Dean Reef against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3910
Council Meeting: 12 October 2026
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Subterfuge
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Balance, Lack Of
Privacy
The New Zealand Herald website on August 20, 2026, carried a Ryan Bridge TODAY video interview with Marty Grenfell, the chief executive of
Tauranga City Council.
This followed the release of the report of an investigation of the Mauao/Mount Manganui landslide which killed six people in the council-owned campground. Mr Grenfell was asked how he could have been unaware of council commissioned reports that warned of the landslide risk.
He was asked whether he should resign. He was also asked if the council’s natural hazards specialist, who had not told him about the landslide risk, should still be employed by the council.
Dean Reef complained the interview contravened the NZ Herald’s code of ethics which states “We will take into account the mental wellbeing and health of story subjects” and “We will be sensitive with anyone displaying signs of mental distress.”
“It’s a disgrace that Ryan Bridge and your team are using your media power to add pressure to an anonymous Individual who most likely is going under a lot of stress at the moment and ...is clearly not responsible for anything that has happened and has no way to defend him or herself in a situation like this.”
He said it was a reasonable assumption that the council staff member, who was presumably identifiable from the job title, must be under mental stress. He also complained the item breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (4) Comment and Fact; (9) Subterfuge; and (10) Conflicts of Interest.
Mr Reef believed the unnamed council staff member was not responsible for the systemic failures identified in the Davison Report and had no opportunity to respond.
“The public interest in the landslide does not justify exposing or targeting a private employee. The broadcast caused unnecessary reputational harm and breached basic ethical standards.”
In response the NZ Herald said the interview did not breach its code of ethics.
This was an interview with the council chief executive and there was no indication he was displaying signs of mental distress or was unable to participate in the interview. The question, whether an employee should remain employed by the council, was a legitimate question of accountability arising from an incident in which six people died.
The Media Council has no mandate to consider a complaint that this was a breach of the NZ Herald’s code of ethics. It can only consider complaints relating to the Council’s own Principles and no case has been made to show how they might have been breached.
The Council saw this as a justifiably robust but fair interview of the chief executive given that the report indicates that this was a preventable tragedy.
The city council natural hazards specialist was not named, and while he or she might be known or identifiable to some, there was no breach of privacy. Even if some people are in the know, the Privacy Principle says, “the right to privacy should not interfere with the publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.” The landslide, the city council’s systems for managing such risk, the staff responsible for those systems, and the resulting inquiry and response were certainly all matters of significant public interest.
There was no evidence to support claims the interview breached Principles relating to comment and fact, subterfuge, or conflicts of interest.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
This followed the release of the report of an investigation of the Mauao/Mount Manganui landslide which killed six people in the council-owned campground. Mr Grenfell was asked how he could have been unaware of council commissioned reports that warned of the landslide risk.
He was asked whether he should resign. He was also asked if the council’s natural hazards specialist, who had not told him about the landslide risk, should still be employed by the council.
Dean Reef complained the interview contravened the NZ Herald’s code of ethics which states “We will take into account the mental wellbeing and health of story subjects” and “We will be sensitive with anyone displaying signs of mental distress.”
“It’s a disgrace that Ryan Bridge and your team are using your media power to add pressure to an anonymous Individual who most likely is going under a lot of stress at the moment and ...is clearly not responsible for anything that has happened and has no way to defend him or herself in a situation like this.”
He said it was a reasonable assumption that the council staff member, who was presumably identifiable from the job title, must be under mental stress. He also complained the item breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (4) Comment and Fact; (9) Subterfuge; and (10) Conflicts of Interest.
Mr Reef believed the unnamed council staff member was not responsible for the systemic failures identified in the Davison Report and had no opportunity to respond.
“The public interest in the landslide does not justify exposing or targeting a private employee. The broadcast caused unnecessary reputational harm and breached basic ethical standards.”
In response the NZ Herald said the interview did not breach its code of ethics.
This was an interview with the council chief executive and there was no indication he was displaying signs of mental distress or was unable to participate in the interview. The question, whether an employee should remain employed by the council, was a legitimate question of accountability arising from an incident in which six people died.
The Media Council has no mandate to consider a complaint that this was a breach of the NZ Herald’s code of ethics. It can only consider complaints relating to the Council’s own Principles and no case has been made to show how they might have been breached.
The Council saw this as a justifiably robust but fair interview of the chief executive given that the report indicates that this was a preventable tragedy.
The city council natural hazards specialist was not named, and while he or she might be known or identifiable to some, there was no breach of privacy. Even if some people are in the know, the Privacy Principle says, “the right to privacy should not interfere with the publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.” The landslide, the city council’s systems for managing such risk, the staff responsible for those systems, and the resulting inquiry and response were certainly all matters of significant public interest.
There was no evidence to support claims the interview breached Principles relating to comment and fact, subterfuge, or conflicts of interest.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.