Thomas Nash against Newstalk ZB (Nick Mills)
Case Number: 3740
Council Meeting: 3 June 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Newstalk ZB
Principle: Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories: Comment and Fact
Overview
1. On 12 March 2025, NewstalkZB published an online article entitled Nick Mills: We were offered free money and our councils did not want a bar of it. Thomas Nash complained the article breached Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article was an opinion piece by Nick Mills expressing his views on the problems with the Wellington councils and their inability to work together.
3. Mr Mills said the councils’ inability to make a “unanimous decision on the future of Wellington water and no discussion to submit something to the government’s regional deals” confirmed to him the region “desperately” needed one council. Mr Mills also cited criticism from the Prime Minister and Chris Hipkins on the councils’ failure to work together.
4. The headline included Mr Mills’ opinion that the councils “were offered free money”. The headline reflected comments in the body of the article, including comments on the money available from a regional deal being, for example “free” or “money for nothing”.
The Complaint
5. Mr Nash complained that while the article was clearly an opinion piece, the material facts on which it was based were inaccurate. He said the government was not offering “free cash”, nor was it correct to say the Wellington councils “did not want a bar of it”.
6. Mr Nash said:
The government has made it clear that the regional deals framework is not about additional “free money” and in fact … the Minister … explicitly noted: “this is not about cash handouts. There is no magic money tree in Wellington.”
7. He said the councils had written to the government expressing an interest in the regional deal framework and an intention to make a proposal when they had had more time to prepare it.
8. In his final comments, Mr Nash said that economic growth was not “free money”, and there was no “additional, no strings attached government funding to councils.”
The Response
9. NewstalkZB said it was satisfied the opinion piece met the requirements of both Principles (4) Comment and Fact and (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters. It said the article was clearly labelled opinion and the opinion had a factual foundation.
10. NewstalkZB provided government information on the regional deals including that the programme “unlocks funding and resource opportunities to support councils to make improvements in their region, for example, to roads, infrastructure and the supply of quality housing.”
11. It also provided examples from two regions where proposals were intending to increase regional GDP by $977M and $6.35B respectively. One example (Western Bay of Plenty) was said to enable growth of 35,000 jobs, 40,000 houses and drive GDP growth of 4.6%. It pointed out that Mr Mill’s opinion piece acknowledged that the regional deals “would provide a range of options for funding.”
12. NewstalkZB accepted that Mr Mills’ references to “free cash” and “free money” may have been a simplification of the funding position for successful deals, but it was not “materially misleading to include these comments within the opinion column.” It noted Mr Mills had qualified the words with “basically” and “essentially”, saying this put readers on notice that the free nature of the money was Mr Mills’ interpretation and a generalisation.
13. NewstalkZB said Mr Mills was entitled to express his view that failing to submit a proposal by the deadline mean the Wellington councils did not want “a bar of it”. It said Mr Mills had included Tory Whanau’s comments that the councils would submit a proposal at a later stage.
The Discussion
14. Principle (4) Comment and Fact says:
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.
15. Mr Mills' opinion piece included four references to free money being available from the government for regional deals:
“eventually a truckload of cash”,
“Basically this was free cash for a good idea”,
“what is essentially free money for a big project”, and
“These deals were quite literally money for nothing”.
16. The complainant was right to point to the quote from the Minister that there is no magic money tree and Mr Mills was pushing it. However, Mr Mills limits the concept of the money being without cost or effort from the councils. He acknowledged the regional deals would need to be “10-year plans based on 30-year visions which would provide a range of options for funding” and only five regions would be invited to present more in-depth proposals. This reflected official information on the regional deals that confirmed the government said it would work with councils who had successful bids to unlock funding and financing options – in other words, access money not otherwise available to the regions.
17. It is common ground that the Wellington councils did not put in a proposal. The Mayor of Wellington City Council, Tory Whanau, advised the region would consider doing this later. However, there was nothing to suggest the government would entertain a late proposal, especially given the competitive nature of the opportunity. We are satisfied Mr Mills’ opinion that the “councils did not want a bar of it” is reasonably based on the facts.
18. After considerable discussion, the Media Council finds there was sufficient factual basis for the references to free cash in that the government was unlocking access to money for regional proposals. The Media Council accepts there were nuances to the references to free cash in the article. The phrase “quite literally money for nothing” ran closest to the line but generally, the Media Council finds that Mr Mills’ use of a qualifier (for example, “Basically … free cash”) were sufficient to alert readers to it being an oversimplification or generalisation.
19. On balance, the Media Council finds there is no breach of Principle (4). Mr Mills was robustly expressing his opinion on the Wellington councils’ failure to put forward a proposal to the government to get funding in some form. It was clear from the context provided and use of qualifiers that Mr Mills was using hyperbole and oversimplifications to express his view that the Wellington councils had missed an opportunity. A clearly labelled opinion piece is accepted as a place where robust views are accepted, including some hyperbole and oversimplification, so long as there is a reasonable basis in the facts.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld by unanimous decision
Media Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin
Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote