Aaron McCallion against the Waikato Times
Case Number: 3860
Council Meeting: 20 April 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Waikato Times
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. This is a complaint about an article recording the adverse views of neighbours and comments by Kāinga Ora about alleged squatter occupants in a Patāruru house owned by Kāinga Ora, who were living in the property following the death of the tenant. The complaint is upheld because no attempt had been made to get comment from the criticised occupants.
The Article
2. The article in question was published by the Waikato Times on 12 March 2026 under the heading Squatters take over Putāruru state home after tenant’s death.
3. Under the headline, there is a photo of the house in question, showing a suburban property with the corner of a neighbouring property and bush and farmland on the other side of a sealed road.
4. The theme of the article is that after the death of a long-term tenant, neighbours complained that there had been an eight-day tangihanga and a continued occupation without the permission of the owner of the house and landlord Kāinga Ora. It was reported that in the months before the tenant’s death, his daughter and her partner and their daughter had moved in and then had stayed on after the death.
5. The neighbours had expressed their concerns to the Waikato Times. The neighbours referred to the previous tenant, who had died, being a man who was “pleasant, and no trouble at all”. He looked after the house and property, although there was reference to a shipping container converted “cabin” being dumped on the property, and the property being frequented by gang members before his death.
6. The crux of the article was about the adverse consequences of the continued occupation by persons after the tenant’s death, and how the occupants have “effectively claimed the house as their own”. The neighbours were critical of Kāinga Ora for allowing this to happen and “not doing their job”. The neighbours said that there had been eight days of partying and damage to the property. There were references to unlawful behaviour by the “squatters”. There were references to a young woman, believed to be the daughter of the deceased.
7. Kāinga Ora had been approached by the author, and some of its responses were quoted as saying that the occupants were “not allowed to be there”. They would talk with anyone else living there when the tenant dies, “to give them time to either apply with the Ministry of Social Development to be assessed to take over the tenancy, or to move out”. They would “need to vacate the property within the next three weeks”.
The Complaint
8. The complainant is the deceased’s brother and the uncle of the “young woman” referred to and lodged a detailed complaint. He said that the article “presents a misleading and sensationalised portrayal of a grieving family” and breaches several Media Council principles.
9. The family was not squatting after the death of the tenant. The tangihanga for his brother had been a normal whānau gathering, and it was misleading to phrase it as an “eight-day tangi” which sensationalised and did not describe what actually occurred. “In reality, the daughter of the deceased has been working with Kāinga Ora while matters relating to the estate are being addressed. Presenting the situation as ‘squatting’ without providing this context creates a misleading impression for readers.”
10. It was emphasised that the story heavily relied on anonymous neighbours’ commentary:
“Importantly, the journalist did not approach the family for comment prior to publication. The individuals most directly affected by the story were therefore not given an opportunity to provide context or correct inaccuracies before the article was published.”
11. The complaint goes on to dispute the allegations of vicious dogs and gang presence, and states that the whānau involved were not gang affiliated. The allegations were highly misleading and unfairly damaged the reputation of the family during a time of grief.
12. It is said that tangihanga “commonly involve extended whānau gathering over several days as people come to pay respects and support the immediate family. Reporting on these gatherings without acknowledging their cultural context risked “misrepresenting normal practices within Māori communities”.
13. Various remedies were sought including “publishing a correction acknowledging that the daughter of the deceased has been working with Kāinga Ora regarding the property while matters relating to the estate are being addressed”.
14. The complaint then refers to the nature of tangihanga, and how it was reported in the article without sensitivity and without acknowledging the cultural context.
The Response
15. In response, the Waikato Times stands by its reporting. It observes that the article is not about the personal circumstances of the deceased and did not identify or intrude on his privacy or that of family members. None of them were named in the report. It was based on firsthand accounts of neighbours, and clear and unambiguous statements from Kāinga Ora. The headline “squatters take over house” accurately reflected the story, and was confirmed by Kāinga Ora, who stated that the occupants were living at the property without permission, and had been given a timeframe to vacate. The story had been confirmed by a government agency, and that meant comment did not need to be sought from the occupants of the home.
16. It said,
“If the Media Council were to rule that comment should have been sought from the occupants of the home, after Kāinga Ora’s definitive statement on the matter, it would represent a significant and unclear shift in expectations for reporting with real consequences for newsrooms. It would raise the question of which other groups acting without legal authority should be given the chance to dispute it in our reporting as a matter of course - those in breach of resource consent?, a trespasser in someone’s home or business without permission?”
17. It was also said that an opportunity to comment was effectively offered after the publication. A caller identifying herself as “a sister of the woman trying to get a lease” had contacted the newsroom after publication. There was a 15-minute conversation with the reporter, consisting “largely of abuse and a threat that ‘people’ would be coming to the newsroom in order to have our reporting forcibly removed or changed.” It is said that in the course of this call, the caller was offered an opportunity to provide her version of events, which she declined.
18. It is said that this is the reality of newsrooms covering such stories deal with. It is not coherent, well-thought or enlightening commentary, but “contradictory, self-interested, unreliable, and circular claims liberally peppered with abuse and threats”. A pre-publication approach to the property was unlikely to have yielded reliable or safe engagement for staff, and Kāinga Ora’s position was clear. The story was not about tikanga or the formal structure of tangihanga, but about the nature and duration of activities at the property as experienced by those living nearby. If the story had involved a large Irish Catholic funeral and gathering with similar activities, the reporting would have been the same. It was stated that the complainant effectively asked the Media Council to require journalists to question or discount clear statements from a government agency about the status of its own property.
19. In conclusion, the Waikato Times maintains that the article was accurate, fair, and balanced.
Final Comment
20. In the final comment, the complainant says that the daughter of the deceased tenant had been living in the property prior to his death and had grown up there. She was not a squatter, which could be seen as an unrelated person unlawfully occupying a property. That was not an accurate description of the actual position. There was no “take over” of the property, and the contention that the comments of Kāinga Ora provided balance was wrong, because reasonable efforts should have been made to seek comments from those affected by the article. If the family had been approached, it is likely that the fact that there was a different perspective of the facts available. The reference to the “eight-day tangihanga” was not right, as the tangihanga had only lasted three days.
The Discussion
21. The Media Council does not have sufficient factual information to rule on the allegations of inaccuracy. Clearly, on the death of the tenant, there had been continued occupation. Kāinga Ora confirmed that the occupation was not authorised, and the report about the behaviour of the occupants came directly from neighbours.
22. This is what Kāinga Ora was quoted as saying:
“When the sole tenant passes away, we talk with anyone else living there and give them time to either apply with the Ministry of Social
Development to be assessed to take over the tenancy, or to move out.
We are aware of concerns about people currently living at the home without permission, and they have been told they need to vacate the
property within the next three weeks.”
23. Clearly, a delicate situation arises when a long-term tenant dies, leaving others who have lived there with the tenant still in the house, a situation where allowances have to be made for tangihanga and the practical need to negotiate the removal of chattels and finding of alternative accommodation. The occupants had three weeks to leave. There is not enough information to rule on the issue of whether there were factual inaccuracies or whether there was cultural insensitivity shown in the article.
24. The more difficult issue for the Council is the allegation of a lack of balance, in particular, the complaint that a reporter should have sought comment from those occupying the house after the death of the tenant.
25. There are two questions:
(a) was it good practice for a publisher to seek balance, given the complaints by neighbours and comments by Kāinga Ora, and;
(b) if that was good practice, did that cease to be so because of a legitimate perception that seeking comment could result in a difficult experience, or worse?
Was balance required?
26. Plainly, anyone reading the article would form an adverse view of the occupants, who were said to have been engaged in unlawful behaviour with an overlay of alleged gang involvement. For instance, it was said in the article that “they were smoking bongs in the backyard in front of children and peeing all over the place. They were up to all hours after he died but now it’s got a bit out of hand.”
