BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Some environmental concerns surrounding gold mining in New Zealand were examined

on Best of Assignment, broadcast on TV One between 7.30–8.30pm on 18 December

1997. The programme was initially broadcast on Assignment in April 1997, and the

rescreening in December updated the information contained in the original broadcast

by the use of a postscript in the form of a studio piece at the end of the broadcast.

The New Zealand Minerals Industry Association complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme reflected a negatively biased view of

the industry, and the postscript was inadequate in view of the events which had

occurred in recent months.

On the basis that the broadcast contained relevant and balanced material, and that a

number of parties were interviewed to ensure that comprehensive updated information

was contained in the studio piece, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, the Association referred its complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing. Authority member Joan Withers

did not take part in the determination of the complaint in view of a possible conflict of

interest.

The gold mining industry in New Zealand was examined in a programme of

Assignment broadcast in April 1997. This broadcast was not the subject of any

formal complaint. However, when the programme was rescreened on 18 December

1997 as part of the Best of Assignment series, it evoked a complaint from the New

Zealand Minerals Industry Association.

The Association considered that the broadcast advanced a "negatively biased view of

the industry". That impression was delivered, it believed, by the inclusion of

irrelevant footage about poorly managed mines in other countries, by interviewing

people overseas about environmental issues which did not apply in New Zealand, by

reporting "emotionally charged" comments from anti-gold mining lobbyists in New

Zealand, and by ignoring an environmentally successful mine in the Coromandel.

Furthermore, the Association added, the postscript in the December 1997 broadcast

was an inadequate summary of recent events which had taken place in the industry.

After consultation with the complainant, TVNZ assessed the complaint under the

following standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first two

require broadcasters:

G1    To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6    To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

The others read:

G15    The standards of integrity and reliability of information sources in

news, current affairs and documentaries should be monitored regularly.

G16    News, current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in

such a way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

G19   Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that

the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or the overall views expressed.

G20   No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to

present all significant sides in as fair as a way as possible, and this can

be done only by judging every case on its merits.

TVNZ initially questioned why the first broadcast had not been the subject of a

formal complaint if it had advanced, as alleged, a "negatively biased view of the

industry". It then argued that the item, after referring to the local environmental

concern at Tui mine, had looked at the Summitville environmental disaster in the

United States because of the similarities between it and the Golden Cross mine at

Waitekauri. TVNZ contended:

The track record of Golden Cross's parent company is clearly of relevance in

an examination of environmental risks associated with gold mining in this

country.

TVNZ pointed out that a number of supporters of gold mining had appeared in the

item, and that it had included a representative of the complainant Association. It

acknowledged that chief executives of Coeur Gold and Macraes Mining had not been

interviewed because, TVNZ explained, both had declined to appear on the

programmes.

Environmental problems with the Martha Mine and the Golden Cross tailings dam

continued, TVNZ maintained.

As for the postscript, TVNZ advised that a reporter had spoken to the principal

parties involved with the goldmining industry in the Coromandel, and the relevant

information provided had been included in the studio piece which was an update.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint on any grounds.

The Association's referral of the complaint to the Authority involved a detailed

examination of a number of aspects of the programme. The Broadcasting Act defines

the Authority's role to be to investigate and review the broadcaster's decision. As the

referral raised matters which had not been put to the broadcaster in the original

complaint, the Authority advised the complainant that the referral was to be confined

to the issues raised in the original letter of complaint. This correspondence is dealt

with in the Appendix.

In its report to the Authority on the referral, TVNZ continued to argue that the

comparison between the Summitville mine in the United States and the Golden Cross

in New Zealand was justified in view of the similarities between them, which it listed.

In its final response, the Association disputed that conclusion. It provided

considerable detail about the differences between the mines, and offered to provide

further comment to the Authority if required.

At the outset, the Authority bears in mind that gold mining is an emotive subject for

many because of the environmental issues it raises, and that strong views exist both in

favour and against the methods used for that reason. This conflict in attitudes could

be expected to be reflected in the programme. It also notes that the average viewer is

unlikely to have a sophisticated understanding of the goldmining technicalities dealt

with to some degree in the programme, and alluded to in the lengthy correspondence.

A degree of simplification of the issues was therefore inevitable, because it was

targetted at a general-interest audience.

The complainant, a specialist group, has understandably used its specialist expertise

in critiquing the programme and finding it wanting. Within that framework it has cited

a number of alleged standards breaches.

First, and as its primary argument, it said that the programme was negatively biased.

To substantiate that claim, it raised a number of matters:

            *    the inclusion of what it called "irrelevant" footage about poorly managed

                 mines in other countries

            *    interviews with people overseas about environmental issues which it said

                 did not apply in New Zealand

            *    reporting of "emotionally charged" comments from anti-gold mining

                 lobbyists in New Zealand

            *    ignoring an environmentally successful mine in the Coromandel.

Further, it said the spoken update included in the re-screening of the programme was

an inadequate summary of recent events in the industry.

Clearly the programme raised questions of a controversial nature, giving rise to the

requirement on broadcasters to deal with the issue fairly and in a balanced way - in

other words, without bias – pursuant to standard G6. Accordingly, this is the

standard the Authority considers to be at the forefront of its deliberations on the

complaint. It will refer to the component parts of the complaint in turn.

First, it is asked to accept that inclusion of the footage about poorly managed overseas

mines was "irrelevant". In order to test that claim, the Authority turns to the frame of

reference set up by the programme-makers at the beginning of the documentary. It

notes that this was established at its outset of the re-screening in the following words:

At the Golden Cross mine in the Coromandel millions have been spent securing

the land under its toxic waste dam. Since the programme was made it's been

announced that the Golden Cross mine will shut down, but as Rod Vaughan

reports it raises the question of who is responsible for cleaning up any mess

when mines close.

The Authority considers that this wording opened the way for a broad handling of the

subject, in which inclusion of overseas material was likely, and in which such material

would be directly relevant. It follows then that it finds no evidence of bias in the

inclusion of interviews with people overseas who gave their view of the issue as it

applied to them.

In dealing with this component of the complaint, the Authority considers that the

most contentious element was the inclusion of material on the Summitville

environmental disaster in the United States as an example of what can occur when

mining ceases and there are inadequate provisions to protect the environment. The

material included was hard-hitting and would be likely to have raised viewers' concern

about the possibility of such disasters occurring here. The Authority is of the opinion

that there was nothing wrong with the broadcaster making a connection to possible

future problems, here or elsewhere, provided, of course, that they had some basis in

reality. This they demonstrably did. Just how real that risk might be is not for the

Authority to gauge. The point is that there was nothing to stop the broadcaster

raising the issue and the Authority does not find that it did so in such a way as to

threaten standard G16. While some assessment of the degree of risk might have been

useful, as the complainant argues, the Authority does not consider that risk

management was a central issue of the programme, and that there was an obligation on

the broadcaster to include it.

It now turns to the complaint that "emotionally charged" comments were included

from local lobbyists. The Authority notes that a wide range of perspectives was

offered in the programme from New Zealand commentators, including a representative

from the complainant group. It notes that the mining spokespersons who could have

been expected to give the most authoritative information on local management of

environmental issues were the managers of the mines referred to. They, however,

declined to appear, apparently on the grounds that a matter alluded to was sub-judice.

To that extent, then, there was a possibility that there would not be equal balance to

emotive comment alluded to by the complainant. Although, in particular, the manager

of the Golden Cross dam declined to appear, differing views as to the threat which the

tailings dam alluded to posed were advanced by others, the Authority notes, and they

represented a wide range of perspectives. Taking into account, then, the focus of the

programme and the variety of views expressed, the Authority concludes that the

programme did not breach G6 on this point either.

In view of this ruling, it does not accept that standards G1 and G20 were contravened.

Moreover, although this material was presented with emotive overtones, these could

not be said to be sufficient to cause such alarm as to breach standard G16. The

Authority was not referred by the complainant to editing which distorted the views

expressed which would involve a breach of standard G19.

Next, the complainant argued that failure to include what it called an "environmentally

successful" mine in the Coromandel amounted to a further breach of standards, as it

contributed to an overall bias. The Authority is not prepared to find a breach of

standards on this point, as it considers the question of which material should be

included, and how a story should be told, is an editorial one, and outside its ambit of

its responsibility.

Turning to the aspect of the complaint that the update at the end of the broadcast was

insufficient, the Authority notes that none of the five points which the complainant

argued should have been included could be regarded as being of direct relevance to the

theme explored in the item. Rather, the Authority observes, they were items which

could be considered as being generally good news for the industry. While undoubtedly

this may have been information which the Association would have preferred the

broadcast to include, the Authority does not accept that TVNZ was obliged to do so

in terms of the applicable standards. Furthermore, the Authority observes that the

chief executives of Coeur Gold and Macraes Mining were both given the opportunity

to provide supplementary material for the postscript, and that this was referred to

during the programme. Once again, it notes, they declined.

In conclusion, the Authority notes that the programme identified and explored a

genuine, albeit controversial, issue which arises with gold mining. It is, as previously

noted, an emotive matter, and while the Association seemingly regrets the less than

technical approach adopted by the programme makers, the Authority finds that a

more general one did not result in a lack of balance. Further, it considers that both the

emotive and the technical arguments could be said to have validity within the context

of an issue of public interest such as this, and the programme explored them fairly,

having offered mining companies concerned the opportunity to contribute.

Accordingly, it finds no breach of standards.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
10 September 1998

Appendix

New Zealand Minerals Industry Association's Complaint to Television New

Zealand Ltd – 20 January 1998

The New Zealand Minerals Industry Association complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about the repeat screening of a programme on the gold mining industry,

broadcast on Assignment between 7.30–8.30pm on 18 December 1997. The

Association's President, Peter Atkinson, observed that, following discussions between

one Association member and TVNZ, the programme had been expected to include

updated information. However, he wrote:

... the result was a recycled, unaltered programme which again failed to provide

a meaningful report on New Zealand gold mines, even though filming was

undertaken almost 12 months ago and it initially screened in April 1997.

The Association maintained that the programme reflected a "negatively biased view of

the industry". That was apparent, the letter continued, as the programme makers,

lacking any modern mining environmental disasters in New Zealand, had incorporated

the following material:

• Poorly managed mines in other countries – these have absolutely no

relevance to the NZ industry which operates under strict environmental

legislation (regarded as possibly the best in the world)

• Interviews overseas (with non-New Zealanders) about environmental issues

outside this country

• Comments by high profile anti-gold mining lobbyists in the Coromandel who

presented the same emotionally charged message of "toxic tailings dams" and

"uncontrolled waste", rather than the facts about modern gold mining in New

Zealand.

Because the Martha mine in Waihi was economically and environmentally successful,

the Association suggested, it had been ignored.

In view of recent events within the industry, the Association considered the

programme's postscript inadequate. These events included:

• Cessation of ore extraction from the Golden Cross mine, although the site

remained open while a small number of skilled staff managed the closure and

implemented an extensive environmental rehabilitation programme.

• The Golden Cross tailings dam had been stabilised and did not need to be

moved as the programme suggested.

• The council hearings for the Martha mine expansion had begun and the staff

report recommended that the required resource consents be granted.

• If the Martha mine expansion went ahead, the Waihi Gold Mining Company

had offered to take in its expanded tailing dam the abandoned tailings from

the old Tui mine near Te Aroha.

• The enactment of the Crown Mineral Amendment (No 2) Act 1997

prohibited mining on Crown Land administered by the Department of

Conservation in a large part of the Coromandel.

The Association concluded:

We can only conclude that the objective of Assignment was, at worst, to

perpetuate the myths and misconceptions fostered by opponents of gold mining

or, at best, to merely skim over the facts.

The facts are that in spite of all the rhetoric, the modern hard rock mining

industry in New Zealand has a decade of past performance to draw on and has

demonstrated excellence in both safety and environmental terms.
           

We are disappointed that TVNZ failed to show balance and fairness in the

programme given that New Zealand has so many good examples of the minerals

industry protecting the environment. At a world level we are leading in many

areas. The programme could therefore have demonstrated the New Zealand

industry in this light as distinct from just an industry bashing exercise and the

regurgitation of anti-mining propaganda, mostly sourced outside New Zealand.

More careful analysis of the Resource Management Act 1991 in the programme

would have shown us to be a world leader in environmental management.

            We would expect this message to have had some place in your programme.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 February 1998

Following correspondence with the Association in regard to the standards allegedly

breached, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1, G6, G15, G16, G19 and

G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The programme, TVNZ noted, had looked at environmental concerns surrounding gold

mining in New Zealand. TVNZ explained that the item was included in the Best of

Assignment series and, in each case, checks had been made to determine if the

information contained in the original programme needed to be updated. If so, a

postscript was added in the form of a studio piece at the end. TVNZ continued:

In our investigation of your complaint we were led inevitably to the question –

why, if this programme seemed so offensive to you in December, did you not

formally complain about it when it was first broadcast? If the programme did

indeed "reflect a negatively biased view of the industry", as you allege, then

surely it must have done that the first time round as well?

In response to the suggestion that overseas footage had been irrelevant and had only

been included because there were no local "environmental disaster stories", TVNZ

maintained that the item had included a local environmental concern – that of Tui mine.

The Summitville disaster in the United States, it added, was used because of the

similarities between it and the Golden Cross mine at Waitekauri. "The references to

Summitville were considered relevant as were those to Coeur d'Alene's activities",

TVNZ wrote, given the track record of Golden Cross's parent company, which was

one of a group being sued by the American government for causing environmental

damage there.

In response to the reference in the complaint to "high profile, anti-gold mining

lobbyists", TVNZ pointed to the presence of people in the programme who

supported gold mining – from the industry, civic leaders and local citizens. The chief

executives for Coeur Gold and Macraes Mining had declined to appear, it wrote, but

the item had included quotes from statements provided by these companies.

As for the comment in the complaint about the "environmentally successful" Martha

mine, TVNZ said that there were documented problems about land stability there.

Further, on the basis that this material would be repetitious, it was not referred to in

the item.

TVNZ regarded as "problematic", it stated, the assertion in the complaint that the

Golden Cross tailings dam had been stabilised and did not need to be moved. The

Waikato Regional Council, TVNZ added, remained concerned.

We do not feel that the postscript was inadequate. Before the programme was

rebroadcast, the reporter spoke again to Coeur d'Alene, Macraes Mining, the

Waikato Regional Council and Coromandel Watchdog. With the exception of

Coeur d'Alene each produced updated information which was incorporated in

the studio piece. Because the postscript dealt with specifics it was not

considered necessary to contact your Association and we are mystified about

your comments concerning "a TVNZ representative in discussion with one of

our members".

TVNZ then dealt briefly with each of the standards nominated, and declined to uphold

the complaint.

The Association's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 20 March

1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, the Executive Director of the New Zealand

Minerals Industry Association (Douglas Gordon) referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Association noted that the complaint had been lodged in "broad terms" to reflect

its principal concern at the cumulative effect of the programme. At this stage, for

clarity, the grounds had been examined separately, and examples given to substantiate

the alleged breaches of each of the standards nominated.

Inaccurate Information

Under this heading the Association said that the reporter's comment about

Summitville, that the cyanide sent into the Alamosa River killed everything in a 50km

stretch, was "patently untrue", as scientific studies had disclosed. The reference to

"native bush" in Waitekauri Valley in the Coromandel was also inaccurate as the bush

referred to had been regenerating. Then, the Association complained:

Of particular note is Rod Vaughan's comments early in the programme, regarding

"toxic tailings" leaking from the Golden Cross tailings dam. At this point he

introduces anti-mining comments about cyanide concentrations in a spring

adjacent to the tailings dam. The matter is treated in a most disturbing and

sensational way without the facts being established.

The allegation of inaccuracy made by the Association on this point referred to the

absence of any comment that the levels of cyanide concentration in the spring now

posed no environmental threat. Further:

The initial cyanide concentrations identified in the spring subsequently

decreased once remedial work was undertaken by the Company and the results

of monitoring the spring have been reported regularly to Waikato Regional

Council. The concentrations prior to the programme and at present are

extremely low. The reference to the "toxic tailings" ought to have been

thoroughly checked so that the facts were clearly understood.

Important data about the Ohinemuri River was omitted, for example that it had

regenerated well enough over the past 50 years to be a trout habitat and breeding area.

The Association was unable to find a source for the item's comment that the

neighbouring waters to the Tui mine would be polluted with heavy metals for the next

300,000 years. However, there had been estimates, it continued, citing 30,000 years.

Concern was also expressed that only part of the resource consent for the Reefton

project was given, and it was not reported that the "wild-life corridor" referred to by a

conservationist was a concept that did not exist in New Zealand and was thus

successfully challenged at the resource consent process. The Association concluded

this section of its complaint:

All of the suggested environmental disasters mentioned in the programme could

be evaluated objectively by standard procedures of risk assessment, yet this is

not dealt with in the programme.

           Overall it is our view that the programme relies predominantly on hearsay rather

than independent assessment and fact.

Over use of emotive language and background music, invoking a sense of foreboding, and alarming visual imagery.

Under this heading, the referral alleged:

The programme creates powerful audio-visual images of environmental disasters

of enormous proportions at two existing gold mine sites in New Zealand

(Golden Cross and Macraes) and one proposed gold mine site (Reefton) and one

former base metals mine.
           

In addition, the programme uses extensive scenes of desolation and despoliation

in the United States which purport to show large environmental disasters,

analogues to those "threatened" at the New Zealand sites.

However, apart from these inferences, the Association claimed that there had been

scant attempt to compare American and New Zealand sites.

Taking into account the language used (and giving examples), the complaint maintained

that there were breaches of standards G15, G16 and G20. It was acknowledged that

some of the impressions given, in themselves had been harmless (and other examples

were given), but overall:

We consider that the fact that following the second screening of the programme

members of our Association had numerous enquires from friends not involved in

the mineral industry who were concerned that people they knew should be

involved in such destructive and environmentally threatening behaviour strongly

supports our contention that code G16 was breached by TVNZ.

Lack of impartial/objective assessment with predominant use of hearsay and anti-mining propaganda.

The complaint under this heading was divided into General, Golden Cross, Waihi,

Macraes Flat and Reefton.

In view of item's heavy anti-mining weighting, the complainant argued:

The overall impression of the programme is that the United States has huge

environmental problems at Idaho and Summitville, which are disasters in

anyone's language, and that New Zealand is about to follow suit at Golden Cross

and Macraes Flat.

However, the Association observed, Macraes Flat, after eight years, and Golden Cross

after six, had not been the site of environmental disasters, nor were unlikely to be.

Indeed, the programme could have used the gold mining industry as a leader in

environmental management and innovation, it wrote:

Instead Assignment chose to imply the worst about certain mining projects in

the United States and to infer that New Zealand, therefore, is likely to have

similar problems.

Turning to the discussion on the Golden Cross mine and the responsibility for clearing

up after mines closed, the Association observed that there was no attempt made on

the programme to include an objective assessment to counter the anti-mining

responses throughout the broadcast. The complainant also commented:

While the Golden Cross mine is physically much smaller than the Macraes mine,

there are rubbish dumps in the Coromandel which are similar in area to the

Golden Cross open pit and which are clearly discharging leachate into the

surrounding environment. This has been documented in the local press but was

not investigated by Assignment. When the Association's representative

suggested a more detailed examination of rubbish dumps in the Coromandel area

might put the tailings dump issue into perspective he was advised that the

Assignment team "did not have time".

In its comments on Waihi, the complainant noted that TVNZ's crew had declined to

visit the mine site. It remarked:

Given that the Waihi gold mine operates an open pit some 750m long by 450m

wide by (currently) 150m deep in the centre of a town of 4,000 people without

significant adverse environmental effects the Association could be excused for

regarding the intentions of the Assignment team with some cynicism. The Waihi

mine (just 8km from Golden Cross) has a much larger tailings dam that Golden

Cross and is New Zealand's longest running modern gold mine (10 years).

TVNZ in its reply to our complaint suggested that this project might have some

stability problems but none have been scientifically documented or supported

by hard evidence to date and no environmental disasters have occurred.

In fact, it wrote, resource consents for the Waihi mine extension project had been

granted less than three months after the rebroadcast.

As for Macraes Flat, the complainant asserted:

The programme explained potential disasters that might befall the Macraes Flat

area and the surrounding region following the projected mine expansion, but

again there is no attempt to provide any objective assessment (such as an

engineering/scientific comment to provide some factual basis for what is

presented), nor any informed risk assessment.

Comparison of Macraes Flat mine to the Clyde dam was described by the Association

as misleading.

Finally, turning to Reefton, the complainant stated:

As with the other examples Reefton is treated to the same mix of hearsay,

popular opinion and anti-mining propaganda without any attempt at impartial

comment based on scientific or engineering expertise.

Poor investigation of issues raised and selective use of historic information/fact to support a negative view of mining.

Under this general heading, the Association responded to TVNZ's comment about the

similarities between Summitville and the Golden Cross mine, by listing a number of

dissimilarities in terrain and the ability of each to meet discharge standards. It

commented:

At Summitville and Idaho the only persons appearing in the programme were

those clearly opposed to the various mining operations. There appeared to be

no attempt to provide any fundamental and impartial assessment of either the

scope of the claimed environmental damage from mining, its sources or its

similarities to any New Zealand examples, or the prognosis for the future of

these areas.

Some other examples of inadequate reporting were given, such as the fact that the Tui

mine closed 25 years ago and the tailings dam then in operation would not be

acceptable today, and, more generally, that the legal frameworks were now much

stricter.

Surprise was expressed that the Cyanisorb process at Golden Cross had not been

mentioned, a matter which had been dealt with in the press on a number of occasions.

Moreover, if the track record of Golden Cross's parent company was relevant, why,

the letter asked, was there no reference to the environmental awards that had been

won by the company over the past decade.

Although a figure of $1.2m was mentioned as the figure negotiated by DOC in granting

Macraes access to Reefton, the complainant pointed out that other media reports had

noted that the company would spend at least $12m on environmental management and

contingency planning to mitigate the effects of mining.

The final heading in the referral read:

Failure to provide an adequate update of events occurring since the programme was first aired and before it was rebroadcast.

Referring to TVNZ's acknowledgment that checks were made prior to rescreening, the

Association again described the postscript as "totally inadequate". In regard to the

closure of Golden Cross, the complaint recorded that the programme had failed to

record responsible initiatives taken by the company in regard to the tailing dam.

Further:

The post-script failed to note that the peer review of remedial work at the

Golden Cross tailings dam in mid-1997 confirmed that that area had been

stabilised following the extensive work undertaken by Coeur Gold and is the

most intensively studied landslip in the world. This information was available

through the local press and also in correspondence held by Waikato Regional

Council.

As for two other mines:

            Macraes Flat

            In the post-script [the presenter] notes that Macraes Mining deferred its plans

to expand the mind "despite obtaining resource consent", but fails to note that

the Company modified its plans to significantly reduce the visual impact of its

expanded project on the environment and the local community, as reported in

the press.

            Waihi

            Some 4 weeks prior to the re-screening of the programme the Waihi Gold Mining

Company started its hearing for resource consents to extend the life of its mine

by enlarging the open pit and the tailings dam. In evidence at the hearing (as

reported in the Waihi Leader) the Company offered to accommodate in its

expanded tailings dam the tailings from the old Tui mine near Te Aroha. No

mention was made of this in the post-script.

There should have been an explanation as to the effect of the Crown Minerals

Amendment Act, the Association recorded, concluding:

If all the distortions in the programme had been corrected, the integrity of anti-

mining statements had been checked and commented upon, and the subtle

adverse impression created by the TV production team reversed, the programme

would have presented a much more balanced and fair picture of the mining

debate in NZ. The programme set out to do this (refer to the opening statement

by [the presenter] referred to above) but failed dismally in our view.

