Joshua Riley against Stuff
Case Number: 3885
Council Meeting: 8 June 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Conflict of Interest
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Stuff published two opinion columns written by Damien Grant. The first, titled ACT is in a death match with NZ First, and the stakes couldn’t be higher, was published on March 1, 2026. The second, Reading the NZ-India free trade agreement made my stress levels rise, was published on May 3. Joshua Riley complains both columns breach Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest.
The Article
2. In the March column, Mr Grant argues that the country’s spending, deficit, and taxation as a share of GDP have risen under the current administration.
3. He criticises the Government, Labour’s Chris Hipkins but has some praise for ACT, and an inner group of some ministers and MPs. He criticises NZ First, saying: “It is unconscionable that a party that elevated Jacinda Ardern over Bill English, that stood silent as the oil and gas prohibition was imposed, and supported a ban on foreigners purchasing residential land, can wrap itself in a shroud of conservative rectitude and claim to be the defender of the old religion.”
4. New Zealand is on a “self-destructive” trajectory of rising debt, sluggish productivity, falling government services, a declining birth rate and exodus of talent.
5. National’s Christopher Luxon, Mr Hipkins, and NZ First’s Winston Peters “cannot be allowed to peddle their timid solutions unchallenged”.
6. The May column discusses the NZ-India free trade agreement and begins by referring to ACT leader David Seymour as “funny” but “principled”.
7. It outlines the deal’s positive and negative points and makes clear it is not perfect. Mr Grant praises National and Labour for supporting it and criticises NZ First for opposing it, saying the party can “sometimes be a little, shall we say, imprecise when it comes to their interpretation of the facts”.
The Complaint
8. Mr Riley, in his complaint to Stuff on May 4, notes that Mr Grant fundraised for the ACT Party by being the headline guest speaker at a December 9, 2018, electorally authorised event. Some of the $60 ticket proceeds were to go to Mr Seymour’s 2020 Epsom re-election fund.
9. Mr Grant, in his May 2026 column, praises Mr Seymour, attacks NZ First and endorses the coalition position on the agreement. The March column’s premise is that ACT must defeat NZ First.
10. Both columns carried a biographical note saying: “Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective”. No disclosure is made about the 2018 fundraising event. The biography is materially incomplete.
11. Mr Grant publicly acknowledged the fundraiser with one sentence in a Stuff June 11, 2023, column. That single, partial disclosure was incomplete and does not satisfy ongoing disclosure obligations.
12. Disclosure matters because a reader cannot fairly evaluate Mr Grant’s comments without knowing his relationship to the ACT Party. Material conflicts of interest, particularly financial and party-political ones, must be disclosed where they are relevant to the column.
13. Mr Riley seeks a retroactive editor’s note disclosing the fundraising to be added to all three columns referenced and any others by Mr Grant that comment on ACT, NZ First, Mr Seymour, Mr Peters or coalition politics, and his publicly stated partisan position. He also seeks an updated standing biography disclosing Mr Grant’s fundraising for ACT, and a formal apology.
14. In his Media Council complaint, Mr Riley says the financial relationship and the columnist’s ideological alignment with ACT are “categorically different things”.
15. The columnist’s link to the subject is documentary, not inferential and the Principle attaches to the column, not the columnist’s career.
The Response
16. Stuff initially responded that Mr Grant is a regular opinion columnist whose work is clearly labelled as comment and reflect his personal views.
17. As a long-standing columnist writing from a defined ideological perspective, Mr Grant’s political views, including his support for ACT, are well established in his work and evident to readers.
18. Stuff considers the columns are presented in a way that allows readers to understand and assess his perspective.
19. In its formal response to the Council, Stuff disagrees with Mr Riley that the columnist speaking at a 2018 ACT event creates an ongoing declarable conflict requiring disclosure on columns that mention ACT or coalition politics.
20. Mr Grant is not a news reporter but an opinion columnist writing from a well-established political perspective. Readers are not being misled.
21. The Complainant places considerable weight on Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. Stuff believes the Principle must be applied proportionately and in context. Stuff does not believe readers are likely to be materially misled.
The Discussion
22. Mr Riley has asked the Media Council to consider the March column as part of this complaint even though it was published outside the Council’s one calendar month time limit. The Council has agreed to the request because the time involved is short and the column is relevant to the allegation of conflict that became apparent on publication of the second article. The 2023 column, referenced in the complaint as context, does not form part of this decision.
23. The complainant cites two Principles, and the Media Council will deal with Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest first. The relevant part of this Principle is, “Where an author’s link to a subject is deemed to be justified, the relationship of author to subject should be declared”.
24. Mr Grant spoke at an ACT party event in 2018, where money was raised for leader David Seymour. The key question is: Does this need to be declared on any of Mr Grant’s prior columns that have commented on coalition politics, and be included in his columns moving forward?
25. Mr Grant’s current biography on Stuff columns describes him as a libertarian. Given that, it should be no surprise that he would support ACT. Regular readers will also have no doubt as to Mr Grant’s political leanings.
26. Strong political opinions are common amongst columnists but as the complainant says, ideological alignment and documented fundraising for a particular party or candidate are different things. Under Principle (10), current fundraising would likely be considered an author's link and disclosure would be expected. However, no evidence has been produced as part of this complaint that Mr Grant holds an ongoing direct link that would create a conflict of interest.
27. The threshold for breaching Principle (10) is high. Disclosure is required where there is a current or recent, and directly relevant link between author and subject matter. A speaking engagement more than seven years ago, on its own, does not meet this high threshold, even if funds raised went to Mr Seymour.
28. Stuff cannot reasonably be expected to update previous published columns or reference a speaking event from so long ago in the standing biography. That is going a step too far. The complaint is not upheld under Principle (10).
29. Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance covers news articles and does not apply in this case.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon,
Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Jo Cribb
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote