Liz Kelly against The Post
Case Number: 3733
Council Meeting: 3 June 2025
Decision: Upheld with Dissent
Publication: The Post
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Headlines and Captions
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. The Post published an article on March 18, 2025, titled, Council iwi rep ejected after disrupting meeting and insulting mayor. It published a second article, Council iwi rep faces conduct investigation, on March 19. Liz Kelly complains the articles breach Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics. The complaint is upheld with dissent in relation to both articles under Principle (1) in terms of fairness. It is upheld with dissent in regard to the first article under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions.
The Article
2. The first article outlines how Wellington City Council pouiwi (iwi representative) Liz Kelly was ejected from a Porirua City Council meeting after disrupting it and making ‘’angry, disrespectful’’ and personal remarks to Porirua mayor Anita Baker.
3. Porirua council chief executive Wendy Walker complained to Ngāti Toa iwi and Mayor Baker complained to Wellington mayor Tory Whanau.
4. Ms Kelly says she ‘’walked out’’. When asked why she was disruptive and criticised Mayor Baker, she replied, ‘’there is no evidence to support any of the allegations or behaviour you refer to’’.
5. Ms Kelly is Porirua Whanau Centre chief executive. She was at the meeting to make a public forum submission about the high rates the whanau centre paid, ongoing water reform and Wellington Water’s performance. Her submission criticised Mayor Baker.
6. She stayed on for a discussion about the water service. This discussion involved Ms Kelly’s daughter, Porirua councillor Kathleen Filo. During it, Ms Kelly is seen to gesture before standing and saying: ‘’What a circus, what a [inaudible] circus’’.
7. Chairperson Josh Trlin adjourned the meeting and the livestream was cut.
8. Mayor Baker said the meeting was adjourned because public gallery interjections, led mainly by Ms Kelly, continued despite the chair giving several warnings. Members of the public are not allowed to speak or interject outside the public forum.
9. Ms Walker said: ‘’Pouiwi Kelly left after being asked to leave by the chair. She was not physically removed, however, staff did step in to prevent Ms Kelly and any others from approaching the mayor in person and to make sure they left the council chamber.’’
10. ‘’The remarks were angry, disrespectful and personally targeted at Mayor Baker...’’
11. Ngāti Toa chief executive Helmut Modlik, Ms Kelly’s brother, was quoted saying that Ms Kelly ‘’expressed regret to me and explained what had occurred in the meeting that had elicited the heated exchange’’ and that he was disappointed and that she was representing the whanau centre, not the Wellington council or iwi.
12. The article quotes Ms Kelly saying she stood to leave the meeting after Mayor Baker made an incorrect procedural move. ‘’Accordingly, as I was walking out, I said: ‘What a circus!’’’ Ms Kelly says there was heckling but she did not take part or approve of it.
13. Mayor Baker, in text messages to Tory Whanau, released by Porirua council, described Ms Kelly’s behaviour as ‘’truly terrible’’, ‘’nasty, personal and just plain rude’’.
14. The article included a photo of Ms Kelly from another meeting.
15. The second article outlines that Ms Kelly faces an independent investigation on behalf of Ngāti Toa after a council complaint to the iwi organisation about behaviour that resulted in her being removed from the meeting.
16. The article provides background from the first story and provides details about and links to previous stories of controversy involving Ms Kelly.
The Complaint
17. In her complaint to The Post, Ms Kelly says the first story shows a pattern of behaviour from the paper of ‘’uncritical acceptance of accusations against me”.
18. The headline implies she attended the meeting as Wellington council iwi representative. Statements from her and Mr Modlik correcting this do not appear until the last column of the story.
19. The story tried to further reinforce this implication by seeking comment from Wellington’s mayor and Ngāti Toa’s chief executive. The article also contained a photo of her at a Wellington City Council meeting.
20. The Post had earlier received copies of her submission which made clear she was acting in her capacity as the whanau centre chief executive.
21. Ms Walker knew this and had no grounds to complain to the Wellington council or Ngāti Toa. She also inaccurately stated that Ms Kelly led public gallery interjections.
