BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief Nine to Noon segment discussing the latest developments in a site investigation at the former Ivon Watkins-Dow (Dow) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth lacked balance and accuracy. Noting the nature of the programme, the perspectives included in it and other media, and that the period of current interest for issues at Paritūtū was ongoing, the Authority found reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints. The Authority also found none of the matters alleged to be inaccurate or misleading were materially inaccurate or misleading in the context.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

Background

[1]  The Paritūtū manufacturing site occupies a 16-hectare land parcel located between Paritūtū Road and Centennial Drive in north-western New Plymouth.¹ Ivon-Watkins commenced manufacturing agricultural chemicals at Paritūtū in 1960. Four years later, the Dow Chemical Company acquired a 49% stake in Ivon Watkins to create Ivon Watkins-Dow Ltd.²

[2]  The Paritūtū site has been of ongoing interest to the local community. Concerns have been raised about potential environmental and human health impacts from the activities at the site, including the manufacture of herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, key components of Agent Orange. These chemicals have been linked to health issues like birth defects and cancers.

[3]  Dow Chemical (NZ) Ltd assumed ownership of the site in 2023, indicating it would undertake a detailed site investigation and remedial works.³

[4]  Dow engaged Tonkin+Taylor Ltd to undertake a preliminary site investigation (PSI) for the site. The PSI report indicates its purpose was to ‘evaluate the potential for contamination to be present at the Paritūtū site and assess the need for further investigations and contaminated land related consents in accordance with [a remediation roadmap presented to stakeholders]’.⁴

[5]  The report identified that activities at the site have potentially resulted in soil and groundwater contamination which may affect human health and/or the environment. It also identified data gaps which needed addressing as part of any remediation roadmap, indicating the next step would be a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) including soil and groundwater sampling.⁵

The broadcast

[6]  Around the Motu features local journalists from throughout Aotearoa discussing local news and issues with the host of RNZ’s Nine to Noon programme.

[7]  During a 14 August 2024 segment on Taranaki issues, the host spoke to Robin Martin, RNZ’s reporter in the region, about the Paritūtū PSI report. Andrew Gibbs, the complainant and a long-time researcher, was quoted by the reporter concerning the historical health risks to people living nearby, including contamination that may have spread to local parks and marine areas.

[8]  The relevant section of the broadcast lasted just over six minutes:

Patrick Gower:        Around the Motu and to somewhere where I always like to go: my hometown, New Plymouth, my home province, Taranaki, my turangawaewae. And one of my old friends, somebody I've known for 25 years in the journalism game, used to sub my stories back in the day at the New Zealand Herald. It is RNZ's Taranaki reporter Robin Martin. Mōrena Robin. 

Robin Martin:          Mōrena Paddy. Oh, that was a lovely introduction. You’ve dated me a little bit.

…

Gower:                     Hey, Robin, this is serious stuff. The preliminary site investigation at the former Dow chemical plant, or what some people will know as the Ivon Watkins-Dow chemical plant at Paritūtū there in New Plymouth has been released. What does it say?

Martin:                      Yeah, look, we've been waiting for this for a while and I've been doing stories on various old reports that have been leaking out, you know, indicating levels of contamination there. And finally, Dow and their remediation partner, Tonkin+Taylor, have released this PSI report, as they're calling it. And, look, they're kind of manning up. It says that there is still the potential for contamination to exist at that plant which could be harmful to human life and the environment. Now, the PSI was a desktop exercise. They didn't do any testing. And for people who don't know what went on at Ivon-Watkins Dow … they made two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. They were components of Agent Orange that people might be familiar [with] from the Vietnam War... They made these from 1962 through to 1987… Dioxins were a component of those herbicides and they've been linked to birth defects and cancers. So, here we are. You know, they found that there was potential for these contaminants to still be in the soil and in the groundwater at Paritūtū, and this PSI will form the basis of a more detailed site investigation which will involve new testing, which will then throw forward to a remediation process. And Dow's has been vocal in its commitment to doing that. And they bought back the site so they could do this.

Gower:                     Yeah, it’s pretty worrying stuff. So, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, like you say, they were sort of similar to what was in Agent Orange and they were being made there, it’s in New Plymouth this site, from 1962 to 1987. And I have to say this, Robin, I can remember when I was born in the year 1977 at Taranaki Base Hospital, my mum did tell me later on in life that there were wee babies being born around that time with birth defects that lived in this era and that she was always worried. I grew up near there as well. And in fact, you wouldn't believe this, I actually dug a hole, I was involved in digging a hole at the plant when I was a university student as well, so this is very real.

…

Martin:                      I grew up in the neighbourhood. I get a free medical a year for the exposure… The Ministry of Health acknowledges that aerial disbursement from that plant had a negative effect on people's health in the area or was a risk. And yes, I've seen pictures...the birth defects were real. Yeah, pretty horrendous stuff. And people here are still concerned about it. So, I went to the Mayor after this PSI came out. He still believes that there are contaminants there at high levels. He's quite concerned about it. Iwi too, like Te Atiawa and Taranaki iwi, it's kind of crossover territory there. I spoke to Jacqui King, the chair of the Post Settlement Entity from Taranaki Iwi… [she] was pretty matter of fact: ‘You know, the PSI, we waited a year for this, and what it tells us is basically what we already knew’. And she said, ‘the whānau know, and people have long held concerns about what was going on there and what was happening to the whenua and to whānau’. So, the Mayor and iwi are putting a little bit of heat on Dow to hurry up with the process.

I also spoke to Andrew Gibbs [the complainant] who has been a long-time campaigner on this topic and researcher. He's written university papers on it now, despite the fact he's a wharfie by trade. He's just a little bit concerned that we're moving away from the exposures of the 60s, which he would say have never been fully acknowledged. And whatever they find, when they get around to releasing what they've actually found, it will be much reduced. He wants an acknowledgment of the direct exposure to people because this stuff was kind of flowing out into a neighbouring park, you know, Centennial Park, and down right into the [Tapuae] Marine Reserve.

Gower:                     Yeah yeah, the Marine Reserve right there. Okay. Well, we'll watch this with interest. And like you say, it's been going on for 35 years or so. It's about time that we got somewhere near the end of this and somewhere near the truth.

The complaint

[9]  Andrew Gibbs complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Key issues are summarised below under the standards we consider most relevant to each point:    

Balance

‘Manning up’ comment

• Dow were described as ‘manning up’ with release of the PSI report. This suggested they were appropriately accepting responsibility when the PSI report does not capture all areas of concern and Dow have not addressed other issues alleged to arise from activities at Paritūtū (eg harms caused off-site to residents, workers and the marine environment; dioxin releases causing health issues like anencephaly; chemical damage caused to local sewers; harm caused by activity in the early 1960s).  
• ‘Dow’s PR greenwash – is not manning up – it simply accentuates positive and likely reduced current contaminant levels and eliminates negative earlier higher levels of contaminants – reshaping Dow’s PR image by sidestepping historic contamination and environmental impacts…’

‘Free medical check’

• The reporter described getting a free medical each year as a result of the exposure. However, the reporter’s free medical checks were ‘from the 2008 health plan some four decades after peak dioxin exposures’ which ‘replaced and circumvented the ESR 2005 recommended, and Ethics approval cited health study of those exposed, so avoided gathering data on those exposed and their offspring’.

Ministry of Health

• The Ministry of Health is described as having acknowledged the plant had ‘a negative effect on people’s health’ in the area or ‘was a risk’. However, referring to the Ministry of Health's 2012 dioxin fact sheet⁶ (which suggests there may be a ‘very small risk’ but there is ‘no scientific evidence’ of increased disease rates attributable to dioxin), the complainant considers the Ministry of Health has not recognised the consequences to all ‘significantly exposed residents’.

Mayor

• The Mayor is reported as saying ‘he still believes there are contaminants at high levels’ and as being ‘quite concerned about it’. However, there is no mention of:
  • confidentiality agreements between the New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) and Dow
  • the illegal ‘NPDC liquid discharges’ at Paritūtū or ‘destruction of [NPDC] sewers by agrichemical wastes’
  • actions to assist historically exposed drainage/sewer workers
  • the ongoing ‘NPDC refusal to acknowledge the risk to those historically exposed in Centennial Park and decline in Taranaki Maui’s dolphins’.

Accuracy

• Misleading the audience: The issues identified under balance are relevant under accuracy as well, contributing to the broadcast being misleading.
• Misreporting of dates/timeframes: Despite the serious subject matter, the broadcast ‘casually misreported dates and timeframes of key events for the Paritūtū plant’ including stating:
  • 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D were made at the plant from 1962 – This supports a flawed narrative used by some to dismiss claims and evidence for events before 1962. However, the site was opened in November 1960 and conducted harmful activities prior to being ‘correctly registered as a chemical works’ facility in 1962.
  • The issues had been ‘going on for 35 years or so’ – However, they had been going on for 60 years or so. This ‘marginalises the 1960s complaints over evidenced airborne and liquid wastes issues’.
• ‘University papers’: The complainant was described as having ‘written university papers on’ the issues. The paper was not a ‘university paper’. Noting his previously ‘contested status as a community researcher’⁷ he indicated the paper was co-authored with a Victoria University Criminologist and published in the journal Crime, Law and Social Change.
• Misrepresentation of complainant’s position: The complainant was described as ‘just a little bit concerned we are moving away from the exposures of the 60s which he would say have never been fully acknowledged’ and as wanting ‘an acknowledgement of the direct exposures to people’. This seriously understates:
  • ‘evidence of official dishonesty and media silencing RNZ is gatekeeping or suppressing’
  • what the complainant wants (which is ‘an end to flawed and dishonest denials’ by the Ministry of Health, NPDC, and Taranaki Regional Council of the 1960s and early 1970s ‘Paritūtū outfalls’ and marine life damage’).

Role of media

• The complainant emphasised the important role of media in scrutinising those in power and exposing wrongdoing. He argued RNZ should do more to expose alleged dishonesty of officials in connection with the Paritūtū plant, including:
  • ‘repeated destruction of health files on investigations of key events’
  • ‘confidentiality clauses with multiple agencies’
  • ‘“weaponising” of the BSA complaints process to dismiss evident data misrepresentations’
  • falsifications in reporting ‘used to dismiss links between peak dioxin exposures and subsequent reproductive impacts’.
• The ‘long marginalised’ Paritūtū community, who have been ‘subjected to repeated dismissive dishonest official narratives’, deserved accurate and balanced reporting.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• In a brief digest of regional news stories from a particular area, there is no requirement for every known fact about a story to be included. ‘Listeners will be aware of RNZ’s ongoing and longstanding coverage of the facts in the case and that of other media’s coverage.’
• The reporter’s description of Dow’s decision to enlist Tonkin+Taylor as a remediation partner as ‘manning up’ was his opinion. 
• To ‘man up’ means to take responsibility and Dow has previously been criticised for taking limited, incremental responsibility for pollution and harm at the site.
• Although Dow operated at the site from 1960, it is not incorrect to state that 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D were made at the site between 1962 and 1987. ‘The two things are not mutually exclusive, and it is not misleading to say the poisons were made there during the period described.’
• The reporter said Mr Gibbs wrote ‘university papers’ on this topic, which is broadly true. There is no requirement to fully reference academic citations in a verbal news summary and the statement is in no way misleading.
• Claims that RNZ is supressing crucial facts about contamination at the Dow site are ‘unsubstantiated’. 

The standards

[11]  The balance standard⁸ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁹ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁰

[12]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹¹ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹² 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 analysis

[13]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[14]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.¹³

Balance

[15]  An issue of public importance is something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public.¹⁴ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁵

[16]  The balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic.¹⁶

[17]  The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where it is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way it is presented that it is:¹⁷

• not claiming, or intended, to be a balanced examination of an issue
• signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective
• narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger complex debate.

Did the standard apply?

[18]  We consider the issue of the long-standing environmental and health issues associated with the former Dow chemical plant and issues surrounding remediation of the affected site, discussed in the broadcast, to be a controversial issue of public importance.

[19]  Therefore, the balance standard applies.

Were reasonable efforts made to present significant perspectives?

[20]  We recognise the considerable research undertaken by the complainant into issues associated with the Paritūtū site. The complainant supplied detailed material to support the concerns outlined in his complaint. Ultimately, however, it is not our role to offer comment on the nature of the issues caused by the site, the sufficiency of actions taken to address those issues, or the motivations of any party involved. Our role is limited to assessing this Around the Motu programme’s compliance with the relevant standards.

[21]  The question of whether the range of perspectives presented was reasonable will always be fact and context dependent, reflecting the wider broadcasting environment within which audiences view content.¹⁸

[22]  In this case, we consider a programme of this nature would not be expected to include the level of additional detail the complainant is arguing for. We found the broadcaster presented a reasonable range of perspectives, taking into account:

• Around the Motu did not purport to be a balanced examination of the wider issues around the effects of contamination at the Dow site, but rather a brief summary of the findings of the recently released PSI report, what Dow’s plans were for the site, and the local reaction.
• The programme clearly signalled in its introduction that it was a roundup of several local issues from the perspective of the local reporter.
• The relevant discussion represented one aspect of a larger, complex debate surrounding contamination and harm caused by activities at the Paritūtū site and its aftermath.
• In addition to the reporter’s perspective, the programme conveyed views from the Ministry of Health (now Te Whatu Ora), the mayor, and Taranaki Iwi. It also included the complainant’s perspectives. While recognising the complainant considers the gravity of his concerns and his views on what needs to happen next were not accurately portrayed, the programme did convey his views that issues associated with exposures in the 60s had not been fully acknowledged and his concerns about exposures outside the site itself. For example, the host commented, ‘this stuff was kind of flowing out into a neighbouring park…and down right into the Marine Reserve’.
• As noted in the programme, the PSI report will form the basis of a more detailed site investigation towards a remediation process. The period of current interest for issues at Paritūtū is therefore ongoing.
• We also note RNZ ran on its website two stories in the months leading up to the report’s release on 5 June and 31 July 2024, and two  stories about the PSI at the same time as this segment aired, on 10 and 12 August 2024.¹⁹ The stories contain links to the investigation summary and to the website for the remedial partners, Tonkin+Taylor. and to a series of stories about the issue dating back to 2020.²⁰

[23]  In addition, there has been substantial media coverage of the issues with the Dow site for over 20 years. The stories range across print, radio, and television and provide detailed coverage of the issues associated with the Dow site, including the significant and ongoing health issues and environmental impacts which are yet to be satisfactorily resolved.²¹

[24]  For the reasons above, we are satisfied the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints. While, as the complainant suggests, there may be value in further exploration of issues associated with Paritūtū, this programme was not the place for it. We do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[25]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[26]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect listeners’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.²²

[27]  The harm that the complainant is concerned about is that the segment offered misleading information in connection with a significant public and environmental health issue that continues to be potentially dangerous to current and former Taranaki residents.

[28]  Issues raised in relation to this standard concern the:

• misleading depiction of parties/issues by suggesting Dow was ‘manning up’ and by including comment from others involved with Paritūtū issues (eg the Ministry of Health, the NPDC, and Taranaki Regional Council) without further details of issues to which those parties allegedly contributed
• misreporting of dates/timeframes
• incorrect description of the complainant’s papers as ‘University papers’
• misrepresentation of complainant’s position.

Each is addressed below.

Misleading depiction of parties/issues

[29]  To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts.²³

[30]  For similar reasons to those outlined under balance, we do not consider the programme misleading in relation to any of the entities discussed. The focus of the item was to raise awareness of the PSI report, discuss pending remediation and reflect the reactions of key members of the community and organisations. Issues at Paritūtū have been long-running and listeners would not expect all the multiple issues to which it gave rise to be addressed in this segment.

