Damon Fox against the Ngāmotu Advocate

Overview

1. The Ngāmotu Advocate published two separate articles about proceedings at New Plymouth District Council (NPDC).  

2. The first article published on 27 March 2026 was headlined ACT-endorsed councillor’s bid to cancel hapū deputation at odds with party’s free-speech pledge.

3. The second article published on 22 April 2026 was headlined Councillors say Iwi not a Treaty Partner at Co-Governance workshop.

4. Damon Fox, an NPDC Councillor and ACT party member, complained the first article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (4) Comment and Fact, Principle (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics and Principle (12) Corrections.

5. Cr Fox complained the second article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics and Principle (12) Corrections.

6. Cr Fox’s complaints also objected to particular social media posts. These are outside the Media Council’s jurisdiction and therefore have not been addressed.

7. While the complaints are separate, the broader context is the same. Therefore, they are combined, though addressed separately, in this ruling.  Neither complaint is upheld. This ruling comments on aspects of the Ngāmotu Advocate’s editorial practice that fall short of the standards the Media Council expects.

8. This is a majority ruling, and there is a dissent. Eight members of the Media Council did not uphold the complaint, and six members would have done so.

The Article – 27 March 2026

9. This article reported that a hapū deputation was “briefly halted” when Cr Fox attempted to block the delegate, Peter Moeahu, from speaking. It noted that Cr Fox argued Mr Moeahu should not be heard because the matter was not listed on the agenda and no prior notice had been lodged.  It said that Mayor Max Brough overruled the objection and allowed Mr Moeahu to continue.

10. The article then went on to note the exchange in the context of ACT’s local government free-speech policy, including its commitment that ACT-aligned councillors will uphold ratepayers’ right to free speech. It concluded that “against that backdrop, Cr Fox’s attempt to prevent Mr Moeahu from speaking stands in contrast to the party’s stated commitment to protecting freedom of expression in local government.”  The headline reflected that conclusion.

The Complaint

11. Cr Fox argues that the article presented commentary and contested interpretation as straight reporting by framing a procedural objection he raised as being at odds with the ACT Party’s free-speech pledge.  He says that raising a procedural concern is not the same thing as trying to suppress lawful expression.  And that to “the extent the article was intended as opinion or commentary it should have been clearly identified as such”.

12. Further he complains that no comment was sought from him or from ACT before publication, despite ACT’s policy being central to the story.

13. He also complains that the headline’s framing as a “bid to cancel hapū deputation” presented “a loaded characterisation of a procedural concern”.

14. He seeks amendments to the article and headline, inclusion of ACT’s position, and a correction or editor’s note. Failing that he seeks removal of the article.

The Response

15. The initial response from the Ngāmotu Advocate’s Reuben Doyle was dated 10^th May 2026.

16. Mr Doyle said that after reviewing the complaint and with the benefit of “time and reflection” they stand by the story - they still considered Cr Fox’s actions at the meeting “to be inconsistent with the principles” outlined in ACT’s free-speech policy.  They based the article on a widely circulated public video of the NPDC meeting, and they did not approach Cr Fox for comment because his conduct was a matter of public record. Mr Doyle noted that major outlets do not routinely seek comment from political figures every time they speak or act in a public forum.  He also noted that ACT’s free-speech policy is a matter of public record.

17. They had also spoken to councillors present at the meeting and read “reports from other media outlets”. 

18. In this initial response, Cr Fox was also offered “a full right of reply, published word for word, where you can address any concerns you have about our reporting.” (We note this was in relation to both articles complained about.)

19. Mr Doyle’s formal response to the Media Council further amplified aspects of the initial response.  Mr Doyle says they didn’t reach out to Cr Fox for comment as “his intent was clear and obvious to all who watched the video and the packed public gallery”. And that that’s on the public record.

Final Comments

20. In his final comments, Cr Fox says, “a video can show what occurred, but it cannot by itself establish my subjective purpose” and maintains the article “went beyond reporting observable events”.  In effect he says that the Ngāmotu Advocate effectively made “editorial comments about my motive and political consistency.”  He also said the “fact that ACT’s policy is publicly available did not remove the need to seek my or ACT’s response”

Discussion

21. The essential facts giving rise to this complaint are not disputed. The article accurately reported both what Cr Fox did and the procedural grounds he gave for doing it.  It is also not disputed that ACT has publicly promoted its commitment to free speech in local government.