          

The programme could have taken the opportunity to portray the industry as

being the world leader that it is and shown its exceptional care for the

environment and its ability to meet some of the toughest environment standards

anywhere in the world.

A decision to re-broadcast a programme that has already screened does not

relieve TVNZ from complying with Broadcasting Standards. A second

broadcast of controversial matter surely increases their responsibilities, not

decreases them. As Golden Cross and Macraes Mines had not experienced any

of the predicted environmental disasters in the intervening period and the

situation had stabilised at Golden Cross, it could be argued that the broadcaster's

duty of care had become greater not less.

Further Correspondence

The referral was sent to TVNZ for comment and, in its reply dated 24 March 1998.

TVNZ argued that the Authority should decline to accept the referral on the basis that

it was effectively a completely new complaint.

As an example, TVNZ pointed to the specific allegations of factual inaccuracy in the

referral – and breaches of standard G1 – which were not part of the original complaint.

TVNZ proposed that the Authority should either:

i)    require the Association to frame a referral which specifically addresses

TVNZ's response to its original complaint, or

ii)   Should require the Association to go back to the beginning of the

process and lodge a new complaint with TVNZ, although we believe

this would be unfair in that TVNZ is not to blame for the Association's

failure to place this detailed information before it within the required 20

working days and has already, in good faith, investigated a complaint

from the Association and responded to the issues raised in that

complaint.

The solicitors for the complainant (3 April 1998) argued that the standards allegedly

breached were nominated in the original complaint which was said to be "in fairly

broad terms", and thus the complainant was

... entitled to respond to TVNZ's reply in more detail, particularly as there was

no further opportunity to respond directly to TVNZ on the matter.

Having considered the matter, the Authority advised TVNZ (on 17 April) that, in

view of the provisions in ss 7 and 8 of the Broadcasting Act, it intended to restrict its

review to the issues raised by the complainant in its initial letter of complaint.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 1 May 1998

In view of the above correspondence, TVNZ advised the Authority that it intended to

comment on paras 3.48 and 3.49 of the Association's letter of referral. These

paragraphs referred to the reference in the item about the similarities between the

Summitville disaster in the United States, and the Golden Cross mine at Waitekauri.

TVNZ acknowledged that while different methods were used to extract gold in each

mine, the residue was essentially the same. It wrote:

The tailings must be encapsulated and protected from the infiltration of oxygen

and water by capping and/or provision of a liner under the tailings and

unoxidised waste rock to prevent contamination of ground and surface water. If

either the tailings or contaminated water (acid mine drainage) leaches out from

either a heap leach operation (as at Summitville) or a tailings dam (as at Golden

Cross) the effect on the environment is the same. The heavy metals and cyanide

residue impose the same risks to the environment from both types of operation.

           

In our view specific elevation and levels of snowfall are not particularly relevant,

except that there can be a rush of water during the spring snow-melt.

The New Zealand Minerals Association says there is low rainfall at Summitville,

whereas at Golden Cross over 300mm has fallen in high density rainstorms over

a period of two or three days. We observe that this rainfall poses a much more

serious environmental risk of infiltration of water into the tailings, over-topping

the dam, and lubricating the landslide under the dam than the low levels of

rainfall at Summitville.

Pointing out that the changes at Golden Cross were greater in view of high rainfall

experienced there in comparison to Summitville, TVNZ maintained that the fact that

Summitville was abandoned was particularly relevant to Golden Cross. It added:

The Summitville company was a subsidiary of a subsidiary, and the parent

company escaped liability. This is relevant to the Golden Cross situation where

the New Zealand company is fully owned by three tiers of United States

companies with ownership finally resting with Coeur d'Alene Mines

Corporation of Idaho, who are also likely to escape liability should there be a

claim for environmental damage.

TVNZ concluded by observing that, contrary to the Association's claim, land

movement at Golden Cross had been significantly slowed, but had increased again

immediately after heavy rain.

The Association's Final Comment – 21 May 1998

In its response to TVNZ, the Association first dealt with three specific comments in

TVNZ's letter:

(a)    "While the method used to extract gold at Summitville is different from

that at Golden Cross the residue is essentially the same in both

operations".