22. The headline asserts that Ms Kelly was ejected, and Ms Walker asserts that Ms Kelly was asked to leave. Ms Kelly says this is not true. ‘’As I stated in my response to The Post yesterday, I was on my way out of the meeting unprompted by the chair when Councillor Ross Leggett, father of Wellington Water chair Nick Leggett, yelled at me. Of his comments, I only heard, ‘’Get out, Liz, get out’’.
23. The chair may have made a comment as the gallery was standing but Ms Kelly was already leaving. She was not ejected. The comment referencing ‘’what a circus’’ was directed at the meeting, not the mayor.
24. The second article reinforces the inaccuracies.
25. Ms Kelly sought an apology to her, Ngāti Toa and the Wellington council that includes the purpose of her submission and a link to it and ‘’repeat that I was not ejected from the meeting, did not insult the mayor and did not make any interjections during the meeting’’.
26. In her formal Media Council complaint, Ms Kelly said The Post did not contact the Porirua Whanau Centre board for comment. She also provided a copy of the summary of the investigation on behalf of Ngāti Toa. It concluded that Ms Kelly did not breach Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira’s code of conduct, attended as whanau centre chief executive, did not heckle or otherwise disrupt council discussions, and left the meeting when it adjourned.
27. Ms Kelly’s final written statement to the Media Council included comments that another Post reporter was at the meeting but was not quoted nor has his eyewitness experience been used by The Post to rebut this complaint.
The Response
28. The Post believes the main issue that Ms Kelly wishes to address is that she was at the meeting as an individual not as an iwi rep.
29. Most of the rest of the complaint deals with statements or actions by the Porirua mayor and chief executive and those matters are better directed at them.
30. The article is not about Ms Kelly’s submission. It is about the complaints about her conduct and what led up to her leaving the council chamber. The fact two senior council members made complaints made it newsworthy.
31. The video confirmed Ms Kelly left after shouting ‘’what a circus’’ and other inaudible comments.
32. The complaints were made on the basis of Ms Kelly’s appointment as a pouiwi. ‘’While it might be possible to divorce your submission from your standing as pouiwi, it is not possible to divorce your conduct from your standing as pouiwi.’’
33. Public officials can expect scrutiny of their behaviour in any environment. The Post had reported both sides of the argument fairly. It accurately reported on events at the meeting including the fact there was a dispute as to what was said.
34. In its formal Media Council response, The Post said its report accurately reflected statements given by Mayor Baker and Ms Walker about the actions and events that led to Ms Kelly leaving the council chamber, and accurately quoted Ms Kelly disputing those comments.
35. Ms Walker and Mayor Baker had a ‘’very clear view of what they believed to have taken place.’’ The matter involved high-profile public figures and had news merit.
36. The Post defended its use of the title pouiwi because it is a public role like that of a councillor or mayor. Ms Kelly’s interjections centred on the comments from the mayor about Wellington Water and ‘’this appears to be unrelated to Kelly’s earlier submission in relation to the Porirua Whanau Centre’’.
Presentations to the Media Council
37. Ms Kelly asked to be heard in person at the Media Council’s June meeting. Her daughter and Porirua councillor Kathleen Filo was with her as was her legal counsel, who read a written statement on her behalf. That statement reiterated that another Post reporter was present, but their account not used in the stories or complaint response. She did not attend the meeting as an iwi representative; she did not disrupt the meeting or insult the mayor and was not ejected from the meeting. The stories were inaccurate and unfair.
38. The Post editor Tracy Watkins spoke to the Media Council via video link and said largely her response stood. There was another Post reporter at the meeting to cover another matter and he ‘’does not dispute any of the details in our story’’. The article quoted the mayor and chief executive, and it seemed there were ‘’a number of critical sources’’ backing up their account of events. It also quoted Ms Kelly. It was a fair and accurate report of the proceedings.
The Discussion
39. The first article was the subject of a previous Media Council complaint from a third party. That complaint centred around inclusion of the video being a gross misrepresentation of what happened. The complaint also said there was a clear bias and determined intent to not cover accurately and fairly the facts as they occurred. It did not specifically complain about the use of the words ‘ejected’ and ‘insulting’. It was assessed as having no grounds to proceed.
40. But this complaint is different. Its essence is that Ms Kelly says it was wrong to focus on her role as Wellington council pouiwi when she was at the meeting as whanau centre chief executive, that she did not make insulting comments to the mayor, did not make any interjections and was not ejected but rather chose to leave. Ms Kelly says the photo further reinforced the inaccuracy regarding her role at the meeting.
41. It is clear that Ms Kelly feels strongly about her title of pouiwi being used in these articles when she says she attended the meeting in a different capacity. However, having carefully considered this aspect of the complaint, the Media Council believes it was fair for The Post to describe Ms Kelly as the pouiwi even if she was at the meeting for another reason. The role is important and public-facing and her actions in any public place can reasonably be tied to it, much like any other public figure. It was also fair to use the photo from an earlier Wellington council meeting as it is connected with her pouiwi role. Using file images in this way is common in news articles and in this instance does not breach Media Council principles.
42. A review of the meeting’s livestream shows Ms Kelly making her submission, which is critical of the mayor, and later during a separate discussion on Wellington Water getting up and saying, ‘’What a circus, what a [inaudible] circus”. She moves to walk away but then walks back and has a verbal interaction with a councillor before repeating her circus comment. It is clear to the Media Council she disrupted the meeting.
43. The livestream is then cut before it later resumes without Ms Kelly present. What it does show is Ms Kelly getting up of her own volition and being in the process of leaving before she turned to answer a remark made to her. While not conclusive, it supports her statement as to what happened and is inconsistent with the statement that she was ejected.
44. It is clear there are two sides to this story. There are disputed facts and opinions and emotions are running high.
45. The Post has presented both sides and had every right to report statements and opinions from Mayor Baker and Ms Walker and therefore was obliged to seek responses from Ms Kelly, Wellington council and Ngāti Toa. There is no evidence it misquoted anyone. The article is balanced.
46. However, there is a problem with the first article because it states as fact in the headline and first sentence that Ms Kelly was ejected when this is disputed and there is no evidence of it in the story or video. Ms Kelly has not provided evidence that she was not ejected but she denies it and The Post ought to have provided proof or attributed the claim. Even if her denial was not clear from her initial comments to The Post, the paper should have amended and annotated the article accordingly after receiving her complaint. The first sentence of the second article is also problematic in that it repeats the statement of fact that she was ‘removed’ from the meeting.
47. In terms of the first article’s headline, the same issue arises with the statement of fact that Ms Kelly insulted the mayor, and this too should have been attributed or a direct quote used because Ms Kelly says her circus comment was directed at the meeting, not the mayor.
48. Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance says: ‘’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.’’ The Media Council believes The Post has breached this principle in terms of fairness when it comes to the first sentence of both articles.
49. Principle (6) Headlines and captions says: ‘’Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover.’’ The first article’s use of the words ‘ejected’ and ‘insulting’ as statements of fact without proof, attribution or use of double quote marks to make clear it is someone’s opinion breaches this principle.
Decision:
50. The complaint is upheld with dissent under Principle (1) in terms of fairness; and Principle (6). It is not upheld under Principle (11) Photographs and graphics.
Dissent by Hank Schouten:
It was fair to report Ms Kelly was ejected from the Porirua City Council meeting. The story was based on the comment of the council chief executive that Ms Kelly was asked to leave after disrupting the meeting. Ms Kelly disputes this and said it was her decision to walk out.
Clearly the two sides have different versions of events, which is not unexpected after tempers flare in heated debate. Crucially both versions were recorded in the story. It is not possible at this point for the Media Council to add much. No minutes of the meeting were provided, there was no transcript of what was said, and the limited livestream video coverage was not helpful.
But nothing really turns on it, except a little pride.
If this had happened in Parliament and the Speaker asked somebody to leave the chamber or public gallery the media would justifiably say that person was ejected from Parliament. The situation here is the same.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis
Judi Jones declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.