Michael Pearson against The Post

The Post published an article on March 14, 2026, titled, Senior public servant resigns amid bullying and harassment investigation.

The story reported that the deputy chief executive of the Social Investment Agency Kylie Reiri resigned amid an employment investigation into bullying and harassment allegations.

It further reported that multiple sources had told The Post, Ms Reiri had been on paid leave since late October. She then resigned on February 11 – a week after The Post first began asking questions about the situation.

Michael Pearson complained: “That The Post published confidential, unverified, and potentially misleading employment-related allegations about a public servant without meeting legal, ethical, or editorial standards—and then failed to adequately justify or address those concerns when challenged.

“Your article appears to disclose information from an active internal HR investigation, including details surrounding the individual’s resignation. This is clearly personal information under the Privacy Act 2020... Publishing such material apparently sourced from anonymous or self-interested individuals before any process has concluded is a serious breach of privacy. I require The Post to explain precisely what legal and ethical checks were undertaken to ensure this disclosure was lawful.”

“The article makes significant claims about Kylie Reiri.... Employment-related allegations are among the most sensitive forms of personal information, and publishing them without robust verification causes harm that cannot easily be remedied.

“Both the Media Council’s principles and the Privacy Act allow privacy to be overridden only where a genuine and substantial public interest exists. ... Internal employment matters are not ordinarily matters for public disclosure, and the seniority of the role does not, on its own, justify publication. I cannot identify any public interest rationale proportionate to the intrusion involved. The Post must set out its justification in full.

“The Media Council requires that information be gathered fairly and without harassment or undue pressure. I expect a detailed account of the nature, frequency, and timing of all contact made with individuals in relation to this story.

“The structure and presentation of the article suggest that its primary purpose may have been to solicit further leaks rather than to inform the public. The decision to feature an image of Andy Coster who is only tangentially connected to the matter reinforces this concern.... I suspect this is to ensure you continue to generate interest in anything associated with Andy Coster.”

Mr Pearson asked The Post to publish a correction or retraction of all unverified claims, apologise, carry out an internal review, and release its findings.

Mr Pearson complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (4) Comment and Fact; (7) Discrimination and Diversity; and (8) Confidentiality.

Responding on behalf of The Post, Stuff chief news director Marc Greenhill said it stood behind its news gathering and reporting.

“The person named in the article was, at the time, a high-ranking public servant in a position of authority and now holds a role on the board of a state-own enterprise. Allegations of bullying and harassment involving those who hold these roles meet the public interest test for this reason.

“Information about bullying and harassment investigations at the Social Investment Agency and Kylie Reiri's resignation were released under the Official Information Act (as noted in the article), with further verification from sources that I cannot disclose. The article was reviewed by myself and editor Tracy Watkins before publication.

“The four attempts by various means to contact Kylie Reiri in the days prior to publication were, in our view, fair and reasonable given the serious nature of the allegations.

“The use of the Andrew Coster's photo was appropriate given he is mentioned in the story. The context for this is made clear.”

The Media Council notes that while Mr Pearson has the right to challenge The Post’s handling of this story, it does not believe a case has been made to show how it breached any of the Principles cited.

Principle (1) - The complainant did not set out how the story was inaccurate. The Council believed that repeated attempts to seek comment from Ms Reiri before publication satisfied the requirement to show fairness and balance.

Principle (2) - This Media Council Principle applies here as the Privacy Act does not apply to news gathering which has an exemption to protect freedom of expression. Principle (2) states that the right of privacy should not interfere with publications of significant matters of public record or public interest. The Council believed the resignation of a senior public servant was a matter of significant public interest. It also noted that key information was obtained under the Official Information Act, where the agency providing information could have withheld information if there was good reason for doing so.

Principle (4) Comment and Fact; and (7) Discrimination and Diversity - No case was made to show how these Principles were breached.

Principle (8) - This Principle relates to the obligation to protect against disclosing the identity of confidence media sources. No case was made to show how it applied in this story.

The Media Council was not convinced that The Post was obliged to respond to all the questions raised by Mr Pearson as to what checks and discussions there were before the story was published. There was also nothing to support a claim that the story was not written for legitimate journalistic purpose and there were no grounds for complaint about the use of Mr Coster’s photo in this story.

Complaints depend on making a case to show that journalistic ethics or the relevant Media Council Principles may have been breached. Without that they cannot proceed.

In summary the Council believed the information was obtained legitimately and there was legitimate public interest. If there was a breach of the Privacy Act it should go to the Privacy Commission, but the Council regarded this story as legitimate disclosure of a matter of public interest.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.