Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

Summary Station identification promos broadcast on TV One included the slogan "Together We’re One", and the logo "Celebrating New Zealand". Mr Seymour complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the promos encouraged the denigration of Maori and, in particular, discrimination against the legitimate expression of Maori cultural and political beliefs. They promoted, he wrote, an ideology that was inherently assimilationist. TVNZ responded that the reference to "One" was to TV One. The promos implicitly reflected a "one-ness" between TV One and its viewers, and placed that theme in a determinedly bi-cultural context which recognised cultural diversity, it replied. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Seymour referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/94 Dated the 21st day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BUSINESS INNOVATION GROUP of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 69/95 Decision No: 70/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY of Auckland and PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint that Māori Television did not refer to the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsMatter of editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Complaint [1] Dilip Rupa complained that the current affairs programme Native Affairs, broadcast by Māori Television on 28 October 2009, did not mention that it was the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand. He said that this was not balanced reporting. Broadcaster's Response to the Complainant [2] Māori Television confirmed that it had not broadcast any items referring to the Declaration of Independence on that date. Referral to the Authority [3] Dilip Rupa forwarded his complaint to the Authority for review....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – personal story about a same-sex couple and their experience of parenthood through surrogacy – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standardFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on one same-sex couple and their personal experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate – it did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance requiring the presentation of alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on 60 Minutes, titled “The Two Dads Story”, reported on a same-sex couple and their personal experience of parenthood through the use of an off-shore surrogate. The item screened as a follow-up to a story that aired on Channel 9’s 60 Minutes in Australia in 2009....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-060–062:Sharp, Nelson and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-060, 1992-061, 1992-062 PDF858. 38 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who is a long-standing voluntary euthanasia campaigner. The item also discussed the history of attempts to legalise voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand and overseas. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item lacked balance. The item did not solely approach voluntary euthanasia from the personal perspective of the interviewee. It included a wider discussion of the voluntary euthanasia debate and law reform that triggered the requirement for presentation of alternative views, which were not presented within the programme or within the period of current interest. Upheld: Controversial Issues No Order  Introduction [1] An item on Seven Sharp featured the story of a terminally ill woman who has been a voluntary euthanasia campaigner for the last two decades....

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-018:Shaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-018 PDF591. 45 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 131/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BILL NAIRN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 127/94 Decision No: 128/94 Decision No: 129/94 Decision No: 130/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TREVOR MALLARD MP and VALERIE L J GREHAN of Wainuiomata and WAINUIOMATA COMMUNITY BOARD and DENNIS J KEALL of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-046 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by POWER FOR OUR FUTURE Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 84/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D V BLOMFIELD of Waikanae Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item on girl gangs in Hawke’s Bay – interviewed current and former gang members – contained footage of four young teenage girls who were shown wearing gang-style clothing and spray-painting graffiti on a public basketball court – included a re-enactment involving two young girls breaking into a house – gang members shown drinking alcohol and talking about fighting – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – four young girls identifiable – disclosed private facts – children under 16 could not consent – item not in the best interests of the children – girl aged 16 agreed to participate on condition her identity would be secret – identities not sufficiently protected – disclosed private facts about the girls – highly offensive disclosure – upheld Standard…...