THE WESTLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL AGAINST THE HOKITIKA GUARDIAN
Case Number: 3541
Council Meeting: 29 July 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Hokitika Guardian
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories: Apology and Correction Sought
Overview
- The Hokitika Guardian published a newspaper article headlined Council no-confidence vote taken to govt’ on June 7, 2024. The Westland District Council complained the article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
- This article, starting on page 3 and spilling to page 4, was about a group of ratepayers pushing for a no-confidence vote in the Westland District Council (WDC) taking its concerns to the Office of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman.
- The move followed protests about forecast rate rises of up to 50% from July 1. Issues highlighted included ‘’continuous misspending’’, a projected $7.8m leadership budget and blown-out projects and consultancy costs.
- It also quoted former Westland District councillor, Anthea Keenan saying WDC staff said it would cost $100,000 in consultancy fees to undo and sell the Pakiwaitara Building because the council did not have time to do special consultation.
- This newspaper article followed one on June 5 which outlined how selling the building – a strategic asset controversially bought for $1.2m four years ago --would have to go through the Long-Term Plan or an amendment to the plan process. An amendment could cost as much as $100,000 in consultancy fees because WDC staff were too busy. This story was based on a May 30 report to the WDC.
- In the June 7 article at the centre of this complaint, Ms Keenan was quoted as saying: ‘’There is no room for complacency or for council to be delving into projects which started off at one amount and then led to millions more.’’
- A petition calling for no confidence in the council had been signed by Westland people and sent to the Auditor-General's office and the Ombudsman.
The Complaint
- The Westland District Council complained in an email, headed ‘’Correction please’’, sent to the Hokitika Guardian on the day of publication. It said it was disappointing to see the story which simply reported misinformation and opinion contained in a letter apparently written by Ms Keenan to various officials and posted on social media.
- There was no way of knowing if the letter was actually sent. The article was not balanced with the Westland District Council response or acknowledgment of issues raised in the May 30 report. The complaint pointed out the Hokitika Guardian published a story on that report two days earlier.
- The complaint quoted from the May 30 report, saying staff could not carry out work (an amendment to its 2021-2031 Long-Term Plan) on the Pakiwaitara Building because of the heavy workload of statutory commitments on the Annual Report, Annual Audit and preparation for the 2025-2034 Long-Term Plan.
- The report also noted that additional work to prepare a Long-Term Plan amendment was a staff health and safety risk in terms of burnout.
- The council asked the Hokitika Guardian for an article to balance out the June 7 story.
- In its complaint to the Media Council, the Westland District Council said it had not received a response from the publisher and no further articles were published to provide balance.
The Response
- The Hokitika Guardian recapped what the story was about and mentioned that former councillor Anthea Keenan was leading the group of concerned ratepayers. Ms Keenan cited the Hokitika Guardian June 5 article which outlined the council’s position, the stress staff were under and their large workload, hence the need for consultants in regard to the Pakiwaitara Building.
- The WDC bought the building four years ago and the paper had published at least 19 stories on it over the past year to 18 months. There was dissent around the Council table on the building’s future.
- As the WDC stated in its complaint, the Hokitika Guardian had published an article on the May 30 report to the council.
- The June 5 newspaper article based on that report stated that a quick sale of the building, outside of the long-term plan process, could cost the council more than $100,000. Most of that would pay for consultants to do the work as council staff were too busy. Councillors opposed any more money being spent on the building, controversially bought for $1.2m four years ago and most wanted it sold. The article outlined how staff could not carry out the work due to other commitments. It covered how statutory deadlines would be put at risk and how staff were already working excessive hours.
- The WDC was not contacted for comment on the June 7 article complained about. Likewise, the paper did not seek ratepayer comment regarding other council stories. At this time, there were daily articles about council costs as it worked through its annual plan. These need to be read in context for the complete picture and balance.
- The Hokitika Guardian did not respond to the WDC complaint because the council sought a correction and the story was not incorrect.
- The Council asked for another article about staff workload, but this article – a far longer story - had already been published.
- Balance was provided in previous articles. The Hokitika Guardian accepted Ms Keenan’s word that she had contacted the authorities. Ms Keenan was well-known in the community.
- Likewise, the facts in the internal report which the WDC wanted published were captured in earlier articles.
- The Hokitika Guardian provided the Media Council with nine articles published between March 27 and June 18 covering WDC financial issues including proposed rates rises, CCO merger, community groups opposing proposed funding cuts, council staff costs expected to exceed $7m in the next year, a petition opposing possible community funding cuts, a planned protest against the proposed rates rises and the Pakiwaitara Building sale.
The Discussion
- Principle (1) says ‘’Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.’’
- The central issue is whether the Hokitika Guardian was obliged to seek a response from the WDC for the article or publish a follow-up article to provide balance - or whether it could rely on the exception provided in Principle (1) with balance being achieved over time.
- The Hokitika Guardian should have acknowledged and responded to the WDC complaint. It would also have been prudent to request and at least consider a Council statement responding to the June 7 article.
- However, the newspaper has published a number of stories on council financial issues since March – including angles such as rates rises, costs and community concerns. These articles featured a range of voices. The article at the centre of this complaint is to be read as part of this wider coverage on the WDC financial and long-term plan issues.
- The Hokitika Guardian has demonstrated it has achieved balance over time and while it would have been ideal to consider a follow-up article, the threshold of breaching Principle (1) has not been reached.
- The complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon. Raynor Asher (Chair), Rosemary Barraclough, Scott Inglis, Marie Shroff, Richard Pamatatau, Alison Thom, Ben France-Hudson, Clio Francis, Hank Schouten, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Tim Watkin and Katrina Bennett.