27. There was specifically the identifying of a particular person as one of the “squatters” by the statement, “According to locals, a young woman, believed to be the daughter of the former Freyberg Crescent tenant, her partner and their daughter, moved into the property in the months before the man died on February 22.” The implication is that they stayed on after the father’s death and were involved in the reported behaviour and squatting.
28. In our view, it was not enough to achieve balance by seeking comments from Kāinga Ora. The observations of Kāinga Ora were from the perspective of a landlord and obviously did not give the perspective of the occupants. There was an acknowledgement of the possibility of a new tenancy for the occupants.
29. This was not a case that could be equated to comments being sought from a trespasser or other persons who had broken into the house, to give balance to the owner’s perspective. Those who had stayed on were identified in the article as being relatives of the deceased, living there at the time he died, and the fact was that the tangihanga had been held at the house. They could well have a different perspective on how long they should be allowed to stay on, given the tenant’s death.
30. It is important to note that the article was published only 18 days after he died. His family if asked might well have explained that they had difficulties recovering from grief, sorting out the deceased’s belongings, and finding alternative accommodation.
31. It is not correct for the Waikato Times to compare that position to persons guilty of unlawful occupation. Kāinga Ora had not issued them with a trespass notice and had stated that the occupants had been told of a “need to vacate the property within the next three weeks.” This is likely to have put the occupants in the position of being in lawful and licenced occupation. They were not trespassers. At the time of the publication of the article, they had at least a week or so to go before the three weeks was up.
32. The Media Council, therefore in these particular circumstances, considers that comments should have been sought from the occupants.
Despite the need to seek balance, was not doing so justified in the circumstances?
33. The Waikato Times says that it would be unreasonable to expect a reporter in this context to have gone to the house or made other efforts to contact the occupants. We have noted that the abusive phone call described in the Waikato Times’ response has not been denied by the complainant. However, this abuse was after the article was published, and it was not the daughter or her partner who made the call. However, the general point of the Waikato Times is that it was not reasonable to expect comment from the occupants, which would have created an abusive and pointless situation.
34. It was not known that the persons occupying the house would be abusive at the time the article was written, and there was nothing save for the neighbours’ reference to gang members being present to indicate that a visit would have any element of danger. A reporter could have put to the occupants the allegations made and asked them for their side of the story. If there was abuse, at least the effort would have been made.
35. The Waikato Times effectively says that it is asking too much of reporters, given the testimony of the neighbours and the comments by Kāinga Ora, to expect them to go to the house and seek comments.
36. However, even if a direct visit was ruled out, there was nothing to indicate that Kāinga Ora was approached from the perspective of the Waikato Times wanting to contact the occupants. There were other options apart from a direct approach available. Accepting that there may have been privacy issues, Kāinga Ora might have been able to provide a conduit for communication with the occupants.
37. Alternatively, a note could have been left on the letterbox or nearby in a prominent place on the property advising of the intention to publish an article about the continued occupation and asking the occupants to contact the Waikato Times to give their side of the story. Efforts to obtain a phone number could have been made.
38. None of these would have been guaranteed to be successful, and if they were unsuccessful, then the Waikato Times could be excused for the lack of balance. However, there was no indication that any effort at all were made to contact the occupants. Plainly in the Waikato Times’ view and in its response, no balance was required.
Conclusion
39. The Media Council does not agree with the apparent position of the Waikato Times that no effort needed to be made in these circumstances to achieve balance by inviting comment from the occupants. The occupants were at the house quite probably with permission to the knowledge of the Waikato Times, who quoted Kāinga Ora’s statement that the occupants have been given three weeks to vacate, which had not yet run. If a judgment was made by the editors that it was unwise to have made a direct approach to them, indirect avenues should have at least been explored, even if they may have been fruitless. There was no hourly urgency about the story.
40. Given the significant criticisms that were to be made about the occupants painting them as wrongdoers, and the circumstances of their ongoing occupation and the fact that it may well have been lawful, the Waikato Times should have sought to achieve balance and give a fair voice to the other view.
Decision: The complaint is upheld on the basis of a breach of Principle (1) for a lack of balance.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom
Bernadette Courtenay declared a conflict of interest and did not vote