Rt Hon Winston Peters against The Post
Case Number: 3858
Council Meeting: 20 April 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: The Post
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Minister for Rail (Mr Peters), has complained about an article published by The Post on March 11, 2026, under the headline “Cook Strait ferry project $167m over budget – and key port deals still unsigned”.
The Article
2. The article is reporting on several official documents publicly released by Treasury and Ferry Holdings Ltd in March 2026 that relate to the Cook Strait ferry replacement programme announced by the government in March 2025. The documents were written in August and November 2025.
3. The article reports that the “newly released documents” show the replacement programme is $167 million “over budget”. That claim is based on a “current cost estimate” in the documents of $1.867 million. The article says this exceeds the $1.7 billion “Crown-tagged contingency”, so the programme is “$167 million over budget”.
4. The current government’s ferry replacement plan has been widely debated because cabinet decided to shelve plans already put in place by the previous government. In November 2025, the current government announced the total budget for the replacement programme would be $1.867 billion, of which the government would contribute $1.7 billion.
5. The complainant is Winston Peters, who announced and is responsible for the replacement project, and leader of the New Zealand First party.
The Complaint
6. Mr Peters complains that The Post article and its headline contain “a significant factual error”. Its claim that the ferry replacement programme as a whole is $167 million “over budget” is “misleading and factually inaccurate”. The complaint is made under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness, and Balance that says publications should not “mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission” and that “In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view”.
7. Mr Peters claims the error stems from a misunderstanding of the two key figures involved in the project to replace the Cook Strait ferries. As the government announced last November, “the total programme budget” is $1.867b. “The upper limit of the Crown’s contribution within that programme for assets it will own” is $1.7b. The difference between the government contribution and total project cost will be met by the ports for assets they will own.
8. Mr Peters says the overall programme budget remains at $1.867 billion “and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. It is not possible for a budget to remain exactly the same but be reported as being “over budget”… Presenting the difference between these numbers as “over budget” when the budget is totally unchanged is misleading and inaccurate journalism,” the complainant says. He adds that, having cancelled the previous government’s project, “It would be a significant news story if… the Government was now “over budget” in its replacement project”. He notes that no other media outlet ran this “over budget” angle.
9. He says the error was avoidable if The Post reporter had sought comment before publication from the responsible Minister, Ferry Holdings, CentrePort, or Port Marlborough. She did not.
10. Mr Peters Senior Press Secretary approached the reporter three hours after publication saying she had confused the total programme spend with the Crown portion of the spend and requested a correction. The reporter replied, “I disagree” and said, “the documents show that the $1.867 billion price tag already exceeds the $1.7 billion Crown-tagged contingency”. She argued that the total programme cost can only stay within the approved “funding envelope” if councils and port companies provide the remaining infrastructure for $167m and those agreements have not yet been finalised. Mr Peters says this misunderstands the ports’ role in the project.
11. Mr Peters Rail Private Secretary phoned the reporter to explain the issue, but the reporter was on deadline and too busy to talk. The Post’s editor later rang the Press Secretary to say she stood by her journalist, so Mr Peters turned to the Media Council.
The Response
12. The Post’s editor rejects the complaint in full, saying there is “no material inaccuracy” and the disagreement is one of interpretation not factual error.
13. “The article clearly and accurately reports both figures and does not conflate them. The distinction is explicit. The Minister’s complaint instead advances a preferred interpretation—that the programme is not “over budget” because anticipated third-party contributions are expected to complete the funding envelope.”
14. The Post's editor says the article accurately reports that “the total estimated cost exceeds the Crown’s confirmed capped funding” and “the programme remains within its funding envelope only if additional contributions from port companies and local authorities are secured”.
15. “In circumstances where estimated costs exceed confirmed and secured funding, it is entirely reasonable to characterise a project as being “over budget” or under budget pressure in practical terms. That characterisation reflects standard reporting practice on infrastructure projects and is grounded in the documentary record.”
16. She stresses that the ferry replacement story is one of national significance and The Post is committed to scrutiny of major infrastructure spending. She points to another Post story showing that the Minister’s widely quoted $596m fixed price contract for two ferries could reach $715.9m as a result of contingencies, exchange rates and delivery costs are included. As such, “Testing the Minister’s public statements around costing is therefore of legitimate and significant public interest.”
17. The Post's editor says the headline is consistent with the story and “a fair and accurate distillation of the reporting”.
18. On the balance concerns, she says the article is based on proactively released cabinet papers and agency documents. They are primary, official sources that reveal the government’s thinking. News organisations are not required to seek comment when the reporting is grounded in official documents. In this case, The Post responded promptly to the Minister’s concerns and offered to include a quote from him or a spokesperson, but none was provided. “The opportunity to comment was therefore available but not taken.” The editor says with a long running issue such as the ferry project, balance can be achieved over time, and The Post remains open to publishing the Minister’s point of view.
19. The editor also raises concerns about the Minister’s conduct, specifically his assertion on X that the reporting was “shoddy” and that The Post’s political editor had apologised to the Minister for the article. She accepts that “robust criticism of journalism is legitimate” but says the claim the political editor apologised is “blatantly untrue” and one of the Minister’s advisors had acknowledged that. Yet Mr Peters’ post on X claim has been viewed 16000 times and not taken down.
Further Comments
20. In his final comment, Mr Peters stands by his social media post as it is his right to make “robust criticism when warranted”.
21. Mr Peters says it’s untrue to say no follow-up comment was provided. He says: “In fact, we submitted a letter to the editor (Appendix 1). The Post did not publish this letter, nor use it as a statement to report on, or to even ask related questions to draw any other comment from us. Despite three requests from our Senior Press Secretary, The Post did not explain why the letter was not published.”
22. The Post's editor has replied, saying the letter and follow-up email were both unfortunately directed into The Post’s spam folder. She
says the opinion team would have likely published the letter had they seen it; Media Council Principles are clear that editors have
discretion over which letters they publish. Mr Peters had an open offer from both the reporter and the editor to give a right of reply via a
statement or interview, but he did not take up that offer. Failing to publish the letter “does not negate the offer to provide a balancing
response in the article itself”.
The Discussion
23. We note that our jurisdiction does not extend to X, so we cannot comment on that issue raised in the complaint except to note that, as per our preamble, both freedom of expression and an independent media are vital to our democracy.
24. We note that while the complainant doesn’t name Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, in his complaint, he questions the accuracy of the headline and so the Council will consider the complaint under both Principle (1) and Principle (6).
25. Both parties properly agree that journalistic scrutiny of major infrastructure projects such the Cook Strait ferry replacement project is vital. The question is whether this report is accurate and balanced.
26. The central claim in the headline and article is that the total cost of the ferry replacement project is “over budget”. There is no evidence that is true. The article claims the current cost estimate is $1.867b, “already exceeding the $1.7b Crown-tagged contingency approved by Cabinet in March 2025”. In as far as it goes, that statement is true. The cost estimate for the entire project is $1.867b. The Crown contribution is $1.7b. There is a $167m gap between those numbers. But that is stating no more than the government said itself in November 2025. That is precisely on budget. To say the project is “over budget” is not true.
27. The article reads as if the $1.867b estimate is an over-spend of the government’s $1.7b allocation. It is not. It is simply a restatement of the total project cost. The Post seems to have either misread a) the “current cost estimate” of $1.867m in the new documents as something other than the budgeted cost or b) the Government’s November 2025 announcement.
28. As such both the article and the headline are inaccurate and mislead the public. The headline does reflect the story, but it reflects the story’s inaccuracies and so is therefore inaccurate as well.
29. The editor is correct to say that the total project cost exceeds the Crown’s funding, and the total budget relies on the port companies and councils coming in on budget. The public does not yet know if that is possible. But that is well-known and does not amount to the project being “over budget”. The project’s “current cost estimate” of $1.867b that The Post quotes is exactly the same as the cost estimate announced by the Government last November.
30. On the question of balance, Mr Peters is correct to say that The Post’s confusion could have been avoided if the reporter had simply rung any of the relevant parties to check her facts. Having said that, The Post's editor is also correct that the media often report on official documents without seeking comment on them. When complex issues are being canvassed and significant claims made, it is in the public interest for journalists to be thorough in their fact-checking. But there is no breach of Principle or inherent lack of balance in relying on official documents without further comment.
31. When it comes to Mr Peters’ right to reply to the article, it is clear from the correspondence that the reporter immediately offered to add a quote from Mr Peters and that Mr Peters – or his staff – chose not to take up that offer on the day. However, it’s also clear from correspondence that the very next day the Minister’s office sent a letter to The Post’s ‘letters’ inbox. It followed up that letter two working days’ later. The Post has not published his letter to the editor because it was sent to spam. That is no excuse for a lack of balance, but The Post had properly offered Mr Peters a right of reply in the article itself. He could have followed up that offer of balance but did not. Letters to the editor are published at an editor’s discretion so not publishing the letter does not breach any Media Council Principles.
Decision: Due to the inaccurate claim in the article and headline that the ferry replacement project is “over
budget”, the complaint is upheld under Principle (1) and Principle (6).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom
Deborah Morris and Bernadette Courtney declared a conflict of interest and did not vote