Jan Love, Kylie Anderson and Judy Crestani against Stuff
Case Number: 3708
Council Meeting: 3 February 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Confidentiality
Subterfuge
Photographs and Graphics
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Confidentiality
Headlines and Captions
Deception
Privacy
Overview
1. On 06 September 2024, Stuff and The Post published the same article under different headlines. The headline on Stuff read Women's
Refuge cash spent on beauty treatments, dental work, travel. The
headline on The Post read Women’s Refuge funds spent. Stuff published another article the next day on 07 September 2024,
headlined The women’s refuge and the children’s dance uniforms. The Post ran a third article on 12 September 2024,
headlined Porirua Women and Family Centre closes doors.
2. The first two articles are presented as investigative journalism, delving into allegations of financial mismanagement at Whare Manaaki Porirua Women’s Refuge. Three staff members are said to be suspended while a forensic accountant goes over expenditure linked to a wellbeing fund. Questions are also raised about a funding application in the refuge’s name to a charitable trust for costumes for a dance academy linked to one of the staff members. The third article is much shorter, presented as a straight news piece, about the closure of the Porirua Women and Family Centre.
3. The three suspended staff members, Jan Love, Kylie Anderson and Judy Crestani, are all identified in the articles. They complained under Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young People, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions, (8) Confidentiality, (9) Subterfuge, (11) Photographs and Graphics and (12) Corrections.
The Article
4. The first article says senior staff at Whare Manaaki Porirua Women’s Refuge used a wellbeing fund to “splash out” on dental work, beauty treatments and travel. It references an investigation report from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuge (NCIWR) that substantiated some of the allegations. Three staff members are said to be suspended while a forensic accountant investigates further, but the women involved strongly deny any wrongdoing and are adamant the spending was authorised. Jan Love, Kylie Anderson and Judy Crestani are named as the suspended staff with Ms Anderson’s photo included. The article also raises questions about an attempt to transfer $400,000 to an associated entity, the Porirua Women and Family Centre, of which Ms Anderson, Ms Love and Ms Crestani are trustees. The article includes comments from Whare Manaaki’s chair and the NCIWR chief executive. It says no conclusions on the allegations have been reached.
5. The second article investigates a funding application by Whare Manaaki Porirua Women’s Refuge to the Hutt Mana Charitable Trust. The Trust granted the Refuge $2400 to go towards children’s dance clothing for a trip to the US. Invoices show the money was spent with a Napier dancewear supplier. Zone Dance Academy was listed as the customer alongside Whare Maanaki – a dance school connected to one of the suspended staff members. Zone Dance Academy was not named in the funding application. The women defend the use of the funds, saying it reflects the organisation’s deep involvement in the community and Kaupapa to empower young women. Others quoted are critical of the application, calling it a conflict of interest. Hutt Mana Charitable Trust chair Nick Leggett says he did not know the trip was being organised by a dance academy and not the refuge and the application needed to be more up-front and transparent.
6. The third article, which was published a week after the other two, is much shorter. It states the Porirua Women and Family Centre has closed its doors, two weeks after saying it was facing funding issues. The article references both previous stories about the three staff members being suspended and the charitable trust money being used to buy children’s dance gear.
The Complaint
7. Ms Love, Ms Anderson and Ms Crestani felt the three articles breached nine of the Media Council’s Principles. They felt there was no fairness or balance, the public was deliberately misled, the allegations were presented as fact, their privacy was breached in being named, their suspension was private, and that children – including one of their own daughters – was identified and negatively impacted by association through the naming of the dance academy.
8. The three women felt the headlines were unfair and inaccurate and questioned the reliability of Stuff’s sources and the integrity of the report Stuff relied upon for its articles. They say they have evidence to disprove the allegations and told Stuff this. They also took issue with the way the journalists conducted themselves, specifically an apparent agreement not to identify the women due to it putting them at risk but then proceeding to name them. In Ms Anderson’s case, her photo was also published, something the complainants argue breached her privacy, exposed her to risk, and identified her daughter by association.
9. The complainants requested the articles be removed and a front page apology be published. They wanted it acknowledged the allegations are just that, not fact, and that Stuff had breached their privacy.
The Response
10. Stuff said allegations of financial mismanagement involving publicly donated money is a matter of significant public interest and worthy of serious investigation and scrutiny. It defended its reporting, saying it was accurate, fair and balanced, and said care was taken to represent details as allegations.
11. Stuff said its articles were based on allegations set out in the June 2024 National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuge (NCIWR) full final investigation report, alongside supporting material like receipts and financial records. Key figures were approached about the report and comment was sought from those concerned about the allegations. Stuff says the complainants’ denials about the allegations featured prominently throughout the articles.
12. Stuff said it was important the three staff members were identified, so as not to implicate everyone connected to the organisation.
13. In terms of Principle (1), Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Stuff says the source of the report is clear, and while the article makes it clear these are allegations, several have been substantiated according to the full final investigation report Stuff relied on for its reporting.
14. Stuff rejects the idea Principles (4) or (6) have been breached. It says this is straightforward investigative reporting, not commentary, and the headlines and captions fairly and accurately convey the substance or a key element of each article.
15. It also rejected any suggestion Principle (2) Privacy, has been breached. In its response, Stuff says the right to privacy should not impact on publication of significant matters of public interest. It says senior editors carefully considered naming the three senior staff members involved and decided it was appropriate to do so. It says no assurance was ever given their names wouldn’t be published. It argues not naming the three women would have been unfair on the other staff at Whare Manaaki Porirua Women’s Refuge as it would have cast aspersions on them.
16. In regard to naming the dance school, and the staffer whose daughter attends, Stuff argues it was necessary to highlight the potential conflict, which was central to the article. It says senior editors also gave deep consideration to this decision and do not feel Principle (3) has been breached.
17. Stuff fully rejects any accusation of subterfuge. It says the two journalists working on the story clearly identified themselves as such and at no time attempted to mislead the complainants about the intention of their reporting.
The Discussion
18. The complainants felt the articles presented allegations as fact and were unbalanced and unfair. The initial article makes it clear the women have been suspended from their roles while further investigations are carried out, and that while some allegations have been “substantiated”, “no conclusions have been reached”. All three articles include the women’s statement strongly denying any wrongdoing immediately after the allegations. Even though the complainants say they were unable to comment in full due to the ongoing investigations, they were given a chance to respond, and it is clear they did not feel they had done anything wrong. The complaint under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance is not upheld.
19. Stuff says it carefully considered naming the three suspended staff members and decided to identify them so as not to implicate others at the organisation. It also said allegations of financial mismanagement involving publicly donated money is a matter of significant public interest and the right to privacy should not impact on such reporting. In this case the council agrees the women’s privacy has not been breached given the seriousness of the allegations and high public interest in the alleged misuse of public funds. Whare Manaaki supports vulnerable women and children and by not making it clear who from the organisation has been suspended, the whole service it provides could be brought into disrepute, potentially preventing people from seeking help. The complaint under Principle (2) Privacy is not upheld.
20. Principle (3) Children and Young People states:
In cases involving children and young people editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests
of the child or young person.
Stuff
says senior editors gave “deep consideration” to the decision to name the dance academy, and the staff member whose daughter attends,
ultimately feeling it was needed to highlight the perceived conflict of interest. The conflict could have been highlighted however without
the specific staff member or dance academy named. Their connection is enough. The naming is justified though in the context of the article,
calling for transparency and explicitness when it comes to funding applications for public money. The dance academy is listed as a customer
on the dancewear suppliers’ invoice, proving it benefited from charitable trust funding for costumes, despite not being named on the trust
application. This was important detail to include as part of the wider allegations of financial mismanagement of public money. The public
interest does override the interests of the dance students in this case. By a narrow margin, the complaint under Principle (3) Children and
Young People is not upheld.
21. The articles are clear news pieces, not commentary or opinion. Principle (4) Comment and Fact is not relevant and the complaint is not upheld.
22. The headlines and captions used accurately convey the substance of the articles. The complaint under Principle (6) is not upheld.
23. Stuff was provided with the NCIWR full final investigation report in confidence and relied upon it for the basis of its reporting. It took the allegations in the report and sought further verification through receipts and financial records. Comment was also sought from key figures connected to Whare Manaaki. The complaint under Principle (8) Confidentiality is not upheld.
24. One of the most concerning elements for the complainants appears to be an agreement they believed was in place between their lawyer and the journalist, not to name them. Both sides agree there was a short phone call – approximately two minutes while the journalist was driving in the car with his child. The lawyer says the journalist agreed not to identify the women in the story, Stuff says no such agreement was made. The onus is on the journalist to ensure sources are treated fairly and understand what has been agreed. The Council notes this part of the complaint would have been avoided had Stuff informed the lawyer of its decision to name the complainants once the editors had made their deliberations. That would be good, fair practice. However the reporter thinks he was clear in saying that the only assurance given was that the women’s safety would be taken into consideration, and it would be very unusual for any journalist to agree to such a significant change without their editor's approval. Without clear proof to the contrary the complaint cannot be upheld on those grounds. The complaint under Principle (9) Subterfuge is not upheld.
25. It is slightly unfair for only Ms Anderson’s photo to be included in the articles, however it is standard practice for publications to use photos when available on file, as was clearly the situation in this case. The complaint under Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics is not upheld.
26. The complainants did not request a correction, instead asking for the articles to be completely removed and a front page apology be published. No specific errors in need of urgent correction were identified. Stuff stands by its reporting and the council can see no need for a complete retraction of what was published. The complaint under Principle (12) Corrections is not upheld.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.