Jae Ratana against the New Zealand Herald

The New Zealand Herald published an article on July 20, 2026, headlined Hard questions asked about bankrupt’s $57,000 taxpayer grant.

The story reported that questions were being asked about how a company established by Jae Ratana had received $57,000 from a government fund to assist abuse-in-care survivors and what he did with that money.

Mr Ratana, who had been bankrupted three times before, incorporated his company State Abuse Advocates Ltd, on March 18, 2025, and received the money after telling officials it would run survivor support, advocacy, and awareness work. But documents released under the Official Information Act and bank records obtained by the NZ Herald raise questions about how rigorous Internal Affairs was when choosing who should receive the cash – and then how carefully it checked the money had been spent for its approved purpose.

The story reported Internal Affairs confirmed it did not know Mr Ratana had been bankrupted three times. It also did not ask for receipts before accepting the company’s spending report. It said the NZ Herald’s queries were very serious. Police had also been alerted after a woman complained she signed a document for Mr Ratana not realising it would make her a fellow director of the company.

It also reported comment from another survivors’ group advocate who disputed State Abuse Advocates claims the money had been used to run events in Auckland, Gisborne and Nelson that had been attended by 800 survivors. She also commented that his presence at events had attracted social media anger because of allegations against him relating to donations collected at the time of the Covid anti-mandate convoy and protest.

The article also reported State Abuse Advocates Ltd bank statements obtained by the NZ Herald showed cash withdrawals, transfers to a bank in Mr Ratana’s name and repeated spending at a dairy and vape shop, discount stores, department stores, clothing retailers, pharmacies, on-line retailers and that money had been spent on food, groceries, supermarkets, cafes, bakeries, takeaways, restaurants, and vehicle costs.

The article said Mr Ratana denied any wrongdoing and that the money was spent legitimately, supporting survivors and running community events.

Mr Ratana complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact; (6) Headlines and Captions; (7) Discrimination and Diversity; (11) Photographs and Graphics, and (12) Corrections.

He said the article contained inaccurate, misleading, and unfair reporting which had caused significant harm to his reputation, wellbeing, and personal safety.

It presented allegations and information in a manner that created a misleading impression of him while failing to include important context and his explanation of events. He believed the reporting did not fairly represent his position. Since the article was published, he had experienced public abuse, harassment, intimidation, and threats to his safety.

He said aspects of his personal history were included unnecessarily, lacked context and unfairly prejudiced readers against him.

“I believe the article relied on selective information that damaged my reputation rather than providing a fair and accurate account of the matters being reported,” said Mr Ratana.

The NZ Herald stood by its investigation and reporting which it said was in line with Media Council Principles and NZME’s newsroom code of conduct and ethics.

It said the story generously quoted Mr Ratana and reported high up in the story that “Ratana denies all wrongdoing. He told the Herald the money was spent legitimately, supporting survivors and running community events. ‘I never pocketed $57,000’, he said.”

The reporter sought more comment until Mr Ratana emailed the NZ Herald asking for contact to cease.

“We honoured that and also delayed publication for a further two weeks, in case you changed your mind and made contact.”

“We accept it must be tough having your three bankruptcies mentioned. However, they are public documented insolvency events that must be included in any story investigating Internal Affairs chosen allocation of public funds and your subsequent handling of those funds.”

The Media Council noted that Mr Ratana offered no evidence to show how the story was inaccurate. Nor did he show how it was unfair or unbalanced.

Mr Ratana was given the opportunity to comment and explain how public money granted to his company was spent and his comments were reported prominently in the story. This showed both fairness and balance.

The Council also noted there was a valid public interest in this story as it identified a legitimate concern about the proper administration of public funding. It raised questions as to whether it was appropriate for Internal Affairs to grant funds to a company run by a person who had been bankrupted three times and it also raised questions as to what checks were done on how grant money was spent.

It was reasonable and of public interest for the NZ Herald to investigate these issues. Mr Ratana's views were fairly represented in the article and comments from Internal Affairs and others were labelled accordingly. Mr Ratana's previous bankruptcies were in the public domain and central to this story about government funding. And as stated in the article it seems that Mr Ratana had been harassed on social media over previous actions related to his alleged fraudulent behaviour around the anti-mandate protest, well-before the article and not because of it as he claims.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.