22. Cr Fox is right that a video can show what occurred but cannot, by itself, establish why. The headline’s reference to a “bid to cancel” and the Ngāmotu Advocate’s assertion that his “intent was clear and obvious to all who watched” go beyond what the video itself demonstrates. The effect of a procedural objection is not, without more, proof that it was intended to silence the speaker.

23. The Council does not, however, need to determine Cr Fox’s subjective purpose to resolve this complaint.  The issue is whether the newspaper's characterisation of the events breached the relevant Media Council Principles.

24. The complaint raises two related questions.  First, did the Ngāmotu Advocate cross the line between reporting fact and expressing comment by suggesting that Cr Fox's conduct “stood in contrast to” ACT's stated commitment to free speech? Secondly, if it did express that view, was fairness compromised because neither Cr Fox nor ACT was given an opportunity to comment before publication?

25. Before addressing those questions, we note this was not an example of careful political reporting.  The article is brief and moves quickly from recounting the events at the meeting to drawing a political conclusion about them, with little separation between factual reporting and editorial assessment. Although we are ultimately satisfied that readers would have understood where reporting ended and comment began, clearer signalling of that distinction, a fuller explanation of the facts, and seeking prior comment would all have represented better journalism.

26. We begin with Principle (4) before turning to Principles (1) and (6).  Cr Fox says that the article crossed the line from reporting into opinion without adequate labelling, by asserting that his procedural objection stood in contrast to ACT’s commitment to free speech. Given the context, we do not agree.

27. Political reporting is rarely confined to recording who spoke and what was said. It commonly involves explaining the significance of events and placing them in their broader political context.  That may include assessing whether the public conduct of elected representatives is consistent with the policies and commitments they have presented to voters.  

28. Such analysis is a legitimate feature of political journalism so long as it remains grounded in the reported facts and is sufficiently distinguishable from them so that readers can form their own view.  The question in this case is whether those tests were met, and we are satisfied they were, for two reasons.

29. First, the language of the article itself signalled evaluation rather than assertion. The statement that Cr Fox’s conduct “stands in contrast to the party’s stated commitment” is a comparative judgement.  It measures his conduct against ACT’s stated policy rather than asserting any additional fact and is framed as the Ngāmotu Advocate’s assessment of the political significance of the events. Readers would be likely to understand it as such.

30. Second, the Ngāmotu Advocate’s assessment was not divorced from the underlying facts. Readers were told what Cr Fox had done, the procedural grounds on which he objected, that the mayor disagreed, and that the deputation ultimately proceeded. Those facts, all drawn from a publicly available council meeting, enabled readers to decide for themselves whether the comparison with ACT’s stated policy was justified.

31. For those reasons we are satisfied that the distinction between fact and analysis was sufficiently clear that readers were unlikely to be misled. Principle (4) is therefore not breached.

32. That conclusion does not dispose of the complaint under Principle (1).  Cr Fox complains that, once the Advocate chose to argue that his conduct “stood in contrast to ACT’s commitment to free speech” he, and ACT, should have been given an opportunity to comment before publication.

33. We accept the general proposition. Where a publication's central argument is that a named person's public conduct is inconsistent with their stated values or political position, fairness will often require that person to be given an opportunity to respond before publication. This article moved quickly from recounting events to making its political evaluation - seeking comment would have been better journalistic practice.

34. However, Principle (1) does not require prior comment in every case. The question is whether, in the circumstances, the absence of comment from Cr Fox or ACT created a materially unfair or misleading impression.   

35. Here, the article reported events that occurred during a public council meeting and included Cr Fox’s explanation for his procedural objection. It made no new factual allegation requiring verification. The only matter on which Cr Fox was not heard before publication was the newspaper's opinion about what the undisputed facts meant.

36. Nor did fairness require a separate response from ACT. The article did not dispute or misstate ACT's published free-speech policy. It simply compared its publicly available policy with the conduct of Cr Fox. Further, it would be impractical to require a comment from any political party when its policy was referenced.

37. The position may have been different had the article asserted, as a matter of fact, that Cr Fox intended to suppress the deputation. It did not. Rather it offered the Ngāmotu Advocate’s assessment of the political significance of his public conduct.  Readers had the essential facts before them and were able to decide for themselves that assessment was justified. Although seeking comment beforehand would have been better journalistic practice its omission did not make the article materially unfair or misleading.  While we therefore don’t uphold the complaint under Principle (1), this point was subject to robust debate by council members.

38. Turning to Principle (6), the headline described Cr Fox's actions as a "bid to cancel" the hapū deputation. ‘Cancel’ is a word that holds political charge and its use has impact.  But having impact is not the same as being inaccurate - headlines inevitably employ compressed language and don’t capture the nuances in the article.  Had Cr Fox’s objection succeeded, the practical effect of it would have been that the deputation was not heard.

39. Principle (6) requires that headlines accurately and fairly convey the substance or key element of the report.  The headline was not contradicted by the article beneath it, so it does not amount to a breach.

40. The remaining Principles add nothing to the matters already addressed and the complaint under them is not upheld.

The Article – 22 April 2026

41. This article reported comments from two councillors who said they do not consider Tangata Whenua a Treaty partner. The councillors were not named in the article, but it carried an image prominently featuring Cr Fox under the headline Councillors say Iwi not a Treaty Partner at Co-Governance workshop.

The Complaint

42. Cr Fox complains that the Ngāmotu Advocate used his image in connection with a specific claim about what “two councillors” had said without verifying whether he was one of those councillors or whether he had made the statement, which risked misleading readers.  He requested the removal of any images of him that connected him to the report, and a correction note on the website article.

The Response

43. In response, the Ngāmotu Advocate said that it spoke to a number of sources “that have all confirmed they were in attendance at the Treaty workshop and the two councillors depicted in the TNA article were the two councillors who had expressed the view that NPDC is not a Treaty partner of Tangata Whenua as stated in the article.”

44. The Ngāmotu Advocate stands by use of the picture and notes “it went to considerable effort to verify this before publishing.”

Final Comments

45. In his final comments, Cr Fox expressly denies making the statement attributed to him. He says the Ngāmotu Advocate has not produced any verifiable evidence to support the attribution and relies instead on unnamed sources. He also submits that, in any event, the statement now said to have been recalled by those sources differs materially from the statement published.

Discussion

46. The core of this complaint is verification, not accuracy.  The complaint is not that the article inaccurately reported what was said at the workshop.  Rather Cr Fox says that by using his image beneath the headline, the Ngāmotu Advocate created the misleading impression that he was one of the councillors referred to, without properly verifying that to be the case.  Although, in his final comments, Cr Fox goes further and denies making the statement altogether, whether the Ngāmoto Advocate complied with Principle (1) depends on what it knew and did before publication.

47. The article itself does the Ngāmotu Advocate no favours. It did not identify the councillors, quote the comments, or explain how the Ngāmotu Advocate knew who had made them. Readers were therefore left to infer from the image that Cr Fox was one of the councillors referred to without being given any indication of the basis for attribution.

48. The Ngāmotu Advocate says it spoke to a "number of sources" who had attended the workshop, all of whom confirmed that the two councillors shown in the article were the two councillors who had expressed the view reported. It says it "went to considerable effort to get this verified before publishing".

49. On balance, we are satisfied that this was a reasonable means of verification. Speaking to several people who were present at the workshop was a sensible way to test the attribution. Principle (1) requires reasonable care before publication, not every conceivable step.

50. We nevertheless consider the Ngāmotu Advocate's journalism fell short in two respects. First, the article gave readers no real basis for understanding why it identified Cr Fox as one of the councillors referred to. Secondly, where an article publicly links an identifiable person to a contentious statement, fairness strongly favours giving that person an opportunity to comment before publication. The Ngāmotu Advocate accepted in its initial response that it should have done so, and we agree. Seeking comment may not have changed the outcome, but it would have tested the attribution before publication and may well have avoided this complaint.

51. The shortcomings do not, however, amount to a breach of Principle (1). We are satisfied the Ngāmotu Advocate took reasonable steps before publication. That is the issue under Principle (1). The later denial does not retrospectively make those steps unreasonable.

52. We also note that the Ngāmotu Advocate's correspondence referred to the councillors expressing the view that “NPDC was not a Treaty partner of Tangata Whenua”, while the article and headline itself referred to the councillors saying Tangata Whenua was not a Treaty partner. The latter is less precise but given the context of these comments being made at a Council co-governance workshop we do not consider that difference material to this complaint.

53. Having found no material inaccuracy requiring correction, there is also no breach of Principle (12).  This should not, however, be taken as an endorsement of the Ngāmotu Advocate's journalism, which fell short in several respects.

54. Finally, we note that the Ngāmotu Advocate took approximately 17 days to respond to the initial complaint. While the publication explained that it is a relatively new operation, timely engagement with complaints is an important aspect of responsible journalism. Although the delay does not affect the outcome of this complaint, the Media Council encourages publications to respond promptly wherever practicable.

Decision: The complaints are not upheld with dissent

Dissent by Tim Watkin, Deborah Morris, Scott Inglis, Guy MacGibbon, Bernadette Courtney and Judi Jones:

1. Six Media Council members dissent and would uphold the complaints against both articles under several Principles. 

2. Regarding Principle (1), the dissenters agree that the 27 March article has every right to reference ACT’s free-speech policy in relation to Cr Fox's actions, but to critique the councillor as “at odds” with that policy without giving him a right of reply is unfair and lacks balance. Anyone criticised in a news article deserves a right of reply. The Ngāmotu Advocate’s claim that it was merely reporting on a public meeting does not hold, as the publication itself introduced ACT’s free-speech policy. The article references Cr Fox’s claim he stopped Mr Moeahu from speaking for procedural reasons but that is not sufficient balance when the publication criticises Cr Fox over an issue (free speech) it raised. 

3. Further, while it's fine for a publication to run a news article quoting criticism of a public representative, a publication cannot make the criticism itself. That is comment, not news. A clear separation of comment and news is essential under Media Council Principles. The Ngāmotu Advocate insists this is a news story not a comment piece, therefore it is in breach of Principle (1) as the publication offers a critical opinion of Cr Fox in its own voice and denies him a balancing voice.

4. The dissenters also agree the April 22 article is problematic under Principle (1). It accuses two councillors of saying they don’t consider tangata whenua/mana whenua a Treaty of Waitangi partner, without naming those councillors or describing how or where the comments were made. The headline references a “co-governance workshop” and linked video shows an iwi leader expressing her sadness at the comments. But details of the comments themselves are lacking. Despite that, the article appears under a photo of two people, one of whom is Cr Fox. The implication is that Cr Fox is one of the councillors who made those comments. But readers are given no information about how the Ngāmotu Advocate came to this conclusion. 

5. The Ngāmotu Advocate claims in its response to the Media Council that it spoke to other councillors at the meeting and read other media reports. Yet it’s unclear when it spoke to those other councillors, who they were, and why that key information wasn’t in the original article. The Ngāmotu Advocate did not seek comment from Cr Fox, who says the article is misleading and that he did not make the statement attributed to him. Because the Ngāmotu Advocate did not seek comment before accusing Cr Fox, it reported disputed claims as undisputed fact. As with the earlier article, whether Cr Fox said those words or not, he is entitled to a balancing right of reply.

6. This also means the Ngāmotu Advocate is in breach of Principle (11), requiring publishers take care in the selection of photographs. The Ngāmotu Advocate published a photo of Cr Fox without proof he was the person being discussed in the article or that he had made the comments as reported. It is the photo that links Cr Fox to the words he now denies saying, so more care was needed.

7. The dissenters would also uphold this complaint under Principle (12). It took 17 days to respond to the complaint. While we have some sympathy with a small publication handling complaints, this is well outside acceptable standards for a “prompt” response by publications of any size.

Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Alison Thom, Jo Cribb, Susan Freeman-Greene, Andrew Chen, Deborah Morris, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff.