BSA Upholds Complaint Against Central FM Re. Incorrect Labelling Of DoC Conservation Land As 'Stewardship Land'
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Central FM regarding an interview with Mike Petersen, spokesperson for Ruataniwha v.2, where 22 ha. of DoC conservation land was inaccurately labelled as 'stewardship land'.
The damning Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) decision, released today, found that Mike Petersen, lead proponent for Ruataniwha dam v.2, inaccurately labelled the 22 ha. DoC-owned land needed to build Ruataniwha v.2 as 'stewardship land', when in fact it comprises 93% conservation land.
Wise Water Use Hawkes Bay spokesperson, Dr Trevor Le Lievre, says the finding raises a credibility issue for Mr Petersen, and is questioning his capacity to manage the build of the estimated-$500 million Ruataniwha dam v.2.
The BSA found that Petersen '…made two definitive statements that it was not conservation land' on Central FM Radio, Waipukurau, in an interview held on 8 October last year with station part-owner and fellow dam-proponent, Steve Wyn Harris: [1]
The BSA found:
'The Authority agreed the description of the 22 hectares of Department of Conservation land needed for the dam project as 'only stewardship land', when approximately 93% of it has 'conservation park status', was a material inaccuracy which the broadcaster had not made reasonable efforts to avoid.'[summary]; and
'The broadcast created a misleading impression about the 22 hectares of DOC land needed for the project as being 'stewardship' land and having inferior conservation values'. [para. 25]
'Mr Petersen is asking the community to trust him to build a $500 million dam, yet can't even correctly identify the status of the DoC land needed to build the dam. This begs the serious question as to what else Mr Petersen has got wrong?' said Le Lievre, adding: 'alarm bills should be ringing loudly for potential investors.
'Mike Petersen is selling the public a story about Ruataniwha v.2: a story about economic prosperity to be shared by all, about a solution to our depleted aquifer and rivers, and about restoring our water quality, and dealing with the vagaries of climate change: has anyone fact checked the story?'
Wise Water Use is now questioning other statements made by Petersen:
'A number of statements have been made by Mr Petersen as part of the Ruataniwha v.2 story. We believe that in light of this recent ruling Mr Petersen now needs to provide evidence to back those statements,' said Le Lievre, who cited several unsubstantiated claims:
'This is a commercial project …we are not seeking public investment into this project at all' [2]
Mike Petersen recently petitioned local lines company, Centralines, for money to develop another feasibility case for the dam, and received a commitment of $100,000. Wise Water Use argues this money is coming out of the pockets of CHB power consumers;
The dam promoters are also wanting the public to pick up the cost of so-called 'environmental flows' which would allocate 20 Mm3 water annually for release down the main Tukituki River stem.[3] Wise Water Use calculates that should this cost fall to Regional Council ratepayers it would entail an average 10% rates increase and is running a petition asking the Regional Council to state publicly they won't assume the cost.
'There is a hydro generation component in the project as well, which appeals to those seeking green investment.' [4]
Wise Water Use points out that there have never been any detailed plan for hydro generation presented in any public reports on the dam, nor other public forum, and that such a proposal doesn't stack up financially, and argues this is an attempt to greenwash the project by Mr Petersen.
'The proposal is completely different in focus and intent from the original Ruataniwha project, despite sharing the original project's site on the Makaroro river.' [5]
Wise Water Use says that the renamed 'Tukituki Water Security Project' is no different to the Ruataniwha dam v.1: it would use exactly the same engineering design, rely on the same consents to take water, be located on the same part of the Makaroro River, still need the 22 ha. of DoC conservation land, and would remain an industrial-scale irrigation dam.
'Mike Petersen is fronting a $500 million dam project, which with associated on-farm infrastructure costs would cost more than $1 billion dollars. His inability to get the status of the DoC conservation land correct brings into question every other unsupported statement he has made in support of Ruataniwha v.2, and undermines the very viability of the project,' finished Le Lievre.
[1] Petersen: 'This is not conservation land, this is DoC stewardship land'; and 'This is not part of the DoC conservation estate, it's owned by DoC but is classified as stewardship land'. Source: Central FM interview (8/10/2024)
[2] Source: Central FM interview (8/10/2024)
[3] Petersen was recently quoted as stating: 'I would argue that it's unreasonable to expect private investors to supply that (environmental flows) free of charge'. Source: Newsroom (15/5/2025).
[4] Source: Farmers Weekly (8/10/2024)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
36 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
US moves B-2 bombers as Trump weighs Iran options
The United States is reportedly moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam. File photo: Getty The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two officials told Reuters on Saturday (local time), as President Donald Trump weighs whether the US should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran. It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound (13,600kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including Fordow. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Experts and officials are closely watching to see whether the B-2 bombers will move forward to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Experts say that Diego Garcia is in an ideal position to operate in the Middle East. The United States had B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia up until last month, when they were replaced with B-52 bombers. Israel said on Saturday it had killed a veteran Iranian commander during attacks by both sides in the more than week-long air war, while Tehran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear program while under threat. Israel says Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, while Iran says its atomic program is only for peaceful purposes. Trump has said he would take up to two weeks to decide whether the United States should enter the conflict on Israel's side, enough time "to see whether or not people come to their senses," he said. Reuters was first to report this week the movement of a large number of tanker aircraft to Europe and other military assets to the Middle East, including the deployment of more fighter jets. An aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific is also heading to the Middle East.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
US stealth bombers head over Pacific as Trump mulls Iran strikes
US stealth bombers were flying on Sunday across the Pacific Ocean, according to tracking data and media reports, fuelling speculation over their intended mission as US President Donald Trump considers joining Israel's attack on Iranian nuclear sites. Multiple B-2 bomber aircraft left a base in the central United States overnight
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Councillor denies privacy breach
The West Coast Regional Council is alleging a privacy breach involving its former chairman after correspondence from a mining company ended up in the media. However, Cr Allan Birchfield, who openly admits passing the information on, denies there was any breach. If the council wanted to take issue with it — "bring it on". The council released a statement this week, and although it did not directly refer to Cr Birchfield, it took issue with the release of the correspondence from Chinese-owned Westcoast Mining Ltd shared with "some councillors". The correspondence complained about a two-year delay in their resource consent application, and being ordered by regional council staff to shut down mining operations in the meantime. Council chairman Peter Haddock said in a statement Westcoast Mining Ltd had "confirmed it did not share" its correspondence to the council with anyone else. "Nor did it give permission for any of its information to be shared," Cr Haddock said. Rather, the letter had been shared "confidentially" with some councillors. "It's very disappointing privacy between [the] council and the company has been breached ... We will be taking measures to deal with this transgression." Cr Birchfield said yesterday he took "full credit" for passing on the information because it concerned council activities in the public domain. "They're wrong. That letter was written to all the councillors, and I take full credit for releasing it," he said. "The public should know the mining community do know what is going on [with the council]." He said the correspondence would be otherwise discoverable anyway through the Local Government and Official Information and Meetings Act. The allegations outlined by Westcoast Mining were "symptomatic" of wide disquiet in the West Coast community about the changing council approach to consenting and compliance, Cr Birchfield said. It not only reflected the growing concern within the West Coast mining fraternity but from other industry sectors seeking routine consents and now being presented with new hurdles. Cr Birchfield said the information being sought officially now often reflected no West Coast mining knowledge or local knowledge at all. "I'm being barraged with complaints from the industry and I'm sick of it. "I released that letter because it's not private," Cr Birchfield said. Cr Brett Cummings, who chairs the Resource Management Committee, was surprised at the council stance but preferred not to comment publicly. He was already awaiting further information on "concerns with the consenting process" he had raised. Cr Peter Ewen, who has regularly sparred with Cr Birchfield, described the release of the correspondence as "grandstanding" and "attention seeking". He said Cr Birchfield knew "full well" the rules about information disclosure. Given it was apparently yet to be tabled at the council meeting he was "jumping the gun". "I think attention-seeking councillors are doing it all the time — that's the problem," Cr Ewen said. "There's a right and a wrong way to do it. He knows that ... there's an election coming." Cr Ewen said there was also some irony in that Cr Birchfield, a gold miner, had not always declared his own mining activities at the council table. "He can't even follow the rules himself." Cr Haddock said Westcoast Mining Ltd had been mining without a resource consent when it was shut down on May 31. "It was clear the resource consent was yet to be issued as a company representative visited the WCRC office on May 16 ... to request alterations to their [application]. "We will not be commenting further while the matter is under investigation," Cr Haddock said. — Greymouth Star