Comparing Summitville's "heap leach operation" with the "conventional milling

facility" used at Golden Cross, the Association described what it regarded as

significant points of difference, concluding:

The "residue" is completely different in texture, composition, metal content and

cyanide level from that of a heap leach operation. Also, the liner system and

operating approach at Golden Cross are very different from a heap leach facility.

TVNZ's second point had been:

(b)    "If either the tailings or contaminated water (acid mine drainage) leaches

out from either a heap leach (as at Summitville) or a tailings dam (as at

Golden Cross) the effect on the environment is the same."

In response, the Association said that this statement, in assuming that leachate

adversely affected the environment, ignored changes which mitigated adverse effects.

Moreover, very low permeability limited the seepage possible and, on closure of a

mine, the tailings and the embankment become stronger through consolidation.

(c)    "The heavy metals and cyanide residue impose the same risks to the

environment from both types of operation".

The Association stated that risk was dependent on both the nature of the operation

and the environment in which it occurred. Not only were the two sites dissimilar, the

Association said, TVNZ's statement also overlooked the fundamental differences

between heap leach and conventional milling.

The Association next commented on TVNZ's statement that:

In our view specific evaluation and levels of snow fall are not particularly

relevant, except that there can be a rush of water during the spring snow-melt.

It began:

The high snowfall environment and associated spring melting events are

fundamentally different from high precipitation climates such as at Golden

Cross.

In high snowfall environments there is generally low rainfall during the bulk of

the season and then snow melt, or rain-on-snow events, in the spring require an

extreme volume of water to be managed during a four to six week period. There

are numerous examples where, in high altitude high snowfall events, the volume

of water created has proved difficult to manage (eg, Summitville).

In high precipitation climates like that at Golden Cross, rainfall occurs

throughout the year and so management systems have proven to be much more

reliably designed, engineered and operated than in a high snowfall environment.

In addition, consistent rainfall ensures that tailings remain saturated and hence

geochemically stable.

The different situations, the Association said, meant that metal loading and leachate

were much better controlled in the Golden Cross environment.

TVNZ had said:

We observe that this rainfall poses a much more serious environmental threat

risk of infiltration of water into the tailings, over-topping the dam, and

lubricating the landslide under the dam than the low levels of rainfall at

Summitville.

In addition to the earlier comments, the Association reported:

The Golden Cross tailings dam is a discrete structure engineered for precisely

this type of climate. The landslide remediation programme was instituted and

achieving results long before the Assignment programme was filmed.

The Association then considered TVNZ's statement that:

The fact then that the mining company abandoned Summitville is particularly

relevant for Golden Cross.

Contending that there was no relevant comparison between the way that the Golden

Cross mine was being managed and the way that Summitville was abandoned, the

Association noted:

It is difficult to make such comparisons between Summitville and Golden Cross,

when the Coeur Gold/Viking joint venture has spent over $30M to remedy the

landslip situation which it inherited, successfully managed the mine closure and

redundancy process at the site and is accelerating site rehabilitation and closure

in full co-operation with regulatory agencies and in consultation with the

community.

The Association then addressed TVNZ's comment that:

"The Summitville company was a subsidiary of a subsidiary, and the parent

company escaped liability".

The Association pointed out that New Zealand's Resource Management Act imposed

liability on the landowner regardless of the company ownership situation.

Finally, the Association referred to TVNZ's remark that:

 "It is worth pointing out here that the claim made in the programme by Mr Peter

Atkinson of NZ Minerals Industry Association that land movement at Golden

Cross had been stopped has proved incorrect".

The Association maintained that Mr Atkinson's remark had been confirmed by an

independent consultant who had been reported in the NZ Herald, adding:

... the halt to the landslide indicated that the company's remedial measures were

working.

Further Correspondence

At the Authority's request, on 12 June 1998 the NZ Minerals Association provided

the Authority with a transcript of the programme complained about. The

accompanying letter noted:

We acknowledge that the Broadcasting Authority will be basing its decision (on

whether or not to uphold our complaint) on more than a review of the transcript

because of the powerful audiovisual imagery involved in the programme.