Latest news with #BroadcastingStandardsAuthority
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
BSA Upholds Complaint Against Central FM Re. Incorrect Labelling Of DoC Conservation Land As ‘Stewardship Land'
Press Release – Wise Water Use 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 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.
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
BSA Upholds Complaint Against Central FM Re. Incorrect Labelling Of DoC Conservation Land As ‘Stewardship Land'
Press Release – Wise Water Use 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 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.
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
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)
Otago Daily Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Shocking language distraction
Although many New Zealanders commonly use terms which would have been considered offensive decades ago, there are still words we would not expect to hear in our Parliament. One such word was aired last week in the House by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden. The Hansard record of that occasion shows it as c with square brackets around the next four letters. Curiously, there was no such sensitive punctuation around that word or the f-word when they turned up in some submissions made on various Bills. The words appear in the Hansard record on those occasions in all their dubious glory, as presumably the utterers intended. Research from 2021 on the language which may offend in broadcasting, commissioned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, showed there had been some movement over the years since 2013, but the top two most unacceptable words in all broadcasting contexts remained the n-word and the c-word. There had been jockeying for the top slot in that time with the n-word considered the worst in the 2021 survey (65% of those surveyed), compared with 57% for the c-word. The question of whether it was acceptable or necessary for Ms van Velden to use the term last week remains. The Labour Party set the scene for its use by asking Ms van Velden about something said in a political column by Stuff 's Andrea Vance. The quote used in the question from former minister for women, Jan Tinetti about the contentious pay equity legislation did not include the sentence featuring the c-word used by Ms Vance. It asked if stopping 33 pay equity claims was not a historic act of economic backhanding other women. But its inclusion of reference to women ministers as girlbosses and a hype-squad, were apparently enough to provoke Ms van Velden to seek advice from the clerk's office about the use of the c-word. She was told it was OK, so use it she eventually did. Her hell-hath-no-fury-like-women-ministers-scorned performance lacked the impromptu brilliance of former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard's tirade against the misogyny and unpleasantness she experienced day in and day out. Women close to having their pay equity claims settled before the new law sent them back to square one, could be forgiven for finding irony in Ms van Velden's passionate statement: "The women of this government are hard-working, dedicated, and strong. No woman in this Parliament nor in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination". They might have considered some of the terms used by Ms Vance were misogynistic, shocking, or inappropriate but would that override their view the introduction of the law changes was misogyny writ large? There is no getting away from the fact the question from Ms Tinetti was a dumb move from Labour, allowing the coalition's senior women ministers to take the moral high ground and promote themselves as victims of a misogynistic, unseemly, abusive, and vitriolic attack on them. It is hard to understand why Labour did not just ignore the column. Finance Minister Nicola Willis had already penned a lengthy response to it which was published by Stuff. When Ms van Velden's outburst occurred, around a week after the shock of the introduction without warning of the new pay equity legislation and its subsequent passing under urgency, the furore around it had not abated. While a succession of coalition ministers and the Prime Minister, with a surprising lack of imagination, accused Labour of "outright lies" there are plenty of questions which remain unanswered. Do we know, for instance, how the change in the equity claim threshold for the proportion of women workers in a role from 60% to 70% was arrived at? When there has been no opportunity to test the government's thinking on any of the changes through a proper process, the Opposition has plenty of material with which to keep plugging away at the government. Labour has had to admit its own goal. Its future questioning on this issue must be calm, clinical, and comprehensive — all acceptable "c" words.
RNZ News
04-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Two complaints against RNZ broadcasts not upheld
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The Broadcasting Standards Authority has not upheld two complaints about broadcasts on RNZ National. The first, on Nine to Noon on 8 October, 2024, marking one year since the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, included two interviews conducted by host Kathryn Ryan - one with BBC Middle East editor Sebastian Usher, and the other with Sally Stevenson, an emergency coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières. The BSA found that listeners were alerted to alternative significant viewpoints during Usher's interview, and Stevenson's interview was clearly signalled as being from her perspective. In addition, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. The BSA did not uphold complaints against Balance, Accuracy and Fairness. The decision can be found here . The BSA also considered a complaint against National's Saturday Morning broadcast, on 12 October, 2024. This was an interview of a UNICEF spokesperson and humanitarian worker about her experience living and working in Lebanon amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas- Hezbollah conflict. The BSA found the broadcast was clearly signalled as being from the interviewee's perspective and was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. Again, the BSA said RNZ's audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. It did not uphold the complaints against Balance, Accuracy and Fairness. The decision can be found here RNZ has initiated independent assessments of its editorial coverage, and the first looked at coverage of the Middle East since the 7 October attack. Its conclusion was that the decisions of the Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority gave no reason for concern that RNZ was acting outside its own policy, the Media Council Principles or the standards administered by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The report can be found here : RNZ : Editorial Reviews
