Misleading Description Of Land Sought For Controversial Dam Project Breached Standards
A radio discussion describing conservation land sought for a controversial Hawke's Bay dam project as 'only stewardship land' breached the accuracy standard, the Broadcasting Standards Authority has found.
The Authority has upheld a complaint about an item on Central FM's Cockies Hour in which host Steve Wyn-Harris interviewed the Chair of the Tukituki Water Security Project (TWSP) after the project was included on the then Fast-track Approvals Bill's list of projects released in October 2024.
The BSA agreed the description of the 22 hectares of Department of Conservation (DOC) land needed for the project as 'only stewardship land', when some 93% of it has conservation park status, was a material inaccuracy which the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to avoid.
The Authority also found the broadcaster failed to correct the error within a reasonable period after being put on notice.
It has ordered local broadcaster Central FM to publish a statement summarising the decision.
The land discussed in the 8 October 2024 broadcast was the subject of a deal between DOC and Hawke's Bay Regional Council for a proposed land swap which would have enabled flooding of the land for what was then known as the Ruataniwha dam project. The project stalled in 2017 after the proposed land swap was halted by a Supreme Court decision finding the Minister of Conservation had inappropriately revoked the conservation park status of relevant land.
Some 20% of the more than nine-minute Cockies Hour item was devoted to the Supreme Court decision and the status and nature of the land, which is still needed for the dam to go ahead. During the interview, the land was incorrectly referred to six times by the TWSP Chair and the show's host.
The BSA noted the controversial nature of the dam project within the local community and the publicity around the Supreme Court's 2017 decision.
'We would have expected the broadcaster to have some understanding of the decision, and the significance of the land's status.
'The broadcast created a misleading impression about the land needed for the project as being stewardship land and having inferior conservation values. This undermined the public interest in the story as the audience did not have the benefit of being informed about the true status of the DOC land, to enable them to reach their own informed opinions.
'We therefore concluded the broadcast had the potential to cause harm which outweighed the broadcaster's freedom of expression and is significant enough to warrant our intervention.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Pātea seabed mine: Caution as Taranaki councils called to declare positions on mine
Taranaki local body politicians are looking to keep their powder dry as the battle over seabed mining intensifies through the new fast-track process. Pressure is mounting as the Environmental Protection Authority selects its panel to rule on an Australian company's bid to mine the South Taranaki seabed under the Fast-track
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
On The Making Of King Donald
After decades of watching the US prop up dictatorships in Central America, South America and the Middle East, there's a certain irony in seeing authoritarian rule play out on the streets of Los Angeles. No doubt, Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard - and the US Marines! - to quell what were (initially) peaceful protests against his harsh immigration policies has been deliberately provocative. That's the point. The enemy is whoever opposes him. As for the legal basis for the steps he has taken…Trump's actions appear to violate the terms of the 1807 Insurrection Act, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, and several sections of the US Code of federal laws. As you might expect, all of these legal mechanisms limit the ability of a US President to deploy US military forces on home soil, as a tool of civilian law enforcement. So far, the White House attitude to these legal guardrails has been…a contemptuous so what? No real surprise about that, either. Last year, the US Supreme Court decision in the Trump v US case - one of the worst rulings the Supreme Court has ever made - gave President Trump the powers of an absolute monarch, by exempting him from the laws that govern the conduct of every other American. When faced with Trump's attempt (a) to prevent the lawful handover of power to the winner of the 2020 election and (b) to hijack the US Constitution, the Court simply caved in: 'The former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his 'conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.'' Absolute immunity? Meaning : if President Trump calls his criminal actions 'official' then bingo, they become legal. You almost have to feel sorry for Richard Nixon. If only this same licence had been available to him, Nixon would have never had to resign over Watergate. In vain, Nixon argued in a subsequent TV interview with David Frost that 'When the President does it, that means its not illegal.' No one believed him. Yet last year, the Supreme Court conferred those powers on King Donald. No wonder he's using them now in Los Angeles, and elsewhere. In the face of the Trump v US precedent, the threats by California governor Gavin Newsom to sue the President over the deployment of the National Guard in California without reason or invitation, are bound to fail. Moreover, the 1807 Insurrection Act does give the President some limited ability to deploy the military, even without the consent of the state governor. During the civil rights era, presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy both used the Insurrection Act to justify their sending in of US troops to enforce the country's laws on the de-segregation of schools, despite fierce opposition from the governors of Alabama and Mississippi. It is not as if the Supreme Court stopped at Trump v US. Earlier this year, the Court further extended Trump's powers by granting him the interim authority to fire the heads of independent state agencies (eg the National Labour Relations Board) at will, until such time as lower courts rule on the matter, and until the issue has finally wound its way back up to the Supreme Court. That process will take years. Meanwhile, Trump has been handed unlimited power to fire his opponents in state agencies, and hire his minions in their place. Making the federal government's independent regulatory agencies bend to his will is part of Trump's plan to concentrate all of the effective executive power solely in the White House. In doing so, he will demolish the system of checks and balances that has under-pinned America's democratic political system since the country's inception. Trump's exercise of these powers also pose a threat to global economic stability. Thanks to the same interim authority granted to him by the Supreme Court, there is no legal barrier to stop Trump from firing Jerome Powell (the chair of the US Federal Reserve) without a reason, beyond Trump's desire to make US monetary policies serve his own short-term political interests. Here's why he might do it. As yet, Trump's tariffs have not fed through substantially into higher prices because many US firms are still burning through the inventories on their shelves. That means Powell can't cut interest rates until he sees the full extent of the inflationary spike when US firms like Walmart re-stock over summer, at tariff-inflated prices. Trump is not pleased about the delay, since he will (justifiably) cop the blame from angry consumers. Currently, the market turmoil that the firing of Powell would create seems to be the only thing that's staying Trump's hand. Thankfully….despite the abject complicity of the Supreme Court, not every part of the US legal system is currently bowing to Trump. The US Court of International Trade for instance, hears disputes over trade practices. In late April, as the Brennan Center has pointed out, a panel of three judges - appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump — ruled that most of Trump's tariffs are unlawful. As the Center's Michael Waldman has pointed out, the US Constitution clearly states that only Congress - not a President acting alone - can impose such tariffs : The International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides presidents lots of specific tools — just not this one.A few hours later, another federal judge reached a similar conclusion. However, an appeals court kept the tariffs in place, for now. Inevitably this issue too, will head on back to the US Supreme Court (yikes) for a definitive ruling. Point being, Trump's legal justification for what he is doing is pretty shaky - or would be - if the Supreme Court wasn't enabling Trump to over-ride so many of the precedents set over the past century or more. The three arms of the US political system - Congress, the Presidency and the Courts - are supposed to act as effective balances on each other, along with the legal precedents built on the foundation of the US Constitution. Trump is dismantling that entire system. Unwinding the US Constitution The unwinding of those core US traditions began with the rise of the 'originalists' on the Supreme Court. This legal school of thought - once marginal, and initially championed on the Supreme Court bench by Antonin Scalia - now dominates the reasoning of the six judges (out of nine) who comprise the Court's conservative majority. According to the originalists, judicial decisions need to be grounded in the text and history of the Constitution, as conservatively (or, as they would say, neutrally) interpreted. In practice, this approach has led to a highly selective originalist opposition to many of the laws and precedents ( e.g. the right to abortion enshrined in Roe v Wade, the right of the accused to be informed of their rights enshrined in Miranda v Arizona) that are not explicitly stated in black and white in 1792, in the text of the Constitution. A strict originalist reading would mean that so many modern rights (e.g. to contraception?) can be jettisoned as having been the alleged by-product of years of ad hoc judicial activism. In reality, the originalist justices - e.g. justice Samuel Alito - actively pick and choose what they see as being the founding fathers intention in the text, how they read subsequent history, and what roles for legal precedent they are willing to recognise. (Alito skated around the right to contraception in his Dobbs ruling that scrapped Roe v Wade by simply asserting that abortion is different. Uh, OK.) As even conservative commentators on the Court have pointed out, a division is emerging between the originalist hardliners (Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch) and the two conservative but more moderate judges (Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett). As for Chief Justice John Roberts…he has said publicly that he is not an originalist, although he often sides with the hardliners. It's a moot point, anyway. After all, it was Roberts who (a) opened the floodgates to corporates buying US elections by writing the 2010 Citizens United decision and who (b) took the leading role in the 2013 Shelly County v Holder decision that effectively gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which had been the crowning legislative achievement of the American civil rights era. Those cases have been two of the most socially damaging decisions made by the Court in the modern era, right up there with the overturning of Roe vWade. My point being, the Roberts Supreme Court was already on its sick bed before the Trump era began, but the close and partisan links that Alito and Thomas (in particular) have with the Republican Party (and its major donors) have also severely compromised the Court's credibility. Alito has even flown an upside down flag (a symbol of support for the Jan 6 Capitol rioters) from the porch of his Virginia home. In the face of such partisan behaviour, it's probably naive to expect any kind of moral or legal consistency. Yet even so…how can judges who claim to be originalists wedded to the Founding Fathers' intentions, be so openly supportive of undermining America's system of checks and balances, by handing unbridled power to the Trump presidency? Having the country ruled by an American monarch was exactly what the founders of the American revolution fought so long and hard, against. Closer to home Jerome Powell has not been the only independent central banker to come under political pressure in recent months. The full story about the resignation of RBNZ governor Adrian Orr will probably never be known, but