Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item on tax cuts in the Government’s 2024 Budget breached the balance and fairness standards by portraying the tax cuts negatively, thereby misrepresenting the views of New Zealanders. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives on the Budget were presented, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views, and the standard does not apply to concerns of bias. It also found the broadcast consistent with the level of robust scrutiny and political analysis that could reasonably be expected of politicians, so the fairness standard was not breached. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

A 1 News item covered the National Party’s conference in Queenstown and noted a clash between the Party’s policies and having their conference in Queenstown. The complainant stated the report breached the balance and fairness standards as it was biased against the National Party. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the Party was treated fairly and provided an opportunity to respond to the criticism. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on The Project, in which host (and comedian) Jeremy Corbett compared the time then National Party Leader Todd Muller and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent thinking before responding to a question about whether US President Donald Trump is racist. The complaint was that the segment breached broadcasting standards by implying Mr Muller ‘failed’ by answering the question too soon and by comparing Mr Trudeau with Mr Muller rather than Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The segment was clearly intended to be comical rather than a serious political commentary. In that context it would not have misled viewers and did not trigger the requirements of the balance standard. Nor was the item unfair to Mr Muller who, as then Leader of the Opposition, could reasonably expect to be the subject of media coverage and commentary, including satirical commentary....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the leaders’ debate between Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and Hon Judith Collins breached broadcasting standards. The programme carried a high level of public interest. Both debate participants were senior politicians who had a clear understanding of the nature of their participation in the debate and were given fair opportunity to respond to the questions raised. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Fairness...

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 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – programme contained teaser for item in upcoming episode – teaser about a teenage boy who had committed suicide and the events leading up to his death involving two girls – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – girls not identifiable beyond those who already knew of the events – teaser did not draw any conclusions about their motives or character – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Wednesday 17 February 2010. At the end of the programme, a teaser was shown for an upcoming item that was going to be screened in the following week’s episode....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussed Marc Ellis’s promotional stunt for his new business which involved discharging explosives on Rangitoto Island – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – not clear from the item that the stunt amounted to criminal activity – item did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify which individuals or organisations were treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 20/20, entitled “Guerrilla Marc[eting]”, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Thursday 15 November 2007, discussed the first major guerrilla marketing stunt that had taken place in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

ComplaintOur People, Our Century: "Cradle to Grave" – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate portrayal of history – failure to acknowledge social initiatives of National party FindingsStandard G6 – authored perspective – not a controversial issue – no uphold Standard G19 – not an editorial matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The second programme in the series Our People, Our Century was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 14 February 2000. It was entitled "Cradle to Grave" and interpreted New Zealand’s recent social history through an examination of the lives and experience of three different families. Bruce Fulton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme lacked balance and fairness because it neglected to acknowledge any political party other than the Labour Party....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given to Dr Fahey to answer all serious allegations – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no unfairness in circumstances – personal information justified anonymity – timing of broadcast justified – public interest – no uphold (3) Standard G5 – no uphold (4) Standard G19 – editing fair and not distorted – no uphold (5) Privacy – no breach for police station footage – consent given to interview – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Dr Morgan Fahey, a Christchurch GP and mayoral candidate, was the subject of a 20/20 item entitled A Position of Power broadcast on TV3 between 7. 30 – 8....

Summary It was reported on One Network News on 18 November 1998 that a yacht which had been grounded in a bay in the Far North had been looted, and that the abandoned boat had been stripped of its electronic gear, solar power unit and rigging. Mr Jackson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the report was grossly exaggerated. He advised that the boat had not been abandoned, and had not been stripped by looters. He acknowledged that some small items had been stolen but noted that all but one of those items had been recovered by the police and returned to the owner. Mr Jackson contended that the report had done the Far North community considerable harm and its errors warranted an apology....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Victoria’s Empire – presenter made statements about the use of the drug opium by Chinese people in the early nineteenth century – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenter did not state that the Chinese as a people were addicted to opium in 1839 – reasonable viewers would have understood that the presenter’s comments were included in an historical context to explain the onset of the Opium Wars – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant misinterpreted the presenter’s statement – presenter’s comments did not denigrate Chinese people – Chinese people treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Victoria’s Empire was broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....