Bob McCoskrie, Jose Aquino, Alison Greig, Ellen White, Jon Harris, Trevor Garrett and Louise King against the Sunday Star Times
Case Number: 3755
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication:
Sunday-Star Times
The Post
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Discrimination
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Seven people complained about a Sunday Star-Times column headed The girl-math budget that will cut deep, especially for women. The complaints were made under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (4) Comment and Fact, and Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. They mostly focused on the use of the word “c…” to describe female politicians. The complaints are not upheld.
The Article
2. On 11 May 2025 the Sunday Star-Times published a column by National Affairs Editor Andrea Vance headed The girl-math budget that will cut deep, especially for women. The column also ran online on The Post. The article attacked the decision to halt work on pay equity claims that were already underway. The claims were part of “a slow, grinding process to fix historical underpayment of women in roles undervalued not because of the work, but because of their gender”, the column said.
3. It was curious that “six girlbosses” – Nicola Willis, Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg and Brooke van Velden – were “shafting the underpaid women doing vital, feminised labour that keeps the country functioning”. The column continued: “Turns out you can have it all. So long as you’re prepared to be a c... to the women who birth your kids, school your offspring and wipe the arse of your elderly parents while you stand on their shoulders to earn your six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet.”
4. The column criticised van Velden’s defence of the move, argued in favour of pay equity, discussed the motivation for the move and what the columnist described as “constitutional overreach in forcing changes through under urgency with neither mandate nor consultation”.
The Complaint
5. The Media Council has received seven complaints about the column, which will be considered together, as many of the issues raised were similar.
6. Jose Aquino complained that the article was offensive and misogynistic. The writer had called the Finance Minister Nicola Willis the “c” word, which was offensive, as was the word arse in the same paragraph. The article had a sneering, hateful tone and the reference to “girl-math” was misogynistic. The abuse in the article showed a lack of professionalism, showed the writer’s biases, and undermined “any pretense of objectivity”. The previous week Stuff had been reporting about misogynistic abuse of female MPs, but Stuff seemed to find it acceptable if that abuse was directed at a woman of “a certain political persuasion". In his formal complaint Mr Aquino said the fact that it was labelled opinion and was a matter of robust debate did not make it acceptable to use such offensive language.
7. Trevor Garrett complained that the column was biased and unbalanced. In his initial complaint, he provided figures about teachers’, nurses’ and engineers’ salaries. Engineers' salaries were often compared to teachers’, he said. Entry level teachers were paid the equivalent and progressed faster (for less hours) than an equivalent engineer, and nurses were paid considerably more for the equivalent degree. When the article discussed pay equity, it appeared the author was making a decision that had not yet been made. There were no numbers provided to back up her opinion. “A balanced article would attempt to do further research before jumping to conclusions.” Mr Garrett also complained about the use of the words “c…” and “girl-math”. A male would be unlikely to have received such comments, he said.
8. Alison Greig complained about “offensive and inappropriate language”, referencing the paragraph containing the word “c….”. While the offensive term was partially obscured, its meaning was unmistakable, she said. It was widely recognised as one of the most misogynistic and demeaning slurs in the English language. “Its use – directed at or referring to a female political figure – crosses a clear line, even within the context of political commentary or satire. The use of this term undermines public standards of discourse and violates principles of fairness and responsible editorial judgment.” While Ms Greig said strong language was sometimes warranted in an opinion column, here it appeared gratuitous. “Its inclusion contributes to a culture of gendered abuse toward women in public life and is incompatible with the role of media in supporting fair and respectful political discussion.”
9. In her formal complaint, Ms Greig rejected the Sunday Star-Times editor’s response that the word was increasingly used in a “non-gendered, colloquial way”. This view failed to recognise that unique severity and gendered impact of the term, especially when used to describe women in power. The journalist had “doubled-down” in a follow-up column where she defended and repeated the slur, showing the use of the term was an intentional editorial position. It promoted disrespectful treatment of women in political life, she said.
10. Jon Harris complained about misogynistic and demeaning language, and said using the C word in referring to female politicians was “grossly offensive and utterly unacceptable”. The article also revealed the journalist’s lack of political neutrality. Mr Harris said the fact that it was a column was no excuse. The publisher was saying they could print whatever they liked, no matter how offensive or discriminatory, as long as they called it a column. The Media Council should uphold basic standards and crack down on media organisations printing blatantly discriminatory and offensive language. “In this case the columnist is acting more like a troll and Stuff is acting more like an enabling social media platform.” Calling someone the C word because you disagreed with them (instead of challenging the issue) was not acceptable in any professional work environment, let alone in a publication.
11. Louise King said the article was a “betrayal of all women”. The language used was indefensible, and the use of the term “girl-math” in the headline was a derogatory comment towards women “who have strived for years to be seen as equal to men in the fields of Science and Maths”. Ms King noted that initially she had been concerned about the pay equity changes. However, the article had prompted her to look more deeply into the issue and discover some “untruths were being told by the mainstream media”. Now she was fully supportive of the Government’s change to the legislation.
12. Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First, complained about the use of the word “c…” which he said the Broadcasting Standards Authority had deemed to be one of the most unacceptable words. “For a female journalist to be firing that label at female MPs is both offensive and completely unprofessional… It is one thing to strongly critique policy, but it is another to denigrate political leaders personally in such an offensive way,” he said. In his formal complaint, he said media outlets were angry about misogynistic abuse targeted at female MPs, except when it came from them, quoting a number of stories from Stuff, The Post and The Press. The fact that the Sunday Star-Times editor said Ms Vance had been the target of the word in question and other ugly smears was proof that it was unacceptable. “It's time the media raised the standard of the debate – not dragged us to an all-time low,” he said.
13. Ellen White complained about the use of the word “c…” and “misogynist terms” such as “girl-math”. It was offensive and would embolden misogynists to use such language. “What is the difference between a keyboard warrior using insulting language to articulate his opinion and the article in your paper using similar language?”
The Response
14. The editor of the Sunday Star-Times, Tracy Watkins, formally replied to the Media Council complaints, noting that the Stuff Group, publisher of The Post and the Sunday-Star Times received approximately 300 emails about the column, mostly related to the use of the word “c…”. Most of the approximately 140 who wrote directly to the Sunday Star-Times editor’s inbox were supportive. Emails to inboxes outside the Sunday Star-Times, including those who erroneously believed they read the column on Stuff (it only appeared on The Post website), were strongly negative.
15. The article should be considered under Principle (4) Comment and Fact as it was published as a column, and clearly labelled opinion in print and online, as required by the principle.
16. Ms Watkins also noted that the column was consistent with Stuff’s own policy on columnists, which states: “We employ a small number of journalists whose experience and professional reputations are such that they are recognised and respected for their opinion writing. Typically, they have an established profile for opinion writing, beyond other reporting work they may do for us.” Where there were exceptions, such as Ms Vance, their work was always reviewed by senior editors.
17. While the column was expressed in strong, provocative language, the subject matter had provoked an equally strong and emotive reaction from the public. “The Government’s actions in retrospectively cancelling 35 pay equity claims, without notice or consultation, was always going to be controversial and provocative, and spark strong public debate. Any time the Government exercises its power over a group of citizens who do not have a voice it should be expected that we would run a variety of robust opinions on its actions.”
18. A number of complainants had raised Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and while balance was not required for opinion columns, care had been taken to achieve balance over time. The paper had run a significant number of other columns on the subject both for and against, including a rebuttal by the Finance Minister Nicola Willis.
19. One complainant cited accuracy, providing an example to claim the gender pay gap did not exist. This did not stand up to scrutiny, the editor said, citing the Ministry for Women saying: “The gender pay gap in New Zealand has reduced steadily from 16.3% in 1998, but progress has slowed. It is currently 8.2% (as of 30 June 2024).”
20. A number of complainants raised Principle (7) Diversity and Discrimination, which states: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting.”
21. In order to breach this principle, it would need to be accepted that acting like a “c…” was a discriminatory allegation against a marginalised group.
22. However, the term “c…” was used widely for a range of genders and while it was offensive to some, was widely used by others. It could also be applied to men, the editor said, giving an example from an interview in The Telegraph, and in Clarkson’s Farm where Jeremy Clarkson says: “I was a c….” It was widely used among younger people, citing articles from Glamour and Rolling Stone magazine. In some cases, “You’re acting like a c…” could be seen as a stronger version of “You’re being a dick.” When it was used by Ms Vance, it could equally have been applied to male ministers.
23. Some complainants said the term “girl-math” was a breach of Principle (7) and was sexist. However, it was a humorous internet meme, referring to illogical reasoning to justify decisions involving money. While its use was usually tongue-in-cheek, its reference in this article was more pointed. It underscored the Government’s “mental gymnastics” in claiming scrapping the pay equity claims would save it $3.6 billion, but that no one would be worse off. Using the phrase “girl-math” was a pithy way of expressing the writer’s opinion of the lack of logic shown. In an opinion column, writers had the latitude to use language and literary tools that might not be used in a news article.
24. Regarding the complaints about profanity, Ms Watkins noted that the word was not spelled out in full, but was published as “c…” Complainants had said the term was offensive, discriminatory and misogynistic.
25. The Media Council principles did not cover profanities, but the Council had noted in the past that “readers do not have the right not to be offended”.
26. Public attitudes to profanities had changed, and many were now printed without being dotted out. In this instance the Sunday Star-Times had treated the word in the same way it had in a short story where the words “c…” and “f…” were used with the full word dotted out. However, after consultation with the author they were reinstated in full in the online version.
27. As stated earlier, initial feedback was largely positive from Sunday Star-Times subscribers, with about 70 percent in support. Later emails were mostly negative. This demonstrated that while the column elicited a strong reaction, some were equally passionate about the columnist’s right to express her views.
28. While some saw the use of the word “c…” as misogynistic, other readers – predominantly women – viewed it as a powerful defence of women who lacked a voice.
29. Ms Watkins stressed that the principle underlying all Media Council deliberations was the right to free expression, which was expressed in the Preamble to the Principles and had been reinforced in a number of the Council’s decisions.
30. The column had been carefully considered before publication and was an important, albeit strongly worded, contribution to the important discussion on the right of some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable and valuable workers to be treated equitably.
Further correspondence
31. As is the Media Council’s usual practice, the complainants were invited to briefly comment on the Sunday Star-Times formal response.
32. Jose Aquino said that to dismiss the complaint would set a precedent that would further lower the state of media discourse in New Zealand. “The language was outright abuse, not commentary.” The majority of the public still considered the word “c…” obscene, he said, quoting Broadcasting Standards Authority research. Mr Aquino also accused Stuff of hypocrisy, citing a number of articles Stuff published that he said criticised the use of sexist terms and abuse against women MPs and officials.
33. Trevor Garrett said the Sunday Star-Times had not attempted to respond to the examples he gave that he said showed the pay equity argument was false. Ms Vance was a senior political editor, and readers would expect a higher standard than a typical opinion piece.
34. Jon Harris said the arguments that the C word was now acceptable were underwhelming, including quoting a punk rocker from the 1970s, and a Rolling Stone magazine article, which in fact said, “while it is still considered taboo in mainstream media, that is not the case on social media”. Broadcasting Standards Authority research said it was one of the two most unacceptable worlds in all scenarios.
35. Louise King disagreed with the Sunday Star-Times that “c…” and “girl-math” were not used to denigrate women. They were used in combination with each other to criticise female politicians.
The Discussion
36. Trevor Garrett complained about accuracy under Principle (1), quoting examples of the pay of nurses, teachers and engineers to support his belief that the pay equity claims were unjustified. The article was an opinion column questioning the political process that had been stopped by the Government’s move, not a discussion of the merits of various pay equity cases, so detail about the rights and wrongs of specific pay equity claims did not need to be included. It was reasonable for Ms Vance to take the position that women would be disadvantaged by the policy change. This part of the complaint is not upheld.
37. Complainants also suggested the column showed the journalist’s lack of neutrality on the issue. Principle (4) says that opinion should be clearly marked as such, and this article complied with that. The Council believes that as long as the distinction between news stories and opinion is clearly made, news organisations are free to establish their own policies to manage the issues and consequences for their reputations that may arise when journalists write opinion columns as well as news. Stuff, the Sunday Star-Times parent organisation, has a policy for managing this issue. This part of the complaint is not upheld.
38. Concern was also expressed under Principle (1) about lack of balance. Under Principle (4) balance is not required in opinion columns. In long-running issues, balance can be achieved over time and over a number of articles, and the pay equity legislation change falls into that category. The Sunday-Star Times and The Post editor said a significant number of columns were run on the subject, both for and against, including a rebuttal by Ms Willis. The Council does not have any evidence that balance over time was not achieved, so this part of the complaint is not upheld.
39. The strongest thread in the complaints was that the use of “c…” was offensive, misogynistic and a breach of professional standards.
40. The Media Council does not have a principle relating to good taste and decency. This has always been considered a matter of editorial discretion. As the Council has noted before, readers do not have a right not to be offended, and if they find a publication distasteful, they can choose to get their news elsewhere. That is a risk editors run when they publish material that is likely to upset a significant number of readers.
41. The Preamble to the Media Council Principles is relevant. It states in part: “There is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression… The print media is jealous in guarding freedom of expression, not just for publishers' sake but, more importantly, in the public interest. In dealing with complaints, the Council will give primary consideration to freedom of expression and the public interest.”
42. In this case, the journalist was expressing her disapproval of the Government’s pay equity move in the strongest terms possible. The Council supports the right of opinion writers to express their opinions robustly to make their depth of feeling known on matters of public interest.
43. However, the question raised by many complainants was whether applying the C word to female politicians crossed the line from legitimate expression of strongly held opinion to unacceptable abuse. The Preamble to the Principles also says that as well as promoting media freedom, the Council is concerned with maintaining the press “in accordance with the highest professional standards”.
44. As background, several of the complainants referred to the 2022 Broadcasting Standards Authority research “Language that may Offend in Broadcasting”, which measured New Zealanders attitudes to potentially offensive language on television or radio. It found that the word “c…” was the second most offensive word, moving from the top place in the previous survey.
45. The Council has considered whether labelling the politicians who halted work on pay equity cases as “c…s” legitimised abusive treatment of public figures and undermined reasonable discussion of important matters of public interest. Dotting out the word, rather than printing it in full, might have made it slightly less offensive, but readers would have been in no doubt about what was intended. The Council has some sympathy for those who thought the use of the word risked lowering the standard of political discourse and opening politicians up to abuse rather than debating the issues. The use of the word has obviously offended many people. Some members of the Council felt that the use of the word was unnecessary, and bordered on abuse, particularly because of the attacks many female politicians experience, especially online.
46. However, on balance, the Council believes that its focus on defending free expression on an important matter of public interest overrides its misgivings about the wisdom of the way the word “c…” was used in this opinion piece. Its use in this context was a deliberate tactic to express the writer’s deep displeasure at the policy change. Rather than being seen as gratuitous abuse that would have been likely to breach professional standards, most Council members considered it a legitimate expression of strong opinion on an issue that had generated angry opposition.
47. The Council also considered whether the use of the term “c…” combined with the reference to “girl-math” breached Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, which states: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting.”
48. The reference to “girl-math” may have seemed discriminatory to those not familiar with its use in social media settings, where it humorously refers to the kind of creative calculations a woman might use to justify a desirable but extravagant purchase. As the Sunday Star-Times says, its use was more barbed in the article in question than in humorous social media posts. The Council accepts that it was intended to mean that the politicians in question had used creative accounting to justify their decision, not that women were incompetent at maths.
49. While the Media Council acknowledges the use of the C word when applied to women may seem harsh, it accepts that it can also be used to describe men. The fact that it is used in this case by a woman to express her anger at what she saw as unfair treatment by powerful women towards less powerful women also dilutes any discriminatory overtones. The Council does not believe the use of the C word in this context and the reference to “girl-math” amount to a breach of Principle (7).
Decision: The complaint is not upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (4) Comment and Fact or Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity.
Council members considering the complaint were: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Guy MacGibbon, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison
Thom, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.