BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has upheld a complaint from Kathryn Bayliss about an item on Cockies Hour concerning a discussion between Steve Wyn-Harris and the Chair of the Tukituki Water Security Project after the project was included on the Fast-track Approvals Bill's list of projects released on 6 October 2024. 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. The Authority also found the broadcaster failed to correct the error within a reasonable period after being put on notice.

Upheld: Accuracy

Orders: Section 13(1)(a) Broadcasting Act 1989 - statement published on air and online

Background

Project history

[1]  The proposed Ruataniwha dam project was a controversial project in Hawke's Bay. It was promoted as part of a larger effort to manage water resources in the Tukituki Catchment and the dam was intended to provide a long-term, sustainable water supply for Central Hawke's Bay. However, some residents challenged its economic viability, as well as its potential to drive expanded industrial dairy farming, polluting waterways and damaging flora and fauna.¹

[2]  The project was stalled in 2017 following successful judicial review proceedings against the Department of Conservation (DOC), relating to a land swap deal between DOC and Hawke's Bay Regional Council.² Under the challenged land swap, 22 hectares of the protected Ruahine Forest Park, which needed to be flooded for the project, was to:

• have its conservation park status revoked; and
• be swapped for land nearby.

[3]  This legal challenge culminated in a Supreme Court decision finding:³

• ‘[The s18(7) conservation park status revocation decision] was unlawful because it was driven by the [DOC] Director General's view that there was net benefit to conservation ends to be obtained from the proposed exchange, which could be implemented only if protected status was revoked.’
• Section 18(7) allowed the responsible Minister to revoke protected status ‘only where [the land’s] intrinsic conservation values no longer warrant such protection’.
• ‘In the present case the Minister did not revoke the conservation park status of the 22 hectares because protected status for the land itself was not appropriate. It is clear that it was.’

The relevant land and current project status

[4]  The project has since been rebranded as the Tukituki Water Security Project (TWSP) chaired by the interviewee on the broadcast (the TWSP Chair) and is being pursued by a private development company, Tukituki Water Security Ltd (TWSL), the sole shareholder of which is the TWSP Chair.⁴ TWSL still relies on permission to flood the relevant 22 hectares discussed in the broadcast. The complainant described the relevant land as follows:

The proposed Makaroro water reservoir footprint of the RWSS encompasses approximately 22.231ha of the Ruahine Forest Park, which is managed by the [Department of Conservation]. A small section of this land is a multi-part Stewardship Area (parcels C (1.140ha) and D (0.437ha)) that is contiguous with the Ruahine Forest Park (parcels A (7.896), E (1.978ha), B (10.780ha).’ 

[5]  This description of the land is not challenged by the broadcaster and is not inconsistent with other information considered during the complaints process.⁵ Accordingly, we proceed on the basis 7% of the land discussed in the broadcast was ‘multi-part stewardship area’ and 93% of the land has ‘conservation park’ status, as described in the Supreme Court’s decision.

[6]  Owing to the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 becoming law in December 2024, with this project identified as a qualifying project for fast-tracking, any issues associated with the substantial ‘conservation park’ component of the land will be considered under a new regime. The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 is designed to make it easier and quicker to gain approvals needed for development and infrastructure projects that would deliver regional and national benefits.  It creates a ‘one-stop-shop’ system that combines the multiple resource consents, notices of requirement and certificates of compliance and approvals required from the Resource Management Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987 and others. Projects identified in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, such as the TWSP, could apply for substantive approvals from 7 February 2025.⁶

Difference between conservation park land and stewardship land

[7]  The complaint in this case concerns the relevant 22 hectares of land having been incorrectly described as ‘stewardship land’. Public conservation land is held under different categories to reflect the values present. DOC describes these two categories as:⁷

Conservation park

• An area of land, or land and water, containing predominantly natural systems, managed to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity while providing recreational and visitor opportunities. Areas of land for conservation park status are of local or regional significance and generally:
  • possess a landscape of high scenic quality, with diverse associated habitats and flora and fauna;
  • provide opportunities for public enjoyment through outdoor recreation and tourism;
  • are at least two-thirds in a natural condition, although they may contain limited commercial or non-commercial plantations; and
  • are large enough to absorb sustainable and appropriate uses without detriment to their overall long-term natural values.

Stewardship land

• Stewardship land is a holding status for unclassified public conservation land. It is managed by DOC under the Conservation Act 1987 to protect its natural and historic resources. Many of these areas are home to threatened species and high-priority ecosystems. The process of reclassifying stewardship land requires consideration of cultural, historic, natural and recreational values when assigning a new classification. It must also give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Given the scale and complexity of the task, most stewardship land has not yet been reclassified.

The broadcast

[8]  The 8 October 2024 broadcast of Cockies Hour featured an interview with the TWSP Chair following the government’s 6 October 2024 announcement of the 149 projects to be included in the (then) Fast-track Approvals Bill. It is introduced as covering the ‘big news’ the project could go ahead as part of the new fast-track legislation, with host Steve Wyn-Harris saying, ‘we thought we’d find out a bit of what’s going on and talk to [the TWSP Chair]’. The interview canvased some of the reasons for the project, the criticisms of it, costs/funding questions, the issues created by the previous Supreme Court decision, the nature of the land and the processes to occur from that point.

[9]  During the interview, the TWSP Chair and host Wyn-Harris incorrectly described the relevant 22 hectares of land as ‘stewardship land’:

…

Wyn-Harris:   So it means that someone or another body will have a look at this Supreme Court decision back in 2017 which overruled that. And it was, stewardship land wasn't it that DOC [the TWSP Chair says ‘Yes’] was going to give up to make this dam allowed to happen. So what's the process, then? Who's going to be reconsidering that decision?

TWSP Chair:  Absolutely…. The bit that stopped the Ruataniwha project from proceeding was getting access to the 22 hectares of DOC stewardship land that sits in the dam footprint. Now this is not DOC conservation land. This is DOC stewardship land, and the Supreme Court ruled that the process by which the Director General of DOC was going to make that land available, the process was incorrect and he ruled against that being able to happen. Now, that decision was nothing about the merits of whether the proposed land swap was right or not. It was about the process, and that's the area that we need to get addressed through the fast-tracking.

Wyn-Harris:   And at the time I went and had a look. I just took myself up there and had a look at some of that land and to be honest, it was fairly scrubby. It wasn't like, you know, beautiful podocarp forest or anything.

TWSP Chair:    No, there's 22 hectares it's in two or three parcels, small parcels and they're on side lands. And as I say this is not part of the DOC conservation estate.  It’s owned by DOC but it's classified as stewardship land. So, its conservation values were certainly inferior to what was being proposed with the land swap that was proposed at the time.        

Wynn-Harris: Yeah, because that other land that has been put up for swap did actually have podocarps on it actually from memory. Was it totaras? and rimu?

TWSP Chair: Yes, exactly. So, the proposal that we're looking at now is that land swap should, would continue. We'd need to obviously have discussions with the landowners adjoining the site itself, but that's work that we can now get underway.

Wyn-Harris: Okay. Righto. So that's what the process is. Now 2017, what’s that, 18, 19, 20 - you know 5 or 6 years ago, when this could have begun and it didn’t. There have been a lot of extra costs go on now with inflation, is this still going to stand up…?

TWSP Chair: Well, we believe it will, Steve. I mean, the good thing about this project is that, you know, a lot of the dam building technologies appear to have changed. So, there could be some savings there. Maybe the infrastructure downstream could be less than was anticipated in the past …

The complaint

[10]  Kathryn Bayliss complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because:

• It is incorrect to say the 22 hectares of DOC land needed for the project is ‘only stewardship land’. Bayliss provided the details regarding the relevant land parcels and their status, as set out in paragraph [4], indicating 93% of the land was not ‘stewardship land’ but conservation park land.
• The error is ‘misinformation that needs to be publicly corrected’.
• Statements [regarding the designation of the land] and descriptions of the land as ‘fairly scrubby’ and its conservation values as ‘inferior’ ‘denigrated the DOC Ruahine Forest Park’.
• The interview would be perceived by listeners as news/current affairs. It was clearly about the facts surrounding the TWSP and involved ‘discussion of matters that everybody would expect to be true and factual’.
• By not publicly correcting the error, Central FM contributes to giving the public the perception the TWSP is ‘great in every way’.

[11]  Some of the complainant’s submissions suggested a level of intention behind the alleged inaccuracy. We are not able to assess these claims which, in any event, are disputed by the broadcaster and not of significant relevance to the issues we are called upon to determine under the accuracy standard. Accordingly, we address them no further in this decision.

The broadcaster’s response

[12]  The broadcaster did not uphold the complaint. Central FM admitted an error had been made but argued:

• ‘While [the TWSP Chair’s] comment regarding the land classification being “stewardship land” was in fact incorrect…. this error was only minor.’
• There was a ‘misstatement about the exact classification of the land’, but the broader context of the discussion about the water storage scheme ‘remains unchanged – namely, that the project requires appropriate consents and/or agreements for any use of this land’.
• The public had not been significantly misinformed. ‘Commentary during the segment was clearly distinguishable as opinion and analysis’ based on:
  • Language used: The TWSP Chair’s remarks reflected his perspective and did not constitute unqualified statements.
  • Programme type: The interview format is a platform for discussion and opinion, rather than strict factual reporting.
  • Broader context: The misstatement about land status does not materially affect the core discussion around the need for consents and environmental considerations.

[13]  The broadcaster also advised that water storage, particularly the TWSP, ‘is a highly politicised issue’, and indicated its presenters have been instructed ‘on numerous occasions to offer differing views regardless of their personal opinion’.

Jurisdiction

[14]  The complainant sought to add to her complaint another allegation of inaccuracy in light of the announcement on 6 December 2024 of Regional Infrastructure Funding (RIF) for the TWSP.

[15]  Attorney-General of Samoa and TVNZ Works Ltd⁸ establishes:

• The Authority cannot enquire beyond the terms of the original complaint.
• It is permissible to fill gaps or cross boundaries between Code standards but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint.  

[16]  The issue is whether the original complaint can be interpreted as broad enough to encompass an allegation of inaccuracy regarding funding related comments. We do not think it can:

• The original complaint is specific: ‘The statements said in the interview that the 22 Hectares of DOC land needed for the Makaroro water reservoir and dam is only stewardship land is misinformation that needs to be publicly corrected.’ This comment is followed by a request for correction, provision of evidence supporting the land’s status as conservation park land and a request for confidentiality.
• The complaint does not refer to the funding comments.

[17]  There are no statements in the complaint suggesting the broadcast was generally inaccurate beyond the land status point.

[18]  This interpretation is consistent with the complainant’s referral to the Authority, which focusses on the incorrect description of the land. The funding issue only came to light when the RIF funding was announced in December 2024, which was after the broadcast and submission of the complaint.

[19]  Therefore, our decision addresses only the issue of the land’s status.

The standard

[20]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁹ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹⁰ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our decision

[21]  In considering this complaint we have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[22]  We have carefully considered the right to freedom of expression, which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of information and content, as well as the audience’s right to receive that. This is the starting point when we determine a complaint that broadcasting standards have been breached.

[23]  Our task is to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. Freedom of expression is an important right in a modern democracy like New Zealand, and we may only intervene where the harm is at such a level that limiting the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.¹¹

[24]  However, there is also public interest in ensuring the audience has the benefit of both sides of the story, and the relevant parties and their views are represented accurately and fairly.

[25]  For reasons more fully outlined below, we do not consider the broadcaster met its obligations in this case. 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. 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.

[26]  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.

Our analysis

[27]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the programme was accurate.

[28]  The broadcaster has argued the statements about the land’s status were opinion and analysis. The requirement for factual accuracy does not generally apply to such statements.¹² In assessing whether a statement is fact, or analysis, comment or opinion, the following is considered:¹³

• language used
• type of programme
• role or reputation of person speaking
• subject matter
• whether the statement was attributable to someone
• whether evidence or proof was provided.

[29]  In this case:

• Central FM is promoted as ‘Central Hawke’s Bay & Tararua District’s #1 Radio Station for local news, events, global content, and the best music from now and then.’¹⁴ The show, Cockies Hour is a bi-weekly interview format show presented by local farmer and broadcaster Steve Wyn-Harris who ‘loves talking about farming and life’s challenges, rewards and mishaps’.¹⁵
• The 8 October 2024 show was promoted as an interview with the TWSP Chair on the TWSP and its inclusion in the government’s Fast-track Approvals Bill’s list of projects so listeners could ‘find out a bit of what’s going on’. This suggests factual updates would be conveyed rather than opinion.
• As the interviewee is Chair of TWSP and shareholder and director of TWSL, listeners are likely to interpret his statements about the project as informed and factual.
• The land was described as ‘stewardship land’ four times in the broadcast and the TWSP Chair made two definitive statements that it was not conservation land (which appear inconsistent with it simply being his ‘opinion’):
  • ‘Now this is not DOC conservation land.’
  • ‘And as I say this is not part of the DOC conservation estate.’
• The TWSP Chair used this characterisation of the land as a factual basis for describing the land as ‘inferior’, ie: ‘It’s owned by DOC, but it’s classified as stewardship land. So its conservation values were certainly inferior to what was being proposed with the land swap…’

[30]  Based on the above factors, we find the statements about the land’s status were statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applies.

Was the error material?

[31]  The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹⁶

[32]  The broadcaster considered the error was minor in the broader context of the discussion. We accept the broadcast was intended to discuss the TWSP more broadly following news about the project’s inclusion in the schedule to the (then) Fast-track Approvals Bill. The relevant land was only one of a number of project features canvassed.

[33]  However, we consider the error was likely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the broadcast because:

• While the interview’s signaled purpose was to inform listeners about what was ‘going on’, because the TWSP Chair was the interviewee, it is also reasonable to see the programme as promoting the dam project. It is the TWSP Chair’s perspective on the project which is being shared.
• The TWSP Chair indicates the original land swap is still proposed and securing the relevant land remains a critical aspect of the dam project (making background regarding the land a material aspect of the overall ‘update’).  
• The land and its status were not part of a brief passing reference but a feature of discussion – with comments generally encouraging of the land being made available for the project, for example:
  • TWSP Chair: ‘Now this is not DOC conservation land. This is DOC stewardship land that sits in the dam footprint … [The Supreme Court] decision was nothing about the merits of whether the land swap was right or not. It was about the process…’
  • Wyn-Harris: ‘At the time I went and had a look. I just took myself up there and had a look at some of that land and to be honest, it was fairly scrubby. It wasn’t like a beautiful podocarp forest or anything.’
  • TWSP Chair: ‘No, there’s 22 hectares. It’s in two or three parcels, small parcels, and they’re on side lands…’ 
  • Wyn-Harris: ‘…that other land that has been put up for swap did actually have podocarps on it, from memory. Was it totaras and rimu?’
• The status of the land was an important feature of this discussion as the TWSP Chair used the incorrect characterisation as basis for describing the land as ‘inferior’ and impliedly suitable for flooding through the dam project, ie: ‘It’s owned by DOC but it’s classified as stewardship land. So its conservation values were certainly inferior to what was being proposed with the land swap…’
• The error was repeated six times.
• Approximately two minutes of the 9.10 minute broadcast, or just over 20% of the broadcast, was devoted to the Supreme Court decision, land status and nature of the land, a significant portion reflective of its materiality in the context of the project, and consequently in the context of the broadcast update on the project.

[34]  We accordingly find the broadcast was materially inaccurate or misleading.

Were reasonable efforts made to ensure accuracy?

[35]  The next question is whether reasonable steps were made to ensure accuracy. The factors considered in assessing this include:¹⁷

• the source of the material broadcast (ie reputable organisation or expert)
• whether the broadcast was live or pre-recorded
• whether there was any obvious reason to question the accuracy of relevant content
• whether the broadcaster sought/presented comment or clarification from any other relevant source
• the extent to which the issue of accuracy was reasonably capable of being determined by the broadcaster
• the effect of any subsequent or follow up coverage, for example where information has been updated as part of a developing story
• the level of the broadcaster’s editorial control over the content.

[36]  In this case, the land’s incorrect status was first mentioned in a question by the host, but the TWSP Chair confirmed and reinforced the error. As Chair of TWSP and shareholder and director of TWSL, the interviewee might be reasonably expected to provide accurate information regarding aspects of the dam project. We also note the broadcast was live, which can limit opportunity for immediate correction.

[37]  However, we are also conscious of the dam project’s controversial nature within the local community and of the publicity accorded the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision.¹⁸ This background would have given local media an obvious reason to question assertions that the relevant land was ‘stewardship land’. That decision, finding the minister had inappropriately revoked the ‘conservation park’ status for relevant land, caused a long-term stalling of the dam project. Its significance was reflected by the fact Wyn-Harris raised it in the interview with the TWSP Chair, some six years later. In these circumstances, we would have expected the broadcaster to have some understanding of the decision, and the significance of the land’s status.

[38]  The inaccuracy concerns a matter of fact, which the broadcaster was reasonably capable of clarifying for itself, for example, through enquiry of DOC. 

[39]  The broadcaster did not respond to our request for further comment about their efforts to ensure accuracy. For the reasons outlined above, and in the absence of any further evidence to the contrary, we find reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy have not been made in this instance.  

Corrections limb of the accuracy standard

[40]  The second limb of the accuracy standard requires broadcasters to correct any material error of fact ‘within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice’.

[41]  The original complaint clearly put Central FM on notice regarding the error. However, Central FM has not broadcast a formal correction, on the basis they do not consider the error material. We sought further comment from Central FM to understand if they had corrected the error in any other way, for example, online or in subsequent broadcasts discussing the topic. However, the broadcaster did not respond to this request. Based on the evidence before us, we find the broadcaster did not meet its obligations under the corrections limb of the standard.

[42]  Having found the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy or correct a material error of fact within a reasonable period after being put on notice, we uphold the complaint under both limbs of the accuracy standard.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Central FM of Cockies Hour on 8 October 2024 breached Standard 6 (Accuracy) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

[43]  Having upheld the complaint under the accuracy standard, the Authority may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We issued a provisional decision and invited the parties to offer submissions regarding any errors of fact or misunderstandings in it and, appropriate orders.

Submissions on provisional decision

[44]  Both parties offered submissions, or comments on the other’s submissions, extending beyond the request to identify ‘errors or misunderstandings’. Such submissions have not been summarised below and, except as expressly noted, do not impact our decision.

[45]  Central FM submitted it was incorrect to describe the relevant 22 hectares as having ‘conservation park’ status when two of the five contested land parcels ‘are in fact small parts of [a larger] “multi-part stewardship area”’. Central FM considered this misunderstanding affected the decision and ruling.

[46]  Bayliss submitted:

• To make the land status more clear, the decision could include the following details (as set out in the complainant’s original submission to the Authority): ‘The proposed Makaroro water reservoir footprint of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, ([now known] as the Tukituki Water Security Project), encompasses approximately 22.231ha of the Ruahine Forest Park, which is managed by the DOC. A small section of this land is a multi-part Stewardship Area (parcels C (1.140ha) and D (0.437ha)) that is contiguous with the Ruahine Forest Park (parcels A (7.896), E (1.978ha), B (10.780ha).’
• Referring to the provisional decision’s description of the plan to swap ‘170ha of Council-owned land nearby’ she noted it would be preferable to simply refer to the relevant land being ‘swapped for land nearby’ given Council may not have finalised purchase of the 170ha as a result of the Supreme Court decision and there may have been changes to the relevant area (‘it was originally to be 147 hectares but may have changed to 170 hectares’).

Authority’s response to submissions on provisional decision

[47]   After considering the parties’ submissions, we have amended the decision to:

• clarify the different parcels of land involved, including that some 7% of the relevant land was a multi-part Stewardship Area, and make consequential amendments to sections of the decision which were inconsistent with this
• update our description of the land details provided in the complainant’s original submissions
• remove reference to the land which was to be swapped for the 22 hectares being ‘170ha of Council-owned’ land.

[48]  These changes do not alter our overall finding of it being materially inaccurate to describe the 22 hectares of land needed for the dam project as ‘only stewardship land’.

Submissions on orders

[49]  On the question of appropriate orders Bayliss submitted:

• Central FM should broadcast a statement about the BSA's decision and a correction about the 22 hectares of the protected Ruahine Forest Park needed for the TWSP.
• The statement and correction should be broadcast on Central FM during the 7am and 8am news bulletins and during Cockies Hour and uploaded to Central FM’s website.
• A ‘prominent notice about the complaint and the BSA’s decision, a correction about the 22 hectares…and an apology’ should be published in the Hawke’s Bay Today and Focus on Central Hawke’s Bay newspapers and on the Central FM website.

[50]  Central FM provided no submissions on orders.

Authority’s decision on orders

[51]  In determining whether orders are warranted and the type of order to impose, we consider the following factors:¹⁹

• the seriousness of the breach and the number of upheld aspects of the complaint 
• the degree of harm caused to any individual, section of society or the audience generally 
• the objectives of the upheld standard(s) 
• the attitude and actions of the broadcaster in relation to the complaint, for example, whether the broadcaster upheld the complaint and/or took mitigating steps; or whether the broadcaster disputed the standards breach and/or aggravated the breach and any harm caused 
• whether the decision will sufficiently remedy the breach and give guidance to broadcasters, or whether something more is needed to achieve a meaningful remedy or to send a signal to broadcasters 
• past decisions and/or orders in similar cases. 

[52]  Drawing from our findings above, we consider the following factors are relevant in this case:

Aggravating factors

• The broadcaster admitted the error but did not uphold the complaint, nor did it take any mitigating action.
• Submissions provided in response to the provisional decision, including comments regarding the risk of creating an inappropriate precedent for ‘any small inaccuracy or ambiguity’ as well as a forwarded letter from the TWSP Chair describing the broadcast as ‘factually correct’, suggest the broadcaster has not accepted the Authority’s decision.
• The broadcast, which misrepresented the status of the land required for the project, clearly carried the potential to mislead the public about a controversial project which is of ongoing importance to the local community.
• To date there has been no public acknowledgment of the breach for Central FM’s audience. Publication of our written decision alone is insufficient to serve this purpose.

Mitigating factors

• Central FM is a small local broadcaster with limited staff resources.
• This is the first time Central FM has had a complaint referred to the Authority.

Broadcast statement – section 13(1)(a) 

[53]  Taking into account the above factors, we consider a broadcast statement is the appropriate response to the harm arising in this case. A broadcast statement will publicly denounce the breach, censure the broadcaster and help rectify the harm caused.²⁰

[54]  While the complainant sought corrections in local newspapers and in Central FM news bulletins, we consider a statement during Cockies Hour would be a proportionate response to the breach, and sufficient to reach a large proportion of the audience affected by the original broadcast.

[55]  Consistent with the Authority’s usual practice, the broadcaster will draft a statement summarising the upheld aspects of our decision, for approval by the Authority. The statement should be broadcast at the beginning of Cockies Hour, on the same day of the week as the original broadcast, to reach a similar audience.

[56]  We note the interview remains available on Central FM’s Spotify podcast page.²¹ We consider it would be appropriate for a statement to also be published on the page beneath the relevant content, along with a link to this decision, for as long as the content remains available online.  

Orders

1.  Under section 13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Central FM (2020) Ltd to broadcast a statement on air. The statement shall:

• be broadcast at the beginning of Cockies Hour, on the same day of the week as the original broadcast (Tuesday)
• be broadcast within one month of the date of this decision
• contain a comprehensive summary of the upheld aspects of the Authority’s decision under the accuracy standard
• be drafted by the broadcaster for approval by the Authority prior to being broadcast.

The Authority draws the broadcaster’s attention to the requirement in section 13(3)(b) of the Act for the broadcaster to give notice to the Authority and the complainant of the manner in which the above order has been complied with.

2.  Under section 13(1)(a) of the Act, the Authority orders Central FM (2020) Ltd to publish a statement online. The statement shall:

• be published within one month of the date of this decision
• note the Authority upheld a complaint the item breached the accuracy standard
• be displayed prominently underneath the relevant audio on Central FM’s Spotify podcast page
• provide a link to where the full decision can be found online
• remain displayed online for as long as the relevant audio remains available.

The Authority draws the broadcaster’s attention to the requirement in section 13(3)(b) of the Act for the broadcaster to give notice to the Authority and the complainant of the manner in which the above orders have been complied with.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
9 June 2025

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Kathryn Bayliss’s initial complaint – 6 November 2024

2  Central FM’s initial response – 6 November 2024

3  Central FM’s decision – 4 December 2024

4  Bayliss’s referral to Authority – 4 December 2024

5  Further comments from Bayliss – 8 December 2024

6  Further comments from Bayliss – 10 December 2024

7  Further comments from Bayliss – 31 January 2025

8  Central FM’s confirmation of no further comment – 5 February 2025

9  Central FM’s confirmation of no on-air correction – 10 February 2025

Provisional decision

10  Bayliss’s submissions – 27 March 2025 – 1 April 2025

11  Central FM’s submission –10 April 2025

12  Bayliss’s further comments – 17 April – 21 April 2025

13  Central FM’s response to Bayliss’s comments – 23 April 2025

14  Central FM’s further comments – TWSP Chair – 29 April 2025

15  Bayliss’s final comments – 2 May 2025

16  Department of Conservation’s comments regarding relevant land – 5 May 2025

¹ “Conservation land can’t be destroyed for dam – Supreme Court” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 06 July 2017); Victoria White “The arguments for and against the Ruataniwha Dam” Hawke’s Bay Today (online ed, 22 July 2017); Alexa Cook “Controversial Ruataniwha Dam in Hawke’s Bay discussed at council for first time in years” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 18 October 2024)
² Hawkeʼs Bay Regional Investment Company Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated [2017] NZSC 106 
³ As above at [162]
⁴ Wise Water Use (17 March 2022) “Ruataniwha Dam V2 Press Release” <wisewateruse.org.nz>; and New Zealand Companies Office, "Tukituki Water Security Ltd register of shareholdings" <companies-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz>
⁵ A 19 June 2013 Kessels Ecology report for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd on the ‘Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme’, provided by the complainant, uses a similar description of the land at pages 3-4. We also corresponded with DOC regarding the correct description of the land and DOC’s response did not contradict this description.
⁶ Ministry for the Environment "Fast-track Approvals Act 2024" <environment.govt.nz>
⁷ Department of Conservation "Categories of conservation land" <doc.govt.nz>
⁸ Attorney-General of Samoa and TVNZ Works Ltd [2012] NZHC 131 at [62]
⁹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
¹⁰ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹² Guideline 6.1
¹³ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁴ Central FM "Home Page" <centralfm.co.nz>
¹⁵ Central FM "The Cockies Hour" <centralfm.co.nz>
¹⁶ Guideline 6.2
¹⁷ Guideline 6.3
¹⁸ Associate Professor Christine Cheyne “Supreme Court ruling on NZ’s largest irrigation dam proposal respects conservation law and protected land” The Conversation (online ed, 27 July 2017); Associate Professor Christine Cheyne & Dr Ann Bower “Supreme Court rejects Ruataniwha appeal – Expert Reaction” Science Media Centre  (online ed, 6 July 2017); Carriean Stocks “Supreme Court deals blow to Ruataniwha dam project, New Zealand” International Water Power and Dam Construction (online ed, 19 July 2017); “Ruataniwha Dam land-swap denied” NZ Herald (online ed, 6 July 2017); Department of Conservation "Government to consider Ruahine land swap decision" <doc.govt.nz>; Simon Hendery “Government may change law after court rules against DOC land-swap” Stuff (online ed, 6 July 2017); Victoria White “Supreme Court decision means Ruataniwha Dam ‘is dead’ – Councillor” Hawke’s Bay Today (online ed, 13 July 2017); and Hawkes Bay Regional Council "Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme" <hbrc.govt.nz> 
¹⁹ Guide to the BSA Complaints Process Complaints: Outcomes and Remedies <bsa.govt.nz>
²⁰ See Clark and Sallee and APNA Television Ltd, Decision No. 2021-081 at [49]
²¹ Podcast Central FM ‘Interview with [TWSP Chair]’ (online ed, 9 October 2024) <open.spotify.com>