Search Rapua

An election advertisement for the Labour Party included the statement, ‘we’ll…make apprenticeships free to prepare for tomorrow’s jobs. . . ’ The complainant argued that this statement was inaccurate because the apprenticeships are not free but paid for by the taxpayers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint finding that a reasonable viewer was unlikely to be misled by the programme. Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy)...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-132:Timms and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-132 PDF573. 13 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were a false portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy)...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 New Zealand First Election Advertisement – stated that “only Winston and New Zealand First can save the foreshore and seabed for our family” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement was clearly opinion and promotion of New Zealand First policy – guideline 5a to Standard 5 exempts opinion from standards of accuracy – election programmes broadcast in robust political environment and listeners would have interpreted the advertisement accordingly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An advertisement for New Zealand First was broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 21 November 2011 at approximately 10. 40pm....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party which included questions on possible funding cuts a National-led government might make. The complaint was that these statements were an inaccurate portrayal of National’s proposed cuts. The Authority found the statements were clearly questions and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than statements of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. The harm alleged was not sufficient to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention. Standard E4: Misleading Programmes did not apply. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy), E4: Misleading Programmes...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the National Party. The complainant considered the programme’s reference to delivering tax relief was misleading as the Party’s policy of ‘tax cuts for the majority of families…[has] been proven to be incorrect by independent economists’. The Authority considered viewers would have understood the statement to be advocacy or opinion rather than fact, encouraging the public to vote for National, and the relevant statement reflected National Party policy; it is not a quantified promise, a guarantee, or a statement of fact. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), E2: Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An election advertisement for the National Party referred to ‘Labour, The Greens and Dotcom’ wanting to spend ‘more than 30 billion dollars’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the reference to ‘Dotcom’ was misleading because there was no ‘Dotcom Party’, and that the figure of 30 billion dollars was inaccurate. The advertisement did not explicitly refer to any ‘Dotcom Party’, Kim Dotcom has been a prominent figure in the election, and most listeners would have understood it to be a reference to the Internet Party, and that political party advertising is broadcast in the context of a robust political arena in the lead-up to a general election. The reference to other parties’ policy costs was analysis and interpretation by the National Party, and acceptable in this context....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-129 Dated the 9th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GREEN SOCIETY Broadcaster MAI FM LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an election programme for the New Conservative Party. The complainant argued the Party’s policy to remove ‘gender ideology’ from schools, as referred to in the programme, amounted to discrimination against the transgender community. While acknowledging some may consider the policy to be discriminatory and offensive, the Authority found the party’s statement highlighting its policy to remove gender ideology from schools did not reach the high threshold necessary for a finding of discrimination against the transgender community in the context of an election programme. In making its finding, the Authority took into account the significant public interest in election programmes in informing voters of party policies, and the robust political environment in the lead-up to the general election. Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Discrimination and Denigration)...

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and took no part in the deliberations. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime Minister’s Hour – Prime Minister John Key hosted Radio Live for an hour – stated that it was an “election-free zone” – Mr Key interviewed Richie McCaw, Sir Richard Branson and Sir Peter Jackson – allegedly in breach of the Election Programmes Code FindingsStandards E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) and E5 (opening and closing addresses) – broadcast did not amount to an “election programme” for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989 or the Election Programmes Code – in any event the nominated standards were not breached This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Media Works broadcasts in New Zealand through two television stations and many more radio stations. One of its radio stations is Radio Live....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – New Zealand Labour Party Opening Address included discussion about Capital Gains Tax – showed list of countries entitled “OECD countries with some form of tax capital” which included Singapore – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air TV Code – inclusion of Singapore in list graphic was not a material point of fact – Singapore was not referred to verbally – broadcaster and the Labour Party acknowledged that it was an error and it will not appear in future broadcasts – Opening Address not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-023:Flook (on behalf of the New Zealand National Party) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-023 PDF401. 58 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....