the driving force seems to have been the decision by Finance Minister Nicola Willis to cut the Reserve Bank's operational funding by 25% annually, over the next five year funding period. That reduction amounts to a loss of $50 million annually over that period, down from $200 million in the current financial year. The Bank's capital expenditure would also be restricted to $25.6 million. A raft of OIA-released emails this week has covered the period surrounding Orr's resignation. Having the politicians cut the operational spending of the 'independent' central bank by 25% and freezing it at that level for the next five years certainly looks like the actions of a government hellbent on dealing a significant blow to the bank's fabled independence. Yes, the Bank's operational spending and staffing levels had increased substantially since 2018 - although there is absolutely no reason to regard 2018 as being the gold standard on funding and hiring. True, the RBNZ board had undercut Orr's position by agreeing to swallow the funding cuts that Willis was seeking - but since Orr had been governor during the last few years of an expansion that he strongly endorsed, Willis (and his own board) had placed him in an untenable position. And so, he resigned. Not without a fight though, as the OIA emails indicate. Reportedly, Orr had offered to accept a 16.5% funding cut and lose 100 jobs at the bank. Elsewhere in the de-classified correspondence, Orr gave his reasons for holding the line against the extent of the further cuts being proposed: Orr…. linked a number of concepts which suggest how he came to a view about the funding level the bank of those was operational independence, which he strongly linked with sufficient funding. He said having sufficient funding is necessary for the bank to function effectively, meet its mandate, and maintain the operational independence required to make key decisions. He explicitly mentioned this independence is important for core central bank tasks, specifically monetary policy and prudential settings. So was this a resignation based on principle? Had Orr's exit been engineered in part at least, by a government intent on restricting the central bank's operational funding - and related ability to function independently - for the rest of this decade? We will probably never know. Yet interestingly, Radio New Zealand - which is no stranger to having downwards pressure put on its operational budget - treated the resignation rather differently. RNZ business editor Gyles Beckford for instance, chose to attribute the resignation to Orr's 'somewhat volatile personality' before adding that Orr 'basically, he threw his toys out of the cot.' Nothing to see here folks, move on. From Los Angeles, with love All praise to the late Brian Wilson, and this late-career release was one of his most delicate, intricate compositions and performances: Over the past week, L.A. musician Jessica Pratt and her band have performed in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland. A reclusive presence on stage, Pratt's voice is so unusual and her music so well constructed that each element - percussion, sax, keyboards - took its turn on stage this week to add fresh colourings to songs that still remained subject to her own vision. From her most recent album, here's Pratt and her band on Stephen Colbert's Late Show, doing a live version of the single ' Life Is.' Note the 1960s 'Be My Baby' style drumbeats that kick the song into motion: While Pratt's music is always intense and personal, her live sets this week also had an airy, floating quality reminiscent of late 1960s Brazilian tropicália. Traces of that movement were already evident on this live track recorded by KEXP back in 2015:
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Bolsonaro denies orchestrating Brazil coup in Supreme Court testimony
By Ricardo Brito , Reuters Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Photo: AFP / Sergio Lima Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government after losing the 2022 election during his trial before the country's Supreme Court on Tuesday, but acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the outcome. Bolsonaro said he and senior aides discussed alternatives to accepting the electoral results, including the possibility of deploying military forces and suspending some civil liberties, but he said those proposals were soon dropped. "The feeling was that there was nothing else we could do. We had to swallow the election results," the ex-president said. "I never acted against the constitution," Bolsonaro added, holding a copy of the country's 1988 charter that re-established democracy after two decades of military rule. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven other people, including several military officers, who were charged with plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January 2023 . The charges stem from a two-year police investigation into the election-denying movement that culminated in riots by Bolsonaro supporters in the capital in early 2023, a week after Lula took office. Bolsonaro, who was the sixth defendant to testify in the case, spent several minutes of his two hours of testimony defending his administration's achievements and his criticism of the country's electoral system. Dozens of witnesses were previously heard by the court, an indication that the case is moving swiftly and could be concluded by the end of the year, avoiding overlap with campaigning for the 2026 presidential election. Bolsonaro has insisted he will run in that campaign, despite an electoral court decision barring him from seeking public office until 2030 . On Monday, Bolsonaro attended the trial to watch testimony from Mauro Cid, his former aide turned whistleblower, and then shook his hand. Cid told the court that the former president reviewed a draft decree that was central to the coup plot and made changes, while keeping a section that ordered the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is now overseeing the case against Bolsonaro and his allies. On Tuesday, the former president said he only briefly saw the draft decree and never edited it. He also apologised for making unfounded corruption allegations about Supreme Court justices. "Forgive me," he told Moraes. A final ruling on Bolsonaro's case is expected by October. - Reuters
