Skip to main content

Today we released decisions on eight complaints, one of which was upheld by the Authority.

One of the complaints, which was not upheld, related to items featured on The Nation and Newshub, which were inspired by the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ protest movement. The items discussed whether various colonial figures in New Zealand were still worthy of commemoration by statue or memorial, particularly when their actions were re-evaluated against 21st century values. The items featured excerpts from a historian, who provided comments on a South Auckland memorial to Colonel Marmaduke Nixon, saying that his involvement in events at Rangiaowhia in 1864 amounted to ‘an appalling act of genocide’ and ‘a terrible atrocity’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the items were inaccurate and lacked balance. It found that the historian’s comments amounted to his opinion, based on his interpretation of a historical event, and the programme carried high public interest by raising legitimate questions about the way we view New Zealand’s past.

The upheld complaint related to a radio privacy breach that was the result of a radio caller's details being inadvertently broadcast. The complaint was upheld but no order was made in light of the broadcaster's immediate acceptance of the breach, which resulted from a technical error, and the immediate actions taken by the broadcaster to respond to the incident.

You can read our media release on The Nation and Newshub decision here or by clicking on the Media Releases button below.

You can read more about these decisions by clicking on the link below.

Today we released four new decisions, one of which was upheld.

The Authority upheld a fairness complaint from a tiler who was featured in an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars. The Authority ordered broadcaster MediaWorks to pay costs to the Crown of $1,500, for breaches of fairness and accuracy, and emphasised the importance of ensuring all participants in reality television are treated fairly, especially where the individual has made it clear they do not want to be shown in the programme. The Authority found that the show created an unfairly negative impression of Mr Djurdjevic, when it described him as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid, and misrepresented his worth ethic. It also found that Mr Djurdjevic was not adequately informed of the nature of his participation in the programme and was not given a reasonable opportunity to comment on how he was portrayed.

You can read our media release on this decision here or by clicking on the on the Media Releases button below.

You can read more about these decisions by clicking on the link below.

Today we released decisions on ten complaints, two of which were upheld by the Authority. 

One of the upheld complaints related to a radio stunt on The Rock Morning Rumble which alluded to prison rape. The Authority considered the stunt trivialised sexual violence and would have offended many people. The Authority ordered broadcaster MediaWorks to pay $1,000 in costs to the Crown and make a statement on air.

Another complaint, which was not upheld, related to a Sunday item that exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority found the item was an important current affairs item which carried high public interest and did not breach broadcasting standards.

You can read our media releases on these two decisions here or by clicking on the Media Releases button below.

You can read more about these decisions by clicking on the link below. 

Today we released decisions on nine complaints, none of which were upheld by the Authority.

Eight of the complaints related to free-to-air television broadcasts and one complaint related to a radio broadcast.

Two of the television broadcasts complained about were separate Seven Sharp items on the New Zealand flag referendum. The complainants alleged that these items were unbalanced. The Authority did not uphold the complaints and found that alternative views on the flag debate received considerable media coverage over a significant period of time and generated robust and widespread discussion among New Zealanders. In light of this the Authority found that it was reasonable to expect viewers were aware of the different points of view on the flag issue by the time of these two broadcasts.

You can read our media release on these two decisions here or by clicking on the Media Releases button below. 

You can read more about these decisions by clicking on the link below. 

Today we released nine new decisions. The Authority upheld one complaint, declined to determine one complaint and did not uphold seven complaints.  

Mitchell and Te Reo Irirangi O Te Arawa

The upheld decision is about a programme broadcast on Te Arawa FM, which formed part of a regular segment paid for by the Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust. The programme featured an interview with the Trust’s deputy chairman, who discussed issues around the Ngāti Whakaue Treaty settlement and the general governance of Ngāti Whakaue. The Authority upheld the complaint from the former chairman of Ngāti Whakaue Tribal Lands Incorporation that the programme was unbalanced and unfair to him.

The Authority emphasised that programmes paid for by a third party are still subject to broadcasting standards. It found the programme did not present any alternative views to those of the Trust on controversial and important issues and the complainant was not given an opportunity to respond to the interviewee’s criticism of him.

Seqirus (NZ) Ltd and MediaWorks TV Ltd

One of the not upheld decisions related to a 3D investigation into the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. The programme featured the stories of several girls who believed they had suffered serious health problems after receiving the vaccination. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the maker of Gardasil, Seqirus (NZ) Ltd, that the item misleadingly gave the impression that Gardasil was unsafe and alarmed and deceived the public when there was no evidential basis for doing so.

The Authority found the programme carried high public interest and presented the concerns about Gardasil in a responsible and balanced way, which included addressing medical evidence which disputed that Gardasil was unsafe.

You can read our media releases on these two decisions here or by clicking on the Media Releases button below. 

You can read more about these decisions by clicking on the link below.