In the first episode of Harry, a fictional crime drama series set in South Auckland, a detective investigated a spate of robberies. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme breached standards relating to discrimination and denigration, law and order, good taste and decency, violence, and accuracy. The programme did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, South Pacific people as a section of the community; the depiction of criminal activity in a fictional drama did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity; the sexual content was brief and inexplicit and preceded by a warning for sexual material; the content complained about did not constitute violence, and in any event, the broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion by classifying the programme AO, screening it at 9.30pm, and using a specific pre-broadcast warning; and the accuracy standard does not apply to fictional programmes.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence
In an interview with a successful New Zealand businessman on Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw, the businessman made a very brief reference to a trustee of one of his projects. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that this breached the accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards: the complaint was trivial and it was bordering on vexatious for the complainant to continue referring similar complaints following the Authority's previous rulings.
Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming
Country Calendar showed footage of a young woman setting a leg-hold trap and moving behind a tree to kill a possum. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard: the footage was extremely brief and did not show anything graphic or gruesome as the possum was killed off-screen, and it was acceptable in the context of the programme.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency
An item on Seven Sharp reported on a Labour MP throwing a "Lazarus party" to mark his return to the front bench. The presenter commented, "Leaving aside anything about resurrections and dodgy movies in hotels, Shane Jones is actually known for referring to himself in the third person". The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the presenter's comments breached the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards: the presenter did not make any reference to the Resurrection of Christ and nothing in the broadcast would have offended or distressed viewers, or encouraged discrimination or denigration against Christians as a section of the community.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration
Reports on TV One's Breakfast programme discussed the identity of a deceased teenager, even though in a live telephone interview during the programme it was noted that the police were not releasing the deceased's name, as requested by his family. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the disclosure breached the family's privacy: though the deceased's family were identified through their connection with him, no private facts were revealed because the deceased's identity had already been disclosed on social media sites and so was in the public realm, even if not officially confirmed by police. The broadcaster also took steps, as soon as reasonably practicable, to ensure that the deceased was not named again in the programme.
Not Upheld: Privacy
In a promo for Seven Sharp, the presenter referred to the ongoing Novopay debacle and said, "how many of us still give a toss?" The Authority declined to determine the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency standard on the basis that it was frivolous.
Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency
An item on Breakfast, entitled “Daycare vs Homecare”, included an interview with the President of the Home Education Learning Organisation about the benefits of home-based childcare education as opposed to daycare. It contained comments by the President that reflected negatively on daycare. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item was unbalanced: it discussed a controversial issue of public importance and the interview was framed as a debate about the merits of daycare versus homecare, but the item itself had the flavour of an advertorial, and taking into account the likely audience, insufficient balance was provided and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints.
The Authority made no order.
Upheld: Controversial Issues
No Order
In two interviews the host of Cruise FM made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, local council members and a rival radio station. The Authority upheld the complaint that the comments were unfair. The comments were personally abusive and had the potential to be very damaging, and the host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at a rival radio station. The Authority ordered the radio station to broadcast a statement and also to pay costs to the Crown of $2,500.
Upheld: Fairness
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration
Orders: Broadcast of statement, $2,500 costs to Crown
An episode of Shortland Street on TV2 showed characters smoking cigarettes and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached the good taste and decency, and law and order standards: the footage was acceptable in context and relevant to the developing storyline. It was well within the broadcaster’s right to employ dramatic licence.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order
During Afternoons with Jim Mora on Radio New Zealand National, the host and panellists discussed a coroner’s recommendation, with one panellist criticising the recommendation and stating, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner”. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration: the panellist’s comment was flippant and not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts; and it was aimed at the coroner in his professional capacity, rather than being personally abusive.
Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration