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 about a Te Ao Māori News report on a protest against Te Uru Taumatua (the Tūhoe governing authority). It found the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply as the broadcast was about individuals or an organisation rather than a recognised section of society as contemplated by the standard. It also found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the programme, the alleged inaccuracies were either not inaccurate or not materially misleading and Te Uru Taumatua and Terehia Biddle were treated fairly in the broadcast.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  On 10 May 2021 Te Ao Māori News reported on protests by Te Kaunihera Kaumātua o Tūhoe (the Tūhoe Council of Elders) against Te Uru Taumatua (the Tūhoe governing authority). A transcription of key parts of the broadcast, independently translated into English, follows:

Peata Melbourne        A protest was held today showing disagreement with the Tūhoe tribal organisation of Te Uru Taumatua. The Tūhoe Council of Elders claims that the organisation and its Chair are not meeting the expectations of the iwi. This is the second protest by the elders in the last two weeks. Here is Māhina Hurkmans’ report.

Mahina Hurkmans      The Tūhoe Council of Elders have returned to protest about Te Uru Taumatua again.

Interviewee 1              The symbolism of the chair, signifies the coming of the Council of Seventy. My relation and I went in search of chairs and were lucky enough to gather and collect chairs from Ngāti Awa from Ruātoki and from Tānetua. Upon waking in the morning to grab the chairs, they had disappeared. I couldn’t help but laugh about the chairs. That in itself was a sign.

Ms Hurkmans             This follows the first protest last month.

Interviewee 1              This here is Te Uru Taumatua. So the chairs have arrived here, the purpose being, to symbolise the chairs of the Council of Seventy, arriving here to converse with the house. They did not come here to converse with people. The reason for speaking to the house, is because we built this house, we as Tūhoe built this house, and that is why we have returned here to converse with the house.

Ms Hurkmans             According to the supporters of Te Uru Taumatua, if they wish to hear from the voices of the protesters, then they should return to their hapū and talk there, and from there convey the message to their Tribal Committee, which is Te Komiti O Runga.

Interviewee 2              That is exactly what they want us to do because when you arrive there, I’m referring to the Ruatoki Tribal Committee. When you arrive there at the Ruatoki Tribal Committee, most of the people on that committee are employees from here. And the wishes of the whānau and the hapū are supressed there. The term for that is Conflicts of Interests.

[2]  The report continued with an interview between Ms Hurkmans and Terehia Biddle, spokesperson for Te Uru Taumatua, as follows:

Ms Hurkmans             …Beside me is the speaker for Te Uru Taumatua for today. Greetings ma’am. Can you tell me your name and position?

Ms Biddle                    Kia ora. I am Terehia Biddle, the spokesperson for the Ruatoki Tribal Committee.

Ms Hurkmans             What is Te Uru Taumatua’s response to the claims being made by the Tūhoe Council of Elders?

Ms Biddle                    Here is the response of the Tribal Committee. Those people are not elected spokespeople of their hapū under the governance structure of their Tribal Committee of Ruatoki.

Ms Hurkmans             It has been left to you to voice this issue. Where is the Chair, Tāmati Kruger, where is the CEO, Kirsty Luke?

Ms Biddle                    Those two are employees of the Tūhoe iwi’s Tribal Committees. Here we are, the spokespeople talking to you now. We give directives. We have that power to make decisions for our iwi.

Ms Hurkmans             The Māori Land Court made a ruling stating that the election of Tāmati Kruger and Patrick McGarvey to Te Uru Taumatua Board were invalid, and that the voters who voted in that election didn’t do so in a valid way, and that affects Te Uru Taumatua.

Ms Biddle                    The main crux of this, of their assertions concerns the government fund known as the PGF [Provincial Growth Fund]. That is the cause of this situation. Thank you all.

Ms Hurkmans             Te Uru Taumatua has been managing the iwi’s matters for the past eight years, and in your opinion, should its dealings be audited using business procedures, as a way of alleviating the claims that Te Uru Taumatua is not meeting its expectations?

Ms Biddle                    The Tribal Committee concludes its responses here, thank you.

The complaint

[3]  Ngahina Matekohi and Maria Rolleston complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance and fairness standards for the following key reasons:

Discrimination and denigration

• The broadcast represented ‘a portion of a tribal group unfairly blaming individuals for the tension amongst the tribe as a whole’.
• The broadcast denigrates Tūhoe leadership, its cultural integrity, its cultural values and views to a public ill equipped to judge fairly and honourably the intent of Tūhoe.
• The reporter continued to ask Ms Biddle why she was ‘fronting the media’ when aware she was selected by the appropriate Tribal delegates.

Balance

• The report presents ‘statements of controversy or disagreements’ without ‘factual evidence’ or a ‘fair voice [being] given to the other view’.
• ‘The reporter asks the interviewee a question regarding the Tribal iwi office performance knowing full well that the iwi office have been accountable for its actions…’
• The issue in the broadcast is a tribal issue that has ‘no purpose in the public media’.

Accuracy

• The item referred to Ms Biddle as a ‘Te Uru Taumatua supporter’ when she was the chosen spokesperson for Te Uru Taumatua.
• The item portrays the protest group as:
  (a)  ‘representative of all sub-tribes’ when they are but a small minority
  (b)  ‘an old tribal movement’ when the Council group ‘were formed by incorporation in 2018’ and ‘are not a Tūhoe tribal grouping’.
• It suggests ‘the decisions and actions of the iwi office are at the lead of one person – this is not how Tūhoe tribal decision making nor structure works’.
• There was reference to the Māori Land Court ruling when that Court has no jurisdiction over the affairs and decisions made by the hapū and the iwi and the tribal representatives are not required to follow the legislative guidelines of the Māori Land Court, but rather act in accordance with the Tūhoe settlement deed at the direction of its hapū through its respective tribal authorities.
• For the media to state it attempted to get comments ‘to no avail’ was misleading because ‘there are ways in which we handle our own issues and the media is not in it’.
• Both the interviewees from the protest group have personal interests indicating bias in their point of view.
• The reporter and staff at Māori Television Service may also have personal connections with the protest group indicating bias.

Fairness

• The Te Uru Taumatua  spokesperson interviewed did not give informed consent to participate in an interview where ‘questions would not give a fair representation of all involved’ and ‘the story was already leading to one side of a whole story and did not give an accurate representation of all involved’.
• There was not a reasonable opportunity to comment on the basis ‘the opportunity to object was not even possible with a [one-sided story]’.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Māori Television Service did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Discrimination and Denigration

• The standard did not apply as the complaint was about an individual or an organisation, rather than a recognised section of the community.

Balance

• ‘[I]nter-tribal relations and disagreements within Ngāi Tūhoe’ are of public importance.’
• All sides of the story (the protesters and Te Uru Taumatua supporters and representatives) were given reasonable opportunity to represent their views.
• ‘The background was a decision of the Māori land Court which found the election of two trustees of Te Uru Taumatua was in breach of the Trust Deed [and] denied iwi members a fair and transparent election. The court said that this justified fresh elections in relation to the two appointments involved. Ongoing protests have essentially been about accountability and transparency of governance issues within leadership… Historical context can be highly complex. Our news role is to report on the events of the day as they are unfolding…’

Accuracy

• The broadcast did not lead viewers to assume the protesters were the voice of the people. It referred to them as ‘Te Kaunihera Kaumātua o Tūhoe and members of the iwi’.
• The broadcast did not suggest the iwi office acts on the lead of one person. The story refers to Te Uru Taumatua’s decision-making process by referencing that if protesters wanted to make a difference they needed to take their matters through the tribal executive.
• The broadcast did not suggest the protesters represent an old tribal movement and, even if it did, it is not a material point.
• The broadcast did not include the statement: ‘attempts being made to get a comments…to no avail.’
• With regard to the complainants’ allegations regarding bias on the part of the protesters and reporters, the broadcaster stated:
  (a)  ‘What the protesters/interviewees do in other aspects of their lives [is] considered irrelevant to the issues covered.’
  (b)  ‘It is wrong to presume that MTS employees’ connections to either side of the issue automatically leads to bias... MTS reporters and producers are responsible for upholding the highest standards of journalism, MTS editorial policies and the Broadcasting Standards.’

Fairness

• ‘All individuals interviewed and broadcast had provided informed consent.’
• Te Uru Taumatua were given an opportunity to comment. ‘It is difficult for the media to report on all angles…that Tūhoe have engaged in with the crown if Te Uru Taumatua has itself decided not to engage with the media on contentious issues.’

