Tom Pearce against The Post
Case Number: 3730
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: The Post
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Overview
1. Tom Pearce complains about an opinion piece Vision for Wellington: For now, it’s up to us published by The Post on 22 February 2025. The complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact and (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article is an opinion piece written by Luke Pierson, a founding member of a city advocacy group called Vision for Wellington. Mr Pierson’s opinion piece is highly critical of the Wellington City Council. His overall point is that Wellington can be a thriving place to live because of the innovative people who live there, not as a result of local government.
3. Mr Pierson draws on the Quality-of-Life Survey of nearly 7000 New Zealanders conducted across eight cities and the Curia Poll for Better Wellington to suggest that the majority of Wellington residents have concerns about the city and appear to believe that it is in decline. Mr Pierson provides his opinion on the reasons for these views, which he thinks can be attributed to the actions of the city’s leaders.
4. Mr Pierson continues to outline his view on potential solutions. In summary, he suggests that the answers lie with the people of Wellington and not with the Wellington Council. In making his points Mr Pierson makes three comments that are complained about:
a. That a project to enable the return of Kiwi to the South Coast was achieved by “… Paul Ward and his incredible team of donors, volunteers, landowners and iwi – without a single dollar of council funding to date”.
b. That new housing exists because “architects, engineers, homeowners, and developers fight their way through council bureaucracy and win”.
c. That innovative businesses succeed because of the talent, creativity and determination of people who live in Wellington, not because of local government.
5. Mr Pierson closes the article by saying that making things happen is up to “the rest of us” and that the worst thing is doing nothing.
The Complaint
6. Mr Pearce complains the opinion piece contains three inaccuracies. He says that it was inaccurate to say that the return of kiwi to the south coast was achieved without a single dollar of council funding. This is because the Wellington City and regional councils provided some “in kind donations” alongside other funding for groups such as Predator Free Wellington which also contributed to the project.
7. He also states that it was inaccurate to say that new housing was being blocked by the council bureaucracy as the council is required, with some exceptions, to provide new infrastructure for new housing.
8. He also complains that the statements regarding innovative businesses working without support is inaccurate as the Wellington City Council allocates $3 million a year to such businesses through its City Growth fund.
9. Mr Pearce acknowledges that the article is opinion but considers that the standard of accuracy for such pieces has been breached in this article.
The Response
10. The Post’s initial response to the complaint noted that while some funding for Capital Kiwi had been budgeted for by the council, it had not yet been paid. As a result, on this point Mr Pierson was correct. The other two points complained of were Mr Pierson’s opinion, and The Post was comfortable with them.
11. In its formal response, The Post notes this was an opinion piece and clearly labelled as such. Mr Pierson was entitled to express his strongly held opinion that Wellington can thrive without relying on council support and that the things that made Wellington great had been achieved without it.
12. Regarding the funding of Capital Kiwi, The Post notes that the complaint is based on the council giving “in kind” support. What the article actually says is that “not a single dollar of council funding has been provided to date”. This is a correct statement because, at the time the article was written Capital Kiwi had received no funding from either of the Wellington regional or city councils.
13. The Post also says that the view that not a dollar of funding has been provided, is supported by comments made in submissions to the Wellington City Council long-term plan, which considered funding Capital Kiwi for the first time. Dame Kerry Prendergast stated in her submission that “I know we’ve had lots of warm fuzzies [from the council] but we haven’t had any financial support.” Likewise, Paul Ward stated during that process that “You’ve spent nothing and we’ve returned kiwi to our hills after 150-odd years. Now we’re asking for some resources to make sure the birds can stay safe and thrive.”
The Discussion
14. This complaint falls to be decided under Media Council Principles (4) and (1). Principle (4) requires opinion to be clearly labelled and that the material facts on which it is based to be accurate. Principle (1) states that “Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission.”
15. Importantly, we note that in his formal complaint to the Media Council, Mr Pearce acknowledges that the statements made in the article about council infrastructure and funding for innovative business were “sufficiently vague that they can be interpreted as opinion”.
16. As the article was clearly labelled as opinion, it follows that this decision focuses on whether it was accurate for Mr Pierson to write that the return of kiwi to the South Coast was achieved by “… Paul Ward and his incredible team of donors, volunteers, landowners and iwi – without a single dollar of council funding to date”.
17. We acknowledge that there is some ambiguity about whether the return of kiwi to the south coast was achieved “without a single dollar of council funding”, given it appears that the Wellington City Council had provided 'in-kind' funding to this project (but not, it appears, actual funding in the sense of money).
18. Nonetheless, given it is ambiguous, we think that it was fair and not inaccurate for Mr Pierson to give his opinion that there had not been “single dollar of council funding”. This is accurate in the sense that no direct funding has been given, albeit that other people might object and say there has been in-kind funding. In particular, we think that the quotes provided from Dame Kerry Prendergast and Paul Ward suggest that there is a general view, clearly held by Mr Pierson, that the council has not provided any dollar funding to date.
19. This was an opinion piece providing a political lens on council funding. Reasonable people may differ on whether or not Mr Pierson was accurate, but we do not think the ambiguity justifies an uphold.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Katrina Bennett, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.