Elizabeth Kelsey against the Otago Daily Times
Case Number: 3894
Council Meeting: 31 August 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Otago Daily Times
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories: Accuracy
Overview
1. On 13 May 2026 the Otago Daily Times (ODT) published an article in the Star News titled Controversial solar farm scaled back. Ms Kelsey complained that the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The complaint under Principle (1) is upheld in relation to accuracy.
The Article
2. The story reported that the potential size of a solar farm in Canterbury had been reduced due to compliance issues on the land. It began by noting that Far North Solar Farm Ltd had “confirmed it has removed a section of land from its resource consent application” to build the solar farm, after the landowner removed native vegetation from the site.
3. The balance of the article reported on criticism of the proposal, along with various other issues arising at the consent hearing that had started that day.
The Complaint
4. Elizabeth Kelsey complains that the article was inaccurate and unbalanced. She says that two statements in the article were factually incorrect:
(a) “The potential size of a proposed solar farm in Canterbury has been reduced due to compliance issues on the land”; and
(b) “Lawyer Theresa Le Bas, speaking on behalf of Far North Solar Farm Ltd confirmed a section of land had been removed from the application due to the removal of matagouri”.
5. The complainant says that although Far North Solar Farm Ltd, through its lawyer Ms Le Bas, sought to remove an area of land from the application, that attempt was opposed by local community group Waipara Valley Community Collective Inc (WVCC), in both oral and written submissions.
6. Ms Kelsey says the independent Hearing Commissioners have not yet made a decision on whether or not the change to the application will be allowed. She says that to present it as a fact that the potential size has been reduced, and an area of land removed, is therefore inaccurate and fundamentally misinforms readers.
7. Ms Kelsey also states the article is unbalanced as it presents only one side while failing to mention an opposing argument was even made.
The Response
8. In its response the ODT argued that its reporting was accurate based on what was said at the hearing, even if the precise legal status of the amendment remained disputed, and that its coverage was sufficiently balanced when the reporting was considered both within the article and across subsequent coverage.
On Accuracy
9. The ODT said that the applicant reduced the scope and that evidence from the applicant’s in-house lawyer was that modifying a live application was established procedure.
10. A panel member told the complainant that the panel could not prevent the applicant from withdrawing part of its application because this was the applicant’s choice. Ms Kelsey did not object at the time.
11. Ms Kelsey’s position is that the reduction remained a live legal issue because the panel had not yet formally approved or rejected it. The ODT said, “she might well be precisely correct,” but it argued that the reporter was entitled to say the proposed solar farm had been “scaled back,” because:
- the applicant had expressly said it would reduce the application; and
- Ms Kelsey did not challenge the panel member’s statement that the applicant could make that change.
12. The ODT also noted the Commissioners’ Fifth Minute which stated that the applicant could legally amend the application within its existing scope up to and including the hearing but could not expand it beyond what had originally been notified.
On Balance
13. The ODT said the reporter was covering an ongoing legal proceeding under significant deadline pressure and reported on the submissions of the party that had presented its case first. Consistent with normal reporting of ongoing proceedings, the article indicated that an opposing side remained to be heard.
14. The ODT noted that the article referred to concerns raised by the WVCC and others opposing the solar farm. The reporter also said he intentionally avoided extensively reporting the applicant’s submissions because of concerns about maintaining balance.
15. The ODT said it relied on the Principle that coverage of a long-running controversial issue can be achieved over time, across multiple articles rather than within every individual story. The North Canterbury News published a follow-up article in its next issue quoting Ms Kelsey and presenting her argument that amending the application did not remove the clearance issue from the scope of the application.
Final comment
16. In her final comment the complainant rejects the claim that she did not object to the proposed amendment. She says she expressly opposed it in both her written and oral submissions, including asking the Commissioners to decline the application to amend.
17. Ms Kelsey also says the newspaper’s reliance on the Commissioners’ Fifth Minute is misplaced. While the Minute set out the general ability of an applicant to amend an application, the issue at the hearing was whether that general principle applied in these particular circumstances. In her view, the newspaper failed to recognise that this was a live and disputed issue at the hearing.
The Discussion
18. The complainant primarily raises Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, which states:
Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
19. The central issue for the Media Council is the distinction between the applicant seeking or announcing an amendment to its application, and the amendment having taken effect such that the land in question had been removed from the application. The Council is not in a position to determine the underlying legal question of whether the proposed amendment was valid or whether the Commissioners were ultimately required to accept it. Rather, the question under Principle (1) is whether the article accurately and fairly represented the position as it stood at the time of publication.
20. The ODT says the applicant's lawyers told the hearing at the outset that the application was being reduced to exclude the land where the substance had been cleared. It also relies on advice given to the Commissioners that applicants can make changes to a live application, provided those changes do not increase its scope. The Fifth Minute issued by the Commissioners some months earlier also referred to that general ability to amend an application.
21. The Council accepts that this gave the newspaper a sound basis to report that the applicant was seeking to reduce the area covered by its application. The difficulty is that the article went further. It said the potential size of the solar farm "has been reduced” and reported that a section of land "had been removed from the application".
22. At the time, whether that had in fact occurred was disputed. The complainant had argued in her written submissions that the proposed amendment did not remove the clearance from the scope of the application or, alternatively, that the amendment should not be allowed. She also told the Commissioners orally that they should "decline the application to amend".
23. The Media Council therefore does not accept the suggestion that the complainant did not object to the proposed amendment. She may not have objected at the particular moment when a Commissioner said the applicant could withdraw part of its application, but her position overall was clear. She had expressly challenged the amendment in both her written and oral submissions.
24. The Fifth Minute does not resolve this issue. It sets out the general position that an applicant can make amendments within the existing scope of an application. The argument at the hearing concerned whether the particular amendment proposed in this case should be allowed and what effect it would have.
25. This makes the wording of the article important. Saying that the applicant "was seeking to reduce" the size of the application, or that it "said it would remove" the affected land, would have accurately reflected what the applicant had done. Saying that the size "has been reduced" presented the matter as settled, when it was not.
26. The Otago Daily Times acknowledges in its response that the complainant's position was that the matter remained live and that the Commissioners had yet to approve or disapprove the reduction. It says she "might well be precisely correct". If that was the position, the Council considers the article should have reflected that uncertainty.
27. The second statement, that the company's lawyer "confirmed a section of land had been removed from the application", is less clear-cut because it was attributed to the lawyer. The newspaper was entitled to report what the applicant's lawyer told the hearing. However, when read alongside the article's own statement that the size "has been reduced", it added to the impression that the removal of the land was an established fact rather than the applicant's position on an issue that remained disputed.
28. The Council recognises that the reporter was covering a live hearing under deadline pressure. However, the issue could have been avoided with relatively simple wording. Reporting that the applicant "sought to reduce" the application would have conveyed what happened without taking a position on whether the amendment had taken effect.
29. The complaint based on accuracy is upheld.
Balance
30. The article reported on proceedings that were still live and made clear that the opposing side remained to be heard. Principle (1) recognises that, in reportage of proceedings, balance may be achieved over a number of stories rather than in a single article.
31. The publication points to a subsequent North Canterbury News article which reported the complainant’s position. The Council also notes that Star News and North Canterbury News are both part of the Otago Daily Times/Allied Media group. Taking the coverage as a whole, the Council is satisfied that the requirements for balance were met.
32. The complaint on balance is not upheld.
Decision: The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) in relation to accuracy.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop.
Raynor Asher declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.