Terina Moke against the Waikato Times
Case Number: 3768
Council Meeting: 8 September 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Waikato Times
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Terina Moke complains about an article Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust boss unfairly sacked but not blameless – ERA published by the Waikato Times on 12 February 2025. The complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact and (6) Headlines and Captions. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The focus of the article is on an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision awarding Ms Moke $100,000 for an unfair dismissal, although it notes that $25,000 was taken off the amount for her “blameworthy conduct”. The article describes the background to the dismissal, which came after an investigation into complaints about Ms Moke’s behaviour in the workplace. It notes in the ERA finding that the investigation took too long and was marred by delays, miscommunication and procedural flaws and the impact this had on Ms Moke.
3. The article also notes criticisms of Ms Moke made by the ERA including her use of inflammatory language and push for the involvement of the Kīngitanga (which had a relationship with the trust board that employed Ms Moke). These criticisms are highlighted twice, with differing levels of detail, over the course of the article.
The Complaint
4. Terina Moke complains that the article has caused significant and ongoing harm to her personal and professional reputation, leading to lost job opportunities. She states that the article presents a partial and misleading summary of the ERA determination. It does not fairly reflect the reasons for that outcome, stemming from her employer’s delayed and procedurally flawed investigation. In particular, it does not mention the findings made against her employer in acting unfairly in suspending her, failing to interview key witnesses and delaying the investigation by over 14 months.
5. She complains that the headline “not blameless” gives undue prominence to a minor component of the decision, which was a reduction in the amount awarded to her due to conduct the ERA acknowledged was not the primary cause of the grievance. She says this creates a misleading impression that she was equally responsible for the breakdown, which is untrue and unsupported by the ERA determination. Overall, she claims the article was not fair or balanced.
6. She also complains that she was not contacted before publication and was denied the opportunity to provide further contextual information. Moreover, although the Waikato Times’s initial response to her complaint indicated it would follow-up this reporting with further stories exploring the matter no follow-up article was ever published.
The Response
7. The Waikato Times considers that the article is a fair and accurate report of the published ERA determination, which is publicly available. The story clearly reports the finding of unjustifiable dismissal, the award of $100,000 and the reduction of $25,000 to reflect Ms Moke’s contributory conduct.
8. It notes that this was a short report focused on the ERA decision, and it was not obliged to reference previous rulings or other matters that were not in the decision itself. Although it was short this does not make it inaccurate or misleading.
9. It disagrees with the complaint that the story underemphasises the flaws in the employer’s handling of the matter. The story includes multiple references to procedural delays, miscommunication, and a failure to uphold tikanga practices. The story also notes the ERA’s criticism of the drawn-out process and its impacts on Ms Moke’s wellbeing.
10. It notes that the term ‘blameworthy conduct’ is a direct quote from the ERA decision. Overall, it considers that the article does not suggest an equal degree of blame but reflects the ERA’s assessment that some contributory conduct by Ms Moke was relevant to the outcome.
11. It notes that the article does not present opinion or speculation and that Media Council Principle (4) Comment and Fact is not engaged. It also considers that the headline accurately reflects the ERA’s conclusion: that while Ms Moke was unjustifiably dismissed, the remedies were reduced due to her contributory conduct.
12. Finally, it is within the editorial discretion of the Waikato Times to determine the timing, format, or necessity of follow-up stories.
The Discussion
13. This complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact and (6) Headlines and Captions.
14. This story is a report on the outcome of a tribunal decision. It does not contain comment or opinion and does not engage Principle (4) Comment and Fact. Although we note Ms Moke’s frustration with the Waikato Times for not yet publishing any follow up stories, we accept the Times’ point that it has the editorial discretion to publish or not publish stories. We do not uphold on either of these complaints.
15. As a short report of a tribunal decision the story appropriately limits itself to the material contained within that decision. In these circumstances it was not necessary for the Waikato Times to explore the history of criticisms of the employer, or other cases in which it may have been involved. It was also unnecessary for it to seek comment from Ms Moke.
16. Overall, we consider that the report was an accurate and fair summary of the ERA decision. It clearly notes that Ms Moke was successful in her claim, receiving a substantial award of damages. It notes there was a long-running investigation, that the ERA found took far too long “66 weeks” (i.e. well over a year) and was marred by “delays, miscommunication, and procedural flaws”. Some of the factors are elaborated on later in the story, including the failure to try to resolve the matter in line with tikanga Māori. This reporting may not have been as specific as Ms Moke may have wished, but it does clearly indicate something went very wrong in the employer’s handling of this matter.
17. The material regarding Ms Moke’s contribution is also an accurate summary of the findings of the ERA, which, having awarded remedies for a personal grievance, was required to consider the extent to which actions of Ms Moke contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. We have some sympathy for Ms Moke’s concerns about the emphasis placed on these factors in the story. In part, this is because her comments about others do stand out (more so than the other more procedural aspects of the story) and are unnecessarily repeated. Moreover, consideration of Ms Moke’s contribution to the grievance was only a small part of a much longer decision by the ERA.
18. That said, the bulk of the ERA decision simply describes the factual history of this complaint, before turning to spend a short amount of time considering and determining each of the legal issues raised. In this context, discussion of Ms Moke’s contribution was an important factor in setting the overall award of damages and the discussion of it was roughly in line with the time spent on the other substantive factors of the decision. Her contributions were noteworthy, and the language of ‘blame’ used in the story is that adopted by the ERA itself.
19. Overall, taking into account that nothing the story reported on was inaccurate, and that it does report on many of the things the employer did that led to a finding of unjustifiable dismissal, we consider that this was a fair, accurate and balanced article on a matter of public interest.
20. Finally, Principle (6) states that headlines should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover. We consider that the headline used “Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust boss unfairly sacked but not blameless – ERA” is an accurate summary of both what the article states and also the findings of the ERA decision itself.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Marie Shroff, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Richard Pamatatau, Judi Jones
Guy MacGibbon did not vote due to a conflict of interest