The standards

[5]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief. The standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.²

[6]  The balance standard³ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁵

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁶ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ It states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that any news, current affairs or factual programme is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead.

[8]  The fairness standard⁸ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁹ It ensures individuals and organisations are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[9]  In considering this complaint, we have viewed a recording of the broadcast, read an independent translation and the correspondence listed in the Appendix. The translation we have relied on in making our decision has been agreed by the parties to the complaint. 

[10]  We have also been assisted in our determination by the engagement of an independent cultural advisor¹⁰ to provide a Te Ao Māori perspective on the issues raised. We co-opted him under section 26(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and are grateful for the assistance he provided to us in this case.

Matters outside the Authority’s jurisdiction

[11]  We note that the complaint raises a number of issues which are not within our jurisdiction.  These include the following:

• Tūhoe internal issues are not ‘public issues’ for the media: The complainants note ‘[the protest group] have gone against Tribal customs in dealing with its own affairs and made [issues] public’. However, it is not within our role to direct, or intervene in, a broadcaster’s choice of items on which to report. That is a matter of editorial discretion rather than broadcasting standards.
• Reporter/Protestor Bias: The complainants have also raised concerns of personal interests, connections and bias on the part of both protestors featured in the broadcast and Māori Television Service’s personnel. However, our role is not to assess the independence of interviewees or broadcasters. It is limited to determining whether or not the particular broadcast has met broadcasting standards.  
• Māori Television Service’s Pattern of Reporting: The complainants identified 15 other Māori Television Service broadcasts which they considered intended to denigrate Tūhoe leadership, its cultural integrity, and its cultural values. However, our jurisdiction is limited to assessment of the broadcast which is the subject of the complaint.

[12]  Accordingly we do not consider these matters in our analysis below.

Freedom of expression

[13]  It is our starting point to consider the right to freedom of expression. This includes the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information, and the public’s right to receive that information. When determining complaints, we weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any potential harm caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.¹¹

[14]  This complaint raises complex issues concerning the appropriate balancing of these rights in circumstances where issues of high public interest arise (ie the performance of the Tūhoe leadership, a group responsible for oversight of significant settlement sums)¹² in a cultural context where, as indicated by the complainants, tribal customs are inconsistent with the sharing of disputes through media.

[15]  However, for the reasons set out below, we have not found harm at a level sufficient to justify regulatory intervention in this case.  

Discrimination and denigration

[16]  The discrimination and denigration standard applies only to recognised sections of the community. While the complainants referenced concerns relating to the denigration of the Tūhoe tribe’s cultural integrity and values, the content of the complaint is more focused upon denigration of the Tūhoe leadership, or the trustees of Te Uru Taumatua (ie individuals and an organisation).

[17]  The standard does not apply to individuals or organisations, which are dealt with under the fairness standard.  In any event, a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, is generally necessary for a finding of discrimination and denigration and the broadcast contained no content meeting this threshold.¹³

[18]  We accordingly do not uphold the complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard.

Balance

[19]  For the standard to apply, the subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’ and it must be ‘discussed’ in a news, current affairs or factual programme.¹⁴ We first consider whether or not the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance.

Was a controversial issue of public importance discussed?

[20]  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. A controversial issue will be one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁵

[21]  We consider the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the standard, specifically, concerns regarding the performance of Tūhoe leadership. This is an issue affecting members of the public, particularly the Tūhoe community. It is also an issue that will excite conflicting public opinion:

• There are approximately 9,300 registered members of the Tūhoe tribe.¹⁶
• The Crown settlement with Tūhoe is a significant one, and the administration and leadership of the trust is therefore an issue of public interest.
• Issues within Tūhoe leadership have been ongoing and this is not the first protest covered in the media.¹⁷

Balance within the item

[22]  The following factors are important in our consideration of whether a reasonable range of perspectives were presented:¹⁸

• The item was a news report focused on the ongoing protest.
• The item included interviews with two protesters, and a spokesperson representing Te Uru Taumatua (Ms Biddle).
• The spokesperson was asked questions, giving her the opportunity to respond and offer Te Uru Taumatua’s perspectives on:
  (a)  the claims being made by the Tūhoe Council of Elders
  (b)  the recent Māori Land court ruling and its impact on Te Uru Taumatua
  (c)   whether Te Uru Taumatua’s dealings should be audited as a way of alleviating the claims Te Uru Taumatua is not meeting its expectations.
• Ms Biddle was able to present her perspectives that:
  (a)  the protestors were ‘not elected spokespeople of their hapū’ (which provided viewers some idea regarding Te Uru Taumatua’s view on the merits of their arguments and protest)
  (b)  the ‘main crux of…their assertions concerns the fund known as the PGF’.

