Richard Thomas against Crux News
Case Number: 3834
Council Meeting: 2 February 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Crux Media
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On 4 December 2025 Crux News published a story headlined Is it time for Queenstown's unelected mayor to step out of the shadows? The article titled “Analysis” argues a prominent Queenstown resident Richard Thomas is a key behind-the-scenes person in Glyn Lewers campaign to be re-elected as mayor in the 2025 local body elections. Mr Thomas complains the article breaches Principles (1) and (4).
The Article
2. The article is labelled “Analysis” which appears below a large photograph of Richard Thomas. It begins by stating that “For many years Crux has been curious as to who really has the power in Queenstown - and how that power is used both in public and private domains” and asserts Richard Thomas is the name that keeps “cropping up”.
3. The piece says Mr Thomas is following in the footsteps of his father Barry, the chair of Skyline Enterprises which made a $65 million profit in 2025 and is valued at close to $1 billion. It adds Richard Thomas is the chair of Destination Queenstown which “runs our local tourism industry”.
4. It continues by citing his Destination Queenstown profile and then speculates Mr Thomas may have been managing Queenstown’s mayor and “democratically elected” councillors behind the scenes “in the shadows”.
5. Mr Newport says without attribution that many “observers” hold a strong view that Glyn Lewers, when he was a councillor, was being groomed for the mayoral role by former mayor Jim Boult alongside the “Queenstown business community” who Mr Newport says is Richard Thomas.
6. Mr Newport then calls for the business community to lobby openly through the town’s Chamber of Commerce, so it receives a clean mandate from the entire business community, and he continues with a call for accountability.
7. The article continues and says that “We do not want to see the likes of Mr Thomas behaving like the British Royal Family” wielding power behind the scenes. He says New Zealand is lucky to not have a social class system where the upper class behaves with arrogance and entitlement.
8. He finishes with a commitment that Crux will support the business community and urges it to elect a new spokesman who can respect democracy and identify with local people.
The Complaint
9. Mr Thomas makes two complaints under Principles (1) and (4).
10. With respect to Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, he says he was not contacted for comment on the allegations made in the article which he says makes significant allegations about his conduct, motivation and influence over elected officials and given the nature of the allegations he was entitled to respond to them before publication.
11. He notes the article makes significant allegations about his “conduct, motivations and influence over elected officials” and therefore he was entitled to respond before publication. He says the accusation he is managing politicians from behind the scenes is inaccurate and unsubstantiated and that he has neither secret control nor has he tried to control politicians from behind the scenes which is presented by Crux as “an undisclosed governance role” and no evidence has been presented to support this.
12. He continues by saying he has never groomed a candidate for mayor, and such a statement is defamatory and notes none of the critics have been named and speculation has been presented as fact.
13. He says the accusation of the “aggressive, sometimes abusive campaign to re-elect Mayor Lewers is without evidence, and he denies any abusive conduct.
14. With respect to the view Mr Thomas “probably has more to gain financially from tourism, and Queenstown, going his way than any other individual”, he describes it as speculation without evidence and says it is there to impute improper financial motivation to his civic involvement.
15. Mr Thomas says the comparison of him behaving like the British Royal Family by giving things “a good quiet nudge” behind the scenes is without factual foundation.
16. Mr Thomas says while the article is labelled “Analysis”, Principle (4) requires that "material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate and he notes the opinions expressed in this article are based on assertions presented as facts which are not established and for which no evidence is provided”.
17. Mr Thomas cites Media Council Rulings 2939, 2940 and 3012 where Crux has been criticised by the Media Council for this issue.
18. He continues and says the article only presents Mr Newport’s perspective without any attempt to verify allegations with any party who might offer context or rebuttal.
19. Mr Thomas has set out more detail in his last response. He has offered affidavits from two of those involved stating that Crux’s statements are inadequate and forwarded a statement in support.
The Response
20. Peter Newport, the Crux News editor says Mr Thomas is a well-known businessman in Queenstown and connected to Skyline Enterprises and alongside his father is a former owner of the Mountain Scene newspaper. He says it is widely known they are supporters of conservative/status quo politics in Queenstown.
21. He says Mr Thomas is or has been on the boards of many local business agencies including the Chamber of Commerce and Destination Queenstown and has been a key figure in funding local election campaigns for conservative politicians which Crux has covered extensively.
