Search Rapua

SummaryA Frontline programme broadcast on 12 September 1993 focused on the electricity pricingarrangements between Comalco (NZ) Ltd and ECNZ and raised questions about the ratescharged to domestic and large commercial consumers. Comalco (NZ) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd thatthe item lacked objectivity and left misleading and damaging impressions. In particular itobjected to the implication that Comalco's electricity was subsidised by domestic consumers,and to the suggestion that its recent pricing agreement with ECNZ was to be kept secret soas to avoid embarrassing the government in the pre-election period. Maintaining that an investigation of the pricing arrangements was in the public interest,TVNZ rejected all aspects of the complaint. It argued that the question about whether thearrangement was a subsidy or a discount was balanced by comment from Comalcoofficials and from energy analysts....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Noise Control – followed noise control officers working in Auckland – one officer was called to a 50th birthday party – host of the party shown arguing with him – allegedly in breach of fairness standard FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and her participation – combination of factors resulted in complainant being treated unfairly – upheld OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainant $7,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Noise Control, a reality programme following noise control officers in Auckland, was broadcast on TV3 at 8pm on Monday 2 August 2010. In one segment, the programme’s narrator stated that “noise control officer [name] is on his way to a 50th birthday bash in Ponsonby”....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Five Campbell Live items featured the complainant, Margaret Harkema, a former director of the Valley Animal Research Centre, and investigated concerns that she was using TradeMe to rehome beagles that were bred or used for testing. The Authority upheld her complaints that the programmes were unfair, misleading and breached her privacy. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, PrivacyNot Upheld: Law and OrderOrders: Section 13(1)(d) $2,000 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy; Section 16(1) $12,000 legal costs to the complainantIntroduction[1] Campbell Live carried out an investigation, spanning five separate broadcasts, into matters involving the now closed Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), and its former director, Margaret Harkema....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

The Authority has upheld a complaint about two broadcasts on Humm FM, finding that the complainant was treated unfairly. The Authority found that comments made by the host during the broadcasts were likely to reflect negatively on the complainant and to impact on his personal and professional reputation. As the complainant was adversely affected, he should have been given an opportunity under the fairness standard to respond to the comments made about him. The Authority emphasised that the right to broadcast carries with it privileges and responsibilities, and in this case the host used his platform to air his personal grievances against the complainant without giving him an opportunity to comment, which was unfair....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 133/94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P HEATHER COSH of Taumarunui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 99/95 Decision No: 100/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M B of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

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: 1997-105 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MELANIE SMITH and TERESA SAMMUT-SMITH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Pacific Coast FM – interview with Coromandel resident Bill Muir discussing local politics in Whitianga – during the item Mr Muir made a number of critical statements alleging serious misconduct by members of the local district council and community board – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – item named people who were accused of unsubstantiated illegal activity – host did not challenge Mr Muir when he made the allegations – Mr Muir’s statements went beyond acceptable comment on political activity – unfair – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other significant perspectives – upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not within the Authority’s jurisdiction to determine allegations of criminal behaviour – decline to determine under section…...

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....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go was unfair to the fencing contractor investigated. The Authority found that the fencing contractor was not treated fairly, due to the way he was set-up to be interviewed (under the guise of calling him to a job) and because he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the programme. The Authority also found that the inclusion of information about the contractor’s past which had a criminal element was unfair as it was not relevant to the issues being investigated in this item and contributed to an unfairly negative impression of him. The accuracy complaint was not upheld as the item did not mislead or present inaccurate information, and the balance standard did not apply as the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance....