Misleading Description Of Land Sought For Controversial Dam Project Breached Standards
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
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Federal judge issues new nationwide block against Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship
By Devan Cole and John Fritze , CNN Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office on 9 April, 2025. Photo: AFP / Saul Loeb A federal judge agreed on Thursday (US time) to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions , while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened on Thursday in New Hampshire. Ruling from the bench, Laplante granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to certify a nationwide class that "will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship" and issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking Trump's Day One order from being enforced against any baby born after 20 February. "The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court," Laplante said during a hearing. "The deprivation of US citizenship and an abrupt change of policy that was longstanding … that's irreparable harm." US citizenship, the judge added, "is the greatest privilege that exists in the world". The judge, an appointee of former President George W Bush, said he would pause his order for several days to give the Trump administration time to appeal his decision. Laplante's ruling could prove to be a critical bulwark against Trump's policy as other courts scramble to take a second look at their decisions in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. In February, Laplante indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the order only against members of several nonprofit groups who would have been impacted by it. "I'm the judge who wasn't comfortable with issuing a nationwide injunction. Class action is different," the judge said at one point during Thursday's hearing. "The Supreme Court suggested class action is a better option." In his ruling earlier this year, Laplante said Trump's order "contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it". Several other judges similarly ruled that Trump's order was unconstitutional, but their injunctions applied nationwide and prompted the administration to mount the series of appeals that eventually landed before the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court. Photo: AFP / KAYLA BARTKOWSKI Thursday's proceeding focused largely on the request from immigration rights attorneys who brought the legal challenge for Laplante to certify a class of individuals that would include "all current and future children" who would be affected by Trump's order and their parents. The judge's ruling on Thursday did not include the parents in the class. The judge appeared sympathetic to arguments pushed by the Justice Department that certifying a class including the parents might run up against the federal rules regarding class certification if those adults each had immigration situations that were significantly different from another adult in the class. DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton had wanted Laplante to allow for discovery so more information could be gathered on the adults who are part of the legal challenge, but the judge, aware of the urgency of the litigation, noted that such court-ordered fact-finding wouldn't be feasible. "You're right, (ordinarily) we'd conduct discovery before granting class certification," Laplante said. "There's no time for discovery." His decision to keep the certified class somewhat narrow allows the case to proceed without that time-consuming process. "I think that the class representatives present issues … that the newborn infants do not," he said. Class action lawsuits require "class representatives," or individuals who, if the class is certified, will represent the class members. In this case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, those proposed representatives had included a Honduran asylum-seeker - referred to in court papers as "Barbara" and who is living in New Hampshire and expecting a baby in October - and a Brazilian man - referred to as "Mark" - who is attempting to get lawful permanent status. Mark's wife, who is not in the US lawfully, gave birth in March. "If the Order is left in place," the ACLU lawyers wrote, "those children will face numerous obstacles to life in the United States, including stigma and potential statelessness; loss of their right to vote, serve on federal juries and in many elected offices, and work in various federal jobs; ineligibility for various federal programs; and potential arrest, detention, and deportation to countries they may have never even seen." Signed by Trump on 20 January, the executive order, titled "PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP," said that the federal government will not "issue documents recognizing United States citizenship" to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or were in the states lawfully but temporarily. The Supreme Court said in its 27 June ruling that the administration cannot begin enforcing the order for 30 days, though the government is allowed to begin developing guidance on how the policy will be implemented. In the other challenges to Trump's order, lower courts around the country have asked the parties to submit written legal arguments addressing how the Supreme Court's ruling could impact the nationwide injunctions issued in those cases, and more court proceedings are expected in the coming days and weeks. But that process will take time and it's unclear whether any of those courts will narrow their injunctions ahead of when Trump is permitted to enforce the birthright policy. "I feel like we're the only people who rushed around here," Laplante quipped during Thursday's hearing. ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy in a statement said the judge's decision is "a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended". Laplante's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's blockbuster ruling last month, which left class-action litigation on the table as a way to block Trump's birthright citizenship order - and potentially other policies. The Supreme Court's decision was focused on one type of court order - a nationwide injunction - but several of the justices were keen to note that plaintiffs suing an administration would have other avenues to shut down policies that might run afoul of the Constitution or federal law. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the kind of class-action litigation immigrant rights groups are now pursuing have many advantages. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative who is often closer to the centre of the court in high-profile cases, seemed especially open to having the Supreme Court review, on an emergency basis, exactly the kind of order Laplante issued. "Today's decision on district court injunctions will not affect this court's vitally important responsibility to resolve applications for stays or injunctions with respect to major new federal statutes and executive actions," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding those applications is not a distraction from our job. It is a critical part of our job." Perhaps, Kavanaugh mused, a district court might issue "the functional equivalent of a universal injunction" by "granting or denying a preliminary injunction" in a class-action suit. "No matter how the preliminary-injunction litigation on those kinds of significant matters transpires in the district courts, the courts of appeals in turn will undoubtedly be called upon to promptly grant or deny temporary stays or temporary injunctions in many cases," Kavanaugh wrote. But Laplante's ruling is nevertheless almost certain to force the justices to deal with a split that emerged over the particulars of those cases. And the court's majority opinion left that split unsettled. Several conservatives, including Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, warned against courts using class-action litigation to essentially supplant the kind of nationwide injunction the court had just shot down. "Lax enforcement of the requirements" for certifying a class, Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Thomas, "would create a potentially significant loophole to today's decision." Federal courts, he added, "should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools". Whether Laplante's decision is an "abuse" or exactly what the Supreme Court had in mind will likely wind up back before the justices in short order. -CNN
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
UN Experts Alarmed By Resumption Of US Deportations To Third Countries, Warn Authorities To Assess Risks Of Torture
GENEVA (8 July 2025) - UN human rights experts today sounded the alarm at the human rights implications of a recent ruling by the United States' Supreme Court that paves the way for deportations of foreign nationals to third countries. The Trump administration's deportation policy allows irregular migrants to be transferred to countries other than their own. 'To protect people from torture and other prohibited cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enforced disappearances, and risks to life, they must be given an opportunity to express their objections to removal in a legally supervised procedure,' the experts said. 'The US' expedited removal procedure could allow people to be taken to a country other than their own in as little as a single day, without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge,' they said. 'International law is clear that no one shall be sent anywhere where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to serious human rights violations such as torture, enforced disappearance or arbitrary deprivation of life,' the experts said. 'That assessment must be individual as well as country-specific.' They recalled that the United States had accepted obligations to prevent refoulement as enshrined, inter alia, in Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, implicit in Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees pursuant to its ratification of the 1967 Protocol. 'Other countries that have attempted to outsource their responsibilities have left people stranded in far away places, arbitrarily detained for years on end, and at risk of torture and other inhuman treatment, trafficking, or enforced disappearance,' the experts warned. 'Any diplomatic assurances as to the safety of transferred migrants provided by other countries cannot be taken at face value. The US is required to make a full assessment under its non-refoulement obligations.' 'We urge the United States' Government to refrain from any further removals to third countries, to ensure effective access to legal assistance for those facing deportation, and all such procedures to be subject to independent judicial oversight.' On 23 June 2025, the Supreme Court suspended a lower court order that had blocked forcible removals of foreign nationals to countries not their own due to concerns they had been implemented without adequate human rights safeguards. The specific case involved eight migrants from Myanmar, Cuba, South Sudan, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam, who were deported on a plane reported to be destined for South Sudan. 'It is with deep worry that we understand that the individuals have now been moved from Djibouti, where they were being held on a US military base, and onto South Sudan.' The experts have raised their concerns previously in writing to the Government of the United States and will continue to monitor developments. *The experts: Alice Jill Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Gehad Madi, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Morris Tidball-Binz, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Margaret Satterthwaite , the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Siobhán Mullally, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; Gabriella Citroni, (Chair-Rapporteur), Grażyna Baranowska (Vice-Chair), Aua Baldé, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, Mohammed Al-Obaidi, the .
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Uber in Supreme Court over drivers employment rights
employment policy 21 minutes ago Multi-million dollar rideshare company Uber took it's fight over drivers employment rights to the Supreme court today. The Court is deciding whether it's drivers should be considered employees. This could give the drivers benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Bill Hickman reports.
