Phil Morrison against The Southland Times
Case Number: 3874
Council Meeting: 8 June 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Southland Times
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Chair of the Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group, Phil Morrison complains about a Southland Times article reporting on events following a storm. Mr Morrison argues that the article is framed around inaccurate information about the disaster response.
The Article
2. On February 28, 2026, The Southland Times published the article Review called for after tensions over storm response and relief flights. Southland Mayor Rob Scott, and Southland Federated Farmers president Jason Herrick are stated saying that Emergency Management Southland (EMS) turned down the offer of a Hercules flight full of generators on Friday 25 October, the day after a storm had hit Southland. The generators were needed to power milksheds. They are calling for a review of that decision.
3. Contrary evidence is then outlined that showed the need for generators to support milking was not raised in briefings until the evening of Friday 25th. The EMS controller also responds saying no flight was ever requested or planned for Friday. A Hercules was requested and did arrive with generators to be used to restore cell towers and communication on Saturday 26th. The EMS controller stated that there was sufficient local generation for milking and power restoration meant additional units were not required.
4. The article was amended twice following feedback, including removing part of a quote from the mayor and re-emphasizing that no plane was arranged on the Friday.
The Complaint
5. Chair of the Southland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group, Phil Morrison complains that the article is inaccurate as it contains material that is not factual. He states that as Defence Force relief flights can only be requested and coordinated through the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), NEMA did not arrange a Friday evening flight and the first time the issue of generators for milking was raised was on that Friday. He states that both EMS and NEMA unequivocally stated that the claim that a flight had been declined was “categorically untrue”. Mr Morrison states that “despite this, the article presents the allegation prominently, without providing documentary or corroborated evidence that such a flight was scheduled, authorised, or available”.
6. He also complains that the article is unbalanced as while the article includes responses from EMS and NEMA, those responses appear later in the piece and, in his view, do not receive equivalent prominence to the initial allegation.
7. Further, Mr Morrison pointed out that there is a significant public interest in reporting on emergency management as public trust in emergency response systems depends on accurate reporting of decision-making processes. An article like this one that contains unverified and inaccurate claims can undermine confidence in emergency management systems.
The Response
8. The Southland Times responds that the article does not state as fact that EMS turned down a flight, rather it reports on concerns raised by prominent community leaders about the emergency response following the October 2025 storm, including claims about a Defence Force Hercules flight and generators. Those claims were clearly attributed.
9. The Southland Times points out that article also included NEMA’s position that there was no flight arranged for the Friday. The EMS controller’s response was also given significant space including refuting the claim that EMS turned down a Defence Force plane on the Friday as “categorically untrue”.
10. The Southland Times does not accept that the article should have not given prominence to those claims because EMS and NEMA disputed them. The fact that an agency denies an allegation, they state, does not prevent a newsroom from reporting that it has been made, particularly when it comes from relevant public figures, is clearly attributed, and includes detailed responses from the agencies concerned.
11. Following correspondence with NEMA, The Southland Times removed the wording attributed to the mayor that the organisation “turned down a Hercules flight full of generators the day after the storm hit” as NEMA advised this would alleviate its concerns.
12. Later, following a complaint from Mr Morrison, The Southland Times published a clarification that they state is in good faith, despite their view that the original article had already included the relevant positions of both NEMA and EMS. The clarification reflected wording proposed by Mr Morrison.
The Discussion
13. While the Media Council appreciates the importance of public confidence in emergency management systems, and as such the Media Council welcomes Mr Morrison’s complaint, it also believes reporting of critique and debate is important. This article is not a description of the emergency response to a storm in Southland; it is about two different views held regarding it: the concerns of community leaders about poor performance and the counter position from the agencies involved.
14. In this case, two prominent community leaders (the Mayor and President of Southland Federated Farmers) believe that NEMA and EMS did not serve the district well by denying it much needed resources at a critical time. This is their claims and it is clearly attributed to them. That NEMA and EMS point out that there is no substance to these views is also clearly presented in the article, though the Council notes NEMA’s and EMS’s statements could have been given more prominence in the opening paragraphs. The Media Council can see no inaccuracies in the article: the two perspectives are accurately reported, even though one may be based on misinformation.
15. While the article starts with the views of the two community leaders, and their call for a review, the counter view is introduced within the first quarter of the article and then expanded at the end. Given the title and subject of the article is their dissatisfaction and call for the review, this seems like a logical structure. The EMS controller is given ample space to share the agency’s perspective. The Media Council can determine no breach of its Principle (1) as, according to the wording of the Principle, a fair voice was given to the opposition.
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
Bernadette Courtney declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.