Search Rapua

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. On 15 March 2019 a special 1 News broadcast covered the terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. The broadcast featured footage of victims being taken into hospital, many of whom had visibly sustained gunshot injuries and/or were identifiable. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the coverage breached the privacy standard. The Authority found that media coverage of this event had high public interest in light of the unprecedented nature of extreme violence that occurred. The media had an important role to play in informing the public of events as they unfolded, including the nature and scope of injuries suffered and the action of first responders, including medical personnel. The Authority acknowledged that the repeated use of footage of identifiable victims amounted to a breach of privacy but found that the public interest defence applied....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a 1News item on a Donald Trump campaign rally breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. The complaint was that the item portrayed Trump, his supporters and the Trump campaign in a positive light, while failing to mention his participation in election denial; as a result, the segment could encourage some viewers to participate in election denial. The Authority found this was a straightforward news item covering Trump’s campaign rally, before offering typical political commentary from the US Correspondent on Trump’s election chances. The broadcast did not promote or glamorise illegal or antisocial activity, nor encourage New Zealand voters to engage in election denial. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 1News about Oranga Tamariki-run bootcamps breached the balance standard. The complainant considered the 1News reporter’s attitude, questioning and body language evidenced a ‘left bias’ and ‘a fair representation of the story’ was not given. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as the broadcast presented sufficient viewpoints and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of additional perspectives from other media coverage. The Authority noted the standard does not direct how questions should be asked or require news to be presented without bias. Not Upheld: Balance...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-014:Housing Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-014 PDF528. 83 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-001 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEITH PETRIE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-126 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-045 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

ComplaintTeachers – promo – visuals of naked man – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children FindingsStandard G12 – promo farcical – not damaging to children – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the programme Teachers was shown during the One News bulletin broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 20 August 2001. The visuals included a naked man in a foetal position, and the man running naked down a corridor with his hands covering his private parts. [2] Glenette Menzies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo should not have been shown at that hour. [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint, stating that the visuals of the naked man were not explicit and did not stray beyond currently accepted norms of decency and taste....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party – woman said “I just can’t trust you” referring to John Key, Leader of the Opposition – allegedly denigrated Mr Key Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E3 (denigration) – statements in the advertisement did not reach the threshold for a breach of the denigration standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was broadcast on TV One on Sunday 2 November at 6. 30pm. It showed a woman in her home giving a drink to a toddler sitting in a high chair. The woman said to camera: You hear people saying, “Helen’s been there a while, give the other guy a go”. And I was thinking, “yeah, sounds fair enough”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – episode in which the character “Katy” attempted suicide – allegedly put children at risk FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – appropriately considered by broadcaster through programme classification, time of broadcast, warning, and restrained nature of portrayal – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Coronation Street, which included the depiction of a suicide attempt by the diabetic character “Katy”, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 16 February 2006. Coronation Street is a fictional drama series set in Northern England and, earlier in the storyline, “Katy” had murdered her father. The sequences which featured “Katy” in the episode complained about were interspersed with sequences which dealt with a range of other storylines, and showed her consuming large amounts of sugar, and destroying her diabetes medication....

Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coastwatch – man shown gathering scallops – statement in programme that “there was sufficient there anyway to issue him with a couple of infringement notices” – allegedly in breach of privacyFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – filmed in a public place – no private facts disclosed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on Coastwatch broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 14 February 2005 showed a diver approached by Ministry of Fisheries officers while gathering scallops. The fisheries officer told him that he should only have collected 60 scallops, whereas he had 104 scallops on the boat. The fisheries officer explained that this was “not in the area of what we consider to be a serious offence”, and the diver said that he had been trying to do things by the book....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item on Turkey’s potential entry into the European Union – interview with London correspondent – comments allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – matters complained about were not the controversial issue of public importance under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not denigrate Turkish people – no other grounds of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tonight broadcast a three-part item on 4 October 2005 at 10. 30pm covering the possible entry of Turkey into the European Union (EU). The first part of the item was an introductory piece by the Tonight presenter which briefly outlined the outcome of a meeting in Luxembourg....

ComplaintHolmes – item regarding registration of Kopukairoa as wāhi tapu – examined the concerns of four landowners affected by the registration – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 4 – failed to present range of views – unbalanced – uphold Standard 5 – factual inaccuracies – partial – uphold Standard 6 – Iwi dealt with unfairly – uphold OrderBroadcast of statementPublish statement in Bay of Plenty Times This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The concern of four Pakeha landowners on Kopukairoa, because of the registration of the mountain in the Bay of Plenty as wāhi tapu, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 18 November 2002. The item included interviews with the four landowners and Mr Toni Paraire who, it was said, represented the views of the local Māori who registered the wāhi tapu....

ComplaintOne News – item about a sexual assault trial – unnecessarily violent and graphic material – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 9 and Guideline 9a – no disturbing material – no uphold Standard 10 and Guideline 10g – no explicit details – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 8 April 2002, featured coverage of the trial of six secondary school students who had been accused of a sexual assault on a male class-mate. The reporter described some of the evidence heard in Court about the assault, including that a broomstick had been inserted up the victim’s anus. [2] Viewers for Television Excellence Inc....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – contained footage of SPCA raid at his property and photographs of cats and dogs – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – photographs legitimately obtained by SPCA – use of archive footage justified given ongoing interest in Mr Balfour’s activities and properties – footage of dogs in a playpen was innocuous and used as visual wallpaper to report on court proceedings in which Mr Balfour was found guilty of serious charges – footage of Mr Balfour being served with search warrant was not obtained by “prying” – harm to Mr Balfour in terms of underlying objective of privacy standard resulted from conviction, not the item – item did not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...