Ian Wishart against Stuff

Stuff published an article January 27, 2026, titled Coalition MPs say weather tragedies are being ‘politicised’, Labour and Greens say questions can be asked.

The story led off with Finance Minister Nicola Willis' response to criticism that her government had had wound up the previous Government’s National Resilience Plan. She said hundreds of millions had been spent on climate resilience projects. The article included comment from Labour’s finance spokeswoman, Barbara Edmonds and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour.

There was also comment from Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick who said there was “a responsibility of politicians to be honest” about why these damaging, and deadly, severe weather events have been happening more regularly.

“We are experiencing more extreme and frequent climate change charged weather as a result of successive governments deciding to make decisions to burn more fossil fuels and rely on intensive agriculture.”

Ian Wishart complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; and Principle (4) Comment and Fact.

He said:

 “Swarbrick has been permitted, unchallenged, to go well beyond the peer-reviewed science in her climate change public messaging in this article.

“The most serious breach is directly claiming that extreme weather is both more extreme and more frequent in NZ “as a result of” decisions taken by New Zealand governments. In other words, the claim is not only that we are experiencing extreme weather caused by climate change but that there is a proven link that these incidents have been caused by government decisions.

“NZ’s contribution to global CO2 emissions is in the region of 0.17%. NIWA has admitted that our climate is driven by hemispheric oceanic conditions. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the claim that extreme weather here is influenced in any in any detectable sense by NZ’s carbon emissions.

“Whilst it is appreciated that climate change is an important public issue, that comes with an expectation that journalists reporting on this nuanced debate will be well-read on the actual science (as opposed to political/NGO talking points that they have merely assumed are true) and aware of when politicians are exaggerating for effect.

“Journalists Ricketts and McConnell have clearly become desensitized to the politicized climate propaganda to the point they can no longer detect the spin. Ironic, in a story about politicisation, and with Swarbrick demanding that politicians “be honest.”

“Also inaccurate is the unfounded definitive statement that “We are experiencing more extreme and frequent climate change weather.” No basis for the bald assertion is given.

“The story, by two journalists, is not written as a commentary, nor are the offending quotes by the politicians offered as opinions. Rather, the statements have been made as accepted wisdom – facts beyond challenge.

“The assertions constitute “material facts” as the entire story exudes a premise that extreme weather constitutes evidence of climate change and therefore it is reasonable to ask politicians what responsibility they have for that.

“The science...does not support the explicit statements that NZ government policies have meaningful influence over extreme weather.

“It follows that a laissez-faire approach to journalistic standards in regard to reporting climate change is creating a substantively false narrative of the issue...”

Stuff responded:

“The article in question was a report on political reactions to a weather-related tragedy and the ensuing policy debate. The statements concerning climate change and extreme weather were clearly attributed to named political leaders.

“The article did not present those statements as independently verified scientific conclusions by Stuff, nor did it assert as fact that specific New Zealand Government decisions directly caused a particular weather event.

“Reporting accurately what elected representatives say about matters of public policy does not amount to endorsing those statements. The role of the article was to convey competing political perspectives in an active public debate. In that context, attribution is central, and we are satisfied it was clear.

“Principle 1 does not require journalists, in routine political reporting, to append detailed scientific counter-analysis to each policy claim made by political leaders.

“We do not consider the article materially inaccurate or misleading in its presentation.

“Principle 4 requires a clear distinction between factual reporting and editorial comment by the publication.

“This article was presented and structured as a straight news report. It did not contain editorial comment from Stuff.

“The statements you object to were:

•         Clearly attributed to identifiable political figures.
•         Presented within quotation marks or paraphrased as their views.
•         Contextualised within a political dispute about whether weather events were being “politicised.”

“Principle 4 is engaged where a publication blurs its own commentary with fact. It is not breached merely because a quoted source (leaders of political parties) expresses a strongly worded or contested opinion.”

The Media Council does not consider the complaint has merit. This was a straightforward report of what was said by politicians relating to a run of bad weather and climate change. They were entitled to express their views, and Stuff was entitled to report what they said.

Mr Wishart argued some of their comments were factually wrong. That is his opinion but there is no requirement for publications to call them out as Mr Wishart suggests, merely because some of the politician’s comments may be disputed.

Pronouncements about climate change, even if related to the performance of previous governments and their contribution to this, are highly contestable. Different points of view and exaggerated arguments are a feature of political debate and readers understand that. For the most part they are well able to weigh the validity of the points made without a detailed unpicking of every point that might be arguable.

The article included comment from leading members of the most major political parties. Ms Swarbrick was entitled to have her opinion quoted along with other politicians. The Media Council’s founding precept is that there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.

The Council also notes that the science around climate change has been argued for years. It is not a subject where it has any expertise or mandate to rule on complex scientific arguments. Its role is to consider matters relating to journalism and whether there has been any breach of Media Council Principles. The Council saw no evidence of a breach.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.