Jose Aquino against Stuff

Stuff published an article on January 30, 2026, titled Iwi chair calls out councillor for his refusal to attend meeting on marae. 

The story was about Hasting’s councillor Steve Gibson’s refusal to attend the council’s strategic planning session on a marae because he was not comfortable participating in council business where religious or spiritual practices form part of official proceedings.

This was the second Stuff story on the councillor’s stand. The first only carried reaction from the mayor and a council official. The second story reported comment from a number of community leaders including an iwi chair and former councillor, the chair of Hastings District Council’s Māori standing committee, the chief executive of the local iwi authority and the chair of a community trust.  

Jose Aquino complained the article was biased and the second one in 24 hours on this matter. He complained it breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact, and (9) Subterfuge.

“It quotes four different people at length criticising the councillor and attacks him as some sort of racist. This creates the impression of 'four against one' which is designed to influence readers towards a certain view by making the councillor look like out of touch and in the minority.”

“Why didn't you for example, get the view of Honson's Pledge? His objection was based on cost and the need for Council meetings to be at a neutral venue-this is why Councils have their own buildings for such things. The article makes the Councillor out to be some sort of backward racist which is a smear and unfair.”

“The article was biased and gave disproportionate and undue weight to one point of view, essentially a 4 vs 1 to make it appear the councillor was out of touch. The article is part of a wider campaign by Stuff to bully and intimidate anyone opposed to having a council meeting at a Marae and to Māori spirituality. It also hasn't occurred to Stuff that they might see it differently if the meeting was held at a Church or Synagogue.”

In response Stuff said the first story was written around the councillor’s post explaining his decision not to attend the meeting and included multiple quotes from him. It contained little reaction or response. The follow-up was the community’s response. This second piece summarised the councillor’s position prominently in the second and third pars and expanded on this later in the story.

The Media Council considered this complaint under Principle (1) as this was a news article. Principle (4) and (9) were not relevant.

The Council saw no evidence to support the complaint. This was a situation where a prominent local politician took a position that was bound to cause some surprise and controversy.

Stuff sought reaction from community leaders who mentioned the marae’s importance as a community hub, the council’s Treaty obligations and that councillors were elected to represent all communities in their area. It also reported Local Government Minister Simon Watts who said it was up to councils to decide where they meet and that councillors should represent their constituents at council meetings.

This story gave Councillor Gibson a second chance in two days to set out his case in detail. This was balanced with a response from local community leaders.

Mr Aquino did not question the accuracy of the reporting. However, he suggests it was biased and unfair because it was “four against one.”

The Media Council does not believe the case was made. Journalistic fairness and balance do not require equal numbers on each side.  The important point is that all viewpoints are given a fair airing so readers can decide the validity of the arguments presented. If a politician makes a big stand on an issue and gets criticised for it, that is the politician’s lookout.

The article, which touches on race relations, was handled with care and the comments were fair and reasoned. The article was not unbalanced – it followed an  article which contained the Councillor’s views. As well as giving Councillor Gibson the opportunity to make his case again, it also mentioned that he was last year’s highest polling Hastings council candidate and came third in the mayoral race. 

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.