Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report breached broadcasting standards. It found the interview did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, noting that the robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill. It also found the balance standard was not breached on the basis that Tamihere was given sufficient time to express his views and, given other media coverage, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives regarding how to best increase Māori vaccination rates. It further found that Tamihere was not treated unfairly during the interview. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance and Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story discussed the accountability of judges in New Zealand. The item referenced a number of high profile criminal judgments by a named District Court Judge that were overturned on appeal, and included a comparison between New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States on the appointment, term and removal of judges. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item placed undue emphasis on the decisions of the featured Judge, failed to contrast New Zealand with comparable jurisdictions, failed to cover key information about the judicial complaints service and featured an offensive gesture. The media play an important role in raising issues, such as alleged poor performance of judges, which have an impact on our communities, and this item was in the public interest....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on RNZ’s Sunday Morning programme with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding referendum on the End of Life Choice Act. The End-of-Life Choice Society complained that the interview was unbalanced and inaccurate, as it presented the book as ‘the truth’, and did not question the author’s independence or her alleged religious affiliations. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines, and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or to determine her personal view on the topic....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on The Project that discussed whether bystanders should step in if they see parents treating their children in a way they do not agree with. At the beginning of the segment the presenters described an incident in which a father (the complainant) allegedly disciplined his son by denying him afternoon tea. Another parent reported this to Oranga Tamariki, who later found no cause for action and dismissed the complaint. The complainant argued the segment omitted important details about the incident, and was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority acknowledged the significant effect these events have had on the complainant and his family....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Newshub item reporting on changes to Reserve Bank rules requiring commercial banks to hold more capital in reserve was unbalanced. The item focussed on the potential effects of new capital requirements on the public, particularly borrowers. The Authority recognised that the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance and was satisfied that the item featured significant viewpoints on the particular issue discussed. The Authority also noted that the issue had been widely covered in other news media and viewers could be expected to receive a broad understanding of the main perspectives on the issue within the period of current interest. Not Upheld: Balance...

The End-of-Life Choice Society NZ (EOLCS) complained about an item on The Project which included an interview with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding End of Life Choice referendum. EOLCS was concerned that the interview portrayed the book as ‘an independent assessment of the issue’, which was biased and inaccurate. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or her personal view on the topic....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld two complaints that comments by Leighton Smith about climate change issues were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Mr Smith provided his views in response to a news item, saying that climate change was not predominantly man made and was instead due to ‘normal variability’. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the requirements of the accuracy standard do not apply to statements of analysis, comment or opinion. In this case, the Authority considered it was clear that Mr Smith’s statements amounted to statements of opinion in a talkback context....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

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...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on John Key’s resignation and the legacy he would leave behind after his term as Prime Minister. The item covered a number of significant events during Mr Key’s time in office, including his involvement in deploying troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes, and the flag referendum (among others). The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was misleading and unfair in describing Mr Key’s legacy. The selection of events to include in, and the overall tone of, the item were matters of editorial discretion open to the broadcaster. In the context of a brief summary of highlights from Mr Key’s career, the audience would not have expected an in-depth discussion or analysis of the events discussed....

The University of Otago (the University) complained that three broadcasts by TVNZ, about sexual assault allegations by former and current students of the University, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The complaint about Sunday was not upheld, but aspects of the complaint about Breakfast and 1 News were upheld. Overall, the Sunday programme was balanced, as it included comment from the University and was clearly signalled as coming from the perspective of the women interviewed. No material inaccuracies were identified, and the University was given a reasonable opportunity to respond. However, the Breakfast and 1 News items focussed more specifically on perceived shortcomings of the University and its decision not to be interviewed, resulting in unfairness to the University. The Authority also found that the Breakfast programme lacked balance....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint regarding a comment made by radio panellist Catherine Robertson about ‘murderous fantasies’, concerning punishment of an individual who escaped COVID-19 managed isolation. It was a satirical comment intended to be humorous and in line with audience expectations for the programme. The Authority noted satire and humour are important aspects of freedom of expression. It found limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion was not justified. Not Upheld: Violence, Law and Order, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Following the broadcast of a Labour campaign advertisement on Radio Sport Weekender, presenter Mark Watson commented: ‘I like Jacinda Ardern’s optimism; I just want to know how you pay for it all. That’s all I want to know… if it’s that easy, I think everybody would have done it by now. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this comment amounted to alleged political editorialising, which was unacceptable and unprofessional. While listeners might not have expected the host to comment on political issues during a sports programme, this was an opinion open to the host to express, provided broadcasting standards were maintained....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go that dealt with various issues arising from a house being built breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was inaccurate and misleading in its portrayal of the issues involved in building the house. It found the complainants were portrayed unfairly and their views were not fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of the privacy standard, and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance.   Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement on air and online; Section 16(1) $2,000 legal costs and $98. 70 disbursements, Section 16(4) $1000 costs to the Crown...

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on 1 News reporting on events the day of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s (also known as Posie Parker) Auckland rally, including her decision to abandon the event, breached the balance standard. The complainants were concerned with: the item’s description of Parker as ‘anti-trans’; the lack of interviewees supporting Parker in the reports; and the ‘attitude and tone of reporters’ covering the story. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced by significant perspectives included both within the broadcast and in other coverage within the period of current interest; and it did not breach standards to describe Parker as ‘anti‑trans’ (given her views). Further, the standard is not directed at ‘bias in and of itself’, meaning broadcasters are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards relating to an interview on Breakfast about Government plans to reverse a ban on live exports. The complainant argued live export footage used in the segment contributed to a lack of balance, was misleading and would lead viewers to believe it depicted New Zealand cattle in distress. The balance standard was not breached given the interview was signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, the audience could be expected to be aware of other viewpoints from other media, and the host had challenged the interviewee and referenced Government policy. The Authority found viewers were unlikely to assume the footage depicted New Zealand cattle and, in any event, if it had misled viewers on that point, it was not materially misleading because it would not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme....

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....