Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spongebob Squarepants – cartoon programme – characters went on a “panty raid” to steal women’s underwear – allegedly in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – content not unsuitable for children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The cartoon Spongebob Squarepants, which follows the activities of characters in an underwater community, was broadcast on weekdays at 4pm on TV2. The episode screened on 31 August 2006 was about an ageing crab who was attempting to recapture his youth with a night on the town. The characters suggested that they go on a “panty raid” to steal women’s underwear. To the crab’s horror, he discovered that the raid was on his mother’s house and the underwear belonged to her....

ComplaintAssignment – election special – inaccurate statement regarding student loans FindingsStandard 5 – requirement for accuracy is absolute – minor breach – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Assignment programme broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 10 July 2002 was an election special, which analysed the Auckland electorates in the context of the upcoming General Election. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the Prime Minister’s comments regarding student loans were inaccurate, and that Ms Harré was treated unfairly on the programme. [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said that the Prime Minister’s comments were "essentially correct" and that Ms Harré was dealt with fairly in the context of the programme....

ComplaintThe Last Word – power crisis – interview on 10 April with Save Energy spokesperson – comment by presenter on 30 April – both unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – 10 April – speaker given opportunities to respond in item with a chat format – no uphold; 30 April – presenter’s brief contribution to debate discussed extensively elsewhere – no uphold Standard 6 – interviewee on 10 April not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The power crisis was dealt with in an item on The Last Word broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 10 April 2003. The Save Energy spokesperson was interviewed and the presenter commented that she did not intend to save power because the crisis was "the Government’s fault"....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on an incident at Fairfield College in which a group of teenage girls were admitted to hospital after taking drugs – included summary of problems previously experienced at Fairfield College – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – in any event, alternative viewpoints were presented and representatives from Fairfield College were invited to appear on the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate and did not create a misleading impression about the problems faced at Fairfield College – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Fairfield College was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its response was adequately conveyed in the broadcast – Fairfield College was treated fairly – not upheld This…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-083:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-083 PDF350. 5 KB...

ComplaintOne News – defence spending – F-16 fighter plane deal – cost misrepresented – inaccurate FindingsStandard G14 – no inaccuracy – cost quoted was approximate and based on reliable source material – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast by TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 24 February 2000 commented that an "expensive" proposed F-16 fighter plane deal with the United States "could cost taxpayers a billion dollars". Mr Hall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the total cost of the project was approximately half of what was reported. TVNZ responded that the billion dollar figure was cautiously based on the opinion of sources with expertise in the area. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Hall referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-042:McNair and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-042 PDF331. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-135–137:Long, Stanley and Singe and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-135, 1993-136, 1993-137 PDF1. 87 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-017:Buck and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-017 PDF361. 78 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-004:Hamilton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-004 PDF736. 19 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Water Patrol, a reality TV series following the work of the Maritime Police, showed footage of the complainant, PG, in his boat in the Marlborough Sounds. The police vessel approached him from behind and asked him to stop his motor. The complainant was caught off-guard, apparently not wearing any pants. As he stood up to engage with the police, the fact he was wrapping a towel around his waist was highlighted and the police officer turned to the camera and commented, with a smile on his face, 'very unusual'....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Following the issue of this decision, the Authority received new information from a third party refuting certain allegations made by the complainant about, and descriptions of, the dairy farm referred to in the decision owned by 'B'. The Authority wishes to note that the descriptions of the farm owned by B used in this decision have been disputed. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Sunday, titled ‘The Price of Milk’, followed a reporter as he visited two dairy farms in the Hauraki Plains. The reporter spent time with two farmers, A and B, to hear their perspectives on their work and the issues facing the industry, such as the impact of dairy farming on New Zealand waterways, abuse of bobby calves and financial struggles....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 32/95 Decision No: 33/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD and MERLENE AND JOHN GLIDDON of Waiomu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 78/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R TUNNICLIFF of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

During Breakfast, a news presenter laughed before introducing a report regarding Remembrance Sunday. The Authority found this did not breach the good taste and decency standard. In this context, the laughter was clearly directed at another presenter sneezing on-air, not at the story, and would not have caused audiences undue offence or distress, or undermined widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....