22. Mr Newport asks that the Media Council note “the Council acknowledges that the genre or purpose of a publication or article, for example blogs, satire, cartoons or gossip, call for special consideration in any complaint.”
23. He continues that as Crux News is hyper-local, 98 per cent of its audience are return readers and therefore would be knowledgeable about local politics and the people and projects covered in the last eight years while acknowledging that while the article is marked “Analysis” following recent Media Council rulings such articles will now also be labelled Opinion.
24. Mr Newport says the observations made in the article are true and do not require a right of reply especially given Mr Thomas is well known. He continues if Mr Thomas requires a right of reply to Crux that has been offered that Mr Thomas has declined to answer questions and is out to silence the publication ahead of addressing what Crux describes as legitimate public interest concerns around the way he attempts to influence local government.
25. Mr Newport says at a function hosted by Destination Queenstown which is chaired by Mr Thomas, he made attempts to persuade the new mayor John Glover to stand down from the Regional Deals negotiation committee claiming the mayor did not represent Queenstown.
26. Mr Newport says Crux can confirm the conversation between Mr Thomas and Councillor Mitchell who then spoke to the mayor and other councillors. Mr Mitchell has written to Crux News stating that Mr Thomas asked the mayor to be replaced by councillor Heath Copland.
27. He says Mr Thomas attempted to get an affidavit from the mayor to establish there had been no such conversation and that he is refusing to comment or acknowledge emails and texts from Crux that include details of the Thomas/Mitchell exchange.
28. Mr Newport says none of the “observations in our opinion piece contain any serious allegations – just the grooming of Mayor Lewers and entitled behaviour.” He continues that grooming of political candidates by supporters happens all the time though usually with more transparency.
29. He says the tone of the article being complained about has drawn attention to Mr Thomas’ desire to influence while remaining “Invisible and unaccountable.” and this is widely known in the community.
30. Mr Newport says Crux is entitled to its opinion and it is in the public interest to express such a view because local government should be transparent and accountable and if the business community wants to influence local government representation, then the Chamber of Commerce is the vehicle for that.
31. He maintains Mr Thomas has crossed a line and has attempted to undermine the elected mayor by his actions.
The Discussion
32. The complaint to the Media Council was made under Principles (1) and (4).
33. Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance – 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. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
34. Principle (4) Comment and Fact - A clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. An article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.
35. The robust reporting of local politics is supported by the Media Council. A degree of speculation if it is labelled as opinion and based on facts is permissible. However, as has been the case with other Crux articles, this article was not labelled “Opinion” and was neither fair nor balanced. Importantly there is no clear distinction drawn between fact and opinion, and there is no foundation of fact put forward for the conclusory statements of opinion.
36. The article made adverse statements about Mr Thomas. It said that Mr Thomas was managing or trying to manage the democratically elected Council representatives from behind the scenes. A reader is likely to think that this is not how the democratic process is meant to work. It said that Mr Thomas was grooming a certain person for Mayor, again a practice that to most New Zealand readers would not be welcome. It said that he was a key figure in an aggressive, sometimes abusive, campaign to re-elect the Mayor. These three allegations and the tenor of the article all reflect adversely on Mr Thomas.
37. Mr Thomas denies these allegations. Crux says they are true and an overheard conversation and some other events are recounted. There is no actual analysis of facts or principles. The statements are conclusory and no evidence is supplied.
38. Even if this is treated as an Opinion column, that label is not a licence to make accusations without some established facts. The claims that something is “widely known community knowledge” or that the reporting is very local are not a defence for accusations without evidence or examples. It should be obvious to Crux that if they want to report claims of wrongdoing at specific meetings, they should do the investigative journalism required to establish the facts and gather a range of views before launching attacks.
39. We remind Crux, as noted in the Preamble to the Media Council's Principles, that an independent press plays a vital role in a democracy. The proper fulfilment of that role requires a fundamental responsibility to maintain high standards of accuracy, fairness and balance and public faith in those standards.
40. Crux has had a number of complaints upheld against it involving extreme statements of opinion about local politicians. Continued
findings against Crux brings into question its ability to meet and maintain the required high standards.
Decision: The complaint is upheld for a breach of Principles (1) and (4)
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Bernadette Courtney