NZ Media Council upholds ferry reporting complaint

A COMPLAINT lodged by NZ deputy PM and rail minister Winston Peters over a story on Cook Strait replacement ferry costs published by The Post  has been upheld by the country’s Media Council.

The Post ran a story on 11 March this year under the headline “Cook Strait ferry project $167m over budget – and key port deals still unsigned”. The story was based