[23] Ms Biddle did not respond to the final question suggesting an audit of Te Uru Taumatua’s dealings (a question which we accept may carry some implication of financial impropriety), nor did she offer Te Uru Taumatua’s perspective that the Māori Land Court had no jurisdiction to rule regarding the election. Accordingly, these perspectives were missing from the broadcast.

[24] With regard to the missing perspectives, we are conscious of the complainant’s submission that tribal issues should not be addressed ‘in the public media’. This is reflected in Te Uru Taumatua not providing comment in relation to some other media coverage of the protests¹⁹ and in a video released from a Te Uru Taumatua hui.²⁰ We are also conscious that it may have constrained what Ms Biddle felt able to share regarding Te Uru Taumatua’s perspective on the relevant issues when interviewed for the broadcast.   

[25]  However, in the circumstances, and in light of the factors in paragraph [22], we are satisfied:

• The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the programme.
• The omission of any further perspectives regarding the topics in paragraph [23] was not significant in the context and unlikely to have left viewers misinformed.²¹
• Viewers were likely to have understood there were different perspectives on the issues raised.

Balancing perspectives in other media

[26]  Finally, we note that the assessment of whether a reasonable range of perspectives has been presented includes consideration of whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives²² and that the standard allows for balance to be achieved overtime ‘within the period of current interest’ for the relevant issue.²³ While tribal customs may limit the perspectives available in other media:

• There is other media coverage suggesting viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives.²⁴
• Te Uru Taumatua’s perspectives on the leadership concerns have been publicly shared through a series of videos²⁵ (including via the Ngai Tūhoe Facebook page).²⁶ A number of  articles have reported on these and/or drawn attention to them as a source of Te Uru Taumatua’s views.²⁷ 
• We consider the period of current interest for this issue to be ongoing (such that there remains opportunity for viewers to gain other perspectives on the matter).²⁸

[27]  For the above reasons, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[28]  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 that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.²⁹

[29]  The audience may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme, or by being misled by the programme. Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.

[30]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracy. For example, technical or unimportant points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole are not material.³⁰

[31]  Each of the alleged inaccuracies is addressed separately below:

Ms Biddle referred to as ‘supporter’ rather than ‘spokesperson’

[32]  Ms Biddle was referred to as ‘a supporter of Te Uru Taumatua’. However, at the reporter’s request, she clarified her role as spokesperson on introduction and again subsequently in responding to questions. Accordingly, the initial inaccuracy was not material and unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of her status (given the subsequent correction).³¹ We do not uphold the complaint in this respect.

Portrayal of the protest group

[33]  The protest group is referred to by its name, Te Kaunihera Kaumātua o Tūhoe (the Tūhoe Council of Elders). The broadcast does not expressly indicate who the Council represents or how/when it was constituted.

[34]  However, advice from our cultural advisor is:

• The broadcast may suggest to viewers that the protestors are the voice of the people or representatives of all hapū subtribes, in particular through the following words of a protestor interviewee:
  ‘This here is Te Uru Taumatua. So, the chairs have arrived here, the purpose being, to symbolise the chairs of the Council of Seventy, arriving here to converse with the house. They did not come here to converse with the people. The reason for speaking to the house, is because we built this house. Therefore all of the elders here they built this house, and that is why we have returned here to converse with the house.’
• The Council of Seventy, or the Council of Elders (kaumatua) is a historical collective, which before the turn of the 20th century led the Tūhoe protest against the Crown. They were historically the speaking voice of Tūhoe against the Crown intrusion. However, following the Crown’s settlement with Tūhoe, Tūhoe are now legally represented by Te Uru Taumatua. Te Kaunihera Kaumātua o Tūhoe is a recently constituted group. They appear to be attempting to revive the notion of the historic Council of Seventy but have no specific mandate to speak for the Tūhoe people.

[35]  In the circumstances, we acknowledge the broadcast may give viewers an incorrect impression of the protest group’s nature and standing and we have carefully considered this issue. However, the broadcast is focused on the concerns raised regarding Te Uru Taumatua’s leadership. In this context, we find the portrayal of the protestors is not material and do not uphold the complaint in this respect.

Portrayal of Te Uru Taumatua

[36]  A number of the inaccuracies raised concern the portrayal of Te Uru Taumatua, specifically:

• The iwi office’s decision making was misrepresented as being ‘at the lead of one person’ (noting there is a group of elected representatives).
• The recent Māori Land Court ruling on the Te Uru Taumatua Board elections was raised without clarifying Te Uru Taumatua’s position that that Court has no jurisdiction over the affairs and decisions made by the hapū, iwi and tribal representatives (noting such subjects do not concern issues about ‘land’).

[37]  With regard to the first, the broadcast as a whole was not inaccurate or misleading. Ms Biddle was given the opportunity to, and did, clarify the status of Te Uru Taumatua’s Chair and CEO and the way it operates.

[38]  With regard to the issue concerning the Māori Land Court ruling, we are conscious that Te Uru Taumatua chose not to participate in proceedings as it did not consider itself subject to the Court. This is noted in the Court’s decision³² (at paragraphs [34] – [37]). However, the Māori Land Court nevertheless determined it had jurisdiction and ruled (at paragraph [85]): ‘Given the irregularities and the non-compliance with the election process, pursuant to s237 I grant orders for fresh elections of the trustees Tāmati Kruger and Patrick McGarvey. The elections of these two trustees will need to be held afresh in accordance with the TUT trust deed and within the next six months’. The reporter was accordingly referring to a matter of fact in accessible language for the audience (and as a prompt for further comment by the interviewee, who ultimately chose not to raise the jurisdiction issue). In the circumstances we do not consider it materially misleading to omit reference to Te Uru Taumatua’s view of the Māori Land Court’s jurisdiction.

Statement that it attempted to get comments ‘to no avail’

[39]  The translation of the broadcast, agreed by both parties, does not include any comment regarding an attempt to get comments ‘to no avail’. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint on this point.

[40]  For the reasons above, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[41]  The fairness standard requires broadcasters to deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme. While the complaint does not specify the particular person or organisation referred to, we consider the complaint can be interpreted as raising fairness in connection with both Te Uru Taumatua and Ms Biddle. In addition, as Ms Biddle was representing Te Uru Taumatua, we consider their interests are aligned, and can be considered together.

[42]  Considerations of what is fair depends on the nature of the programme and context, including the public interest in the broadcast.³³ The factors raised under balance (at paragraph [22]) are relevant here as well.

[43]  The complainants’ key concerns under this standard related to there not being:

• informed consent to participate in an interview of that nature (ie a one-sided interview presenting an inaccurate representation)
• a reasonable opportunity to object given the ‘one-sided’ story.

[44]  However, Te Uru Taumatua were aware of the protest, and the broadcaster’s intention to cover the protest. They were approached and agreed to be interviewed on the topic.³⁴ Broadcasters are not required to disclose every question to be posed to an interviewee. Te Uru Taumatua is accountable for managing significant Treaty settlement funds and therefore should expect scrutiny of this nature.

[45]  During the interview, Ms Biddle was given reasonable opportunity to comment and respond to the questions raised. The platform was accordingly available to Te Uru Taumatua to express their perspectives and views.

[46]  Under this standard, we have carefully considered the implications of the final question (concerning whether Te Uru Taumatua’s dealings should be audited). As noted at paragraph [23], this question may have carried some suggestion of financial impropriety. It was also asked after Ms Biddle had signalled the interview was over. Our cultural advisor has advised it would have been more consistent with tikanga Māori to have accepted the interview was over and not asked the question.

[47]  However, on balance, we find Te Uru Taumatua and Ms Biddle were treated fairly in the broadcast. The broadcast addressed a matter of high public importance, such that any harm caused must be of a similar magnitude to justify limitation of broadcaster’s freedom of expression. We do not consider any potential implications of the final question led to harm at such a level. Fundamentally, it was a question rather than an allegation and one which, for the reasons above, could have been anticipated in such an interview.

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

Susie Staley
Acting Chair
27 October 2021    

Appendix

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

1  Matekohi and Rolleston’s original complaint to Māori Television Service – 21 May 2021

2  Māori Television Service’s response to the complaint – 22 June 2021

3  The complainants’ referral to the Authority – 22 June 2021

4  MTS’s confirmation of no further response – 29 June 2021

5  Complainants’ comments on translation – 29 July 2021

6  MTS’s feedback on complainants’ further comments – 6 August 2021

7  MTS with further information – 12 August 2021

8  Independent transcription and translation of the broadcast from the Department of Internal Affairs

¹ Standard 6 of the Free-to-air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
³ Standard 8 of the Free-to-air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁵ As above
⁶ Standard 9 of the Free-to-air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁷ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁸ Standard 11 of the Free-to-air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁹ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
¹⁰ Waihoroi Hoterene (Ngāti Hine) was a former senior Māori journalist and editor of Te Karere with the original team of Te Karere and spent some time in both print and radio broadcasting. Mr Hoterene is a past Commissioner on the Māori Language Commission and one of the co-chairs of Te Matawai, the Māori Language Board.
¹¹ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
¹² The total cost to the Crown of the settlement redress outlined in the Tūhoe Deed of Settlement was approximately $170 million (Te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa, New Zealand Government "Ngāi Tūhoe Deed of Settlement Summary" <www.govt.nz>)
¹³ Guideline 6b
¹⁴ Guideline 8a
¹⁵ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹⁶ New Zealand Government (17 November 2020) “Ngāi Tūhoe Deed of Settlement Summary” <www.govt.nz>
¹⁷ See for example: “Tūhoe protestors call for iwi leader to resign over claims of ‘bully tactics’ against hapū” 1 News (online ed, 25 April 2021); Charlotte Jones “Tūhoe protest against their own” RNZ (online ed, 27 April 2021); “Tūhoe hapū continue to ask for tribal leadership resignation” Stuff (online ed, 12 May 2021)
¹⁸ Guideline 8c
¹⁹ "Tūhoe protestors call for iwi leader to resign over claims of 'bully tactics' against hapu" 1 News (online ed, 25 April 2021); Charlotte Jones “Tūhoe protest against their own” RNZ (online ed, 27 April 2021), Charlotte Jones "No end in sight for Tūhoe protests as tempers fray at standoff" RNZ (online ed, 6 July 2021); Charlotte Jones "Tūhoe hapū continue to ask for tribal leadership resignation" Stuff (online ed, 12 May 2021)
²⁰ YouTube “Tūhoe - Hui Kanohi ki te Kanohi” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ys9qV4J9FY>
²¹ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
²² Guideline 8c
²³ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
²⁴ See articles in footnotes 16 and 18 as well as Charlotte Jones "Tuhoe protest against their own" NZ Herald (online ed, 28 April 2021)
²⁵ See for example: YouTube “Rūatoki Tribal Response to protests and misinformation on PGF funding” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33R-SwDunWE>; YouTube “Tūhoe - Hui Kanohi ki te Kanohi” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ys9qV4J9FY>; YouTube “Tūhoe - Rūātoki Pākeke Speak” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Zut-bLmyg>
²⁶ Facebook “Ngai Tūhoe Facebook page” <https://www.facebook.com/pg/TuhoeIwi/posts/>
²⁷ See, for example, Charlotte Jones "Tūhoe hapū continue to ask for tribal leadership resignation" Stuff (online ed, 12 May 2021); Charlotte Jones "Tūhoe leadership tussle: Activist Tame Iti shoved as tempers fray at protest" NZ Herald (online ed, 6 July 2021); Charlotte Jones "No end in sight for Tūhoe protests as tempers fray at standoff" RNZ (online ed, 6 July 2021)
²⁸ An example of ongoing coverage is: Charlotte Jones "Tūhoe leadership tussle: Activist Tame Iti shoved as tempers fray at protest" NZ Herald (online ed, 6 July 2021)
²⁹ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
³⁰ Guideline 9b
³¹ As above
³² Nikora v Trustees of Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua Trust 2021-252-Waiariki-MB-157-179-252-WAR-157-179
³³ Guideline 11a
³⁴ Correspondence between the reporter and Te Uru Taumatua was provided by the broadcaster