[31]  With regard to the comment about Dow ‘manning up’, while the accuracy standard does not apply to analysis, comment or opinion, we also note the reporter’s precise words were ‘they're kind of manning up’ rather than ‘they’re manning up’. In addition, given the comment is directed at the PSI report, we consider listeners are unlikely to interpret it as a general endorsement of Dow’s remediation approach and activity.

Misreporting of dates/timeframes

[32]  The concerns regarding dates and timeframes are focused on the inaccuracies’ potential contribution to a narrative that there was no harm caused by activity at the plant prior to those dates.  The complainant documented concerns relating to challenges with having harm caused before 1962 recognised as connected to activity at the plant.

[33]  We consider any inaccuracies of this nature constitute technical or immaterial points in the context of this programme. They were unlikely to significantly affect listeners’ understanding of the PSI report, pending remediation at the site, the community’s reaction to it or the brief discussion of issues and risks associated with the site.

‘University papers’ 

[34]  We understand the value to the complainant of describing the jointly authored paper correctly (given the prior challenge to his status which he referred to). However, in the context of this programme, which was not focused on the complainant, we also consider this a technical or immaterial point unlikely to significantly affect listeners’ understanding of the programme as a whole.

Misrepresentation of complainant’s position

[35]  This aspect of the complaint centres on the complainant being described as ‘just a little bit concerned’ and on the omission to outline further actions the complainant considered appropriate. We do not agree this would have materially misled listeners regarding the gravity of the complainant’s concerns, noting he was also described as a ‘long-time campaigner on this topic’. Listeners are also likely to understand there may be more to the complainant’s views than could be conveyed in a programme of this nature.

[36]  Having found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading, we do not uphold the complaint. It is therefore not necessary to determine whether or not the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme.²⁴

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
18 December 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Andrew Gibbs formal complaint – 9 September 2024

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 17 September 2024

3  Gibb’s referral to the Authority – 7 October 2024

4  Gibbs to Authority with supplementary materials – 14 October 2024

5  Gibbs confirming relevant standards – 18 October 2024

¹ Taranaki Regional Council “Dow Paritūtū site” <trc.govt.nz>
² As above
³ Taranaki Regional Council (February 2023) “Dow Paritūtū Site: Executive Summary” <trc.govt.nz>
⁴ Taranaki Regional Council (July 2024) “Dow Paritūtū: Preliminary Site Investigation” <trc.govt.nz>
⁵ As above
⁶ Te Whatu Ora “Dioxins: A Technical Guide” (2023) at page 41
⁷ Rae and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-133
⁸ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
¹² Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁴ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
¹⁵ As above
¹⁶ Guideline 5.2 and see Armstrong and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-027 
¹⁷ Guideline 5.4
¹⁸ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
¹⁹ Robin Martin “Questions hang over investigation into controversial New Plymouth chemical plant” RNZ (online ed, 5 June 2024); Robin Martin “‘Lost’ report sheds light on contamination at controversial New Plymouth chemical plant” RNZ (online ed, 31 July 2024); Robin Martin “New Plymouth former chemical plant finds potential for contamination” RNZ (online ed, 10 August 2024); Robin Martin “Mayor, iwi, call for remediation of New Plymouth chemical plant to speed up” RNZ (online ed, 12 August 2024)
²⁰ Robin Martin “Plans to close controversial Taranaki chemical plant” RNZ (online ed, 28 July 2020); Robin Martin “Expert warns New Plymouth chemical plant needs testing for dioxins” RNZ (online ed, 20 August 2020)
²¹ Greenpeace New Zealand “Dows Claims ‘Plain Wrong’” Scoop (online ed, 10 September 2004); Sunday “Toxic Legacy” Youtube (18 September 2022) Robin Martin “Agent Orange exposure: Paritūtū chemical plant site neighbour and ex-employee unimpressed by Dow survey” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 22 June 2023); Glenn McLean "Dow provides update on remediation work at New Plymouth's Paritūtū site" Stuff (online ed, 6 October 2023); Robin Martin “Public input influences testing at controversial chemicals plant” RNZ (online ed, 11 October 2023)
²² Guideline 6.2
²³ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
²⁴ Van der Merwe and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-015 at [21]