ for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989. However the Authority found the items did not breach the balance standard as they clearly approached the topic of abortion legislative reform from a particular perspective and that listeners could reasonably be expected to have a level of awareness of significant arguments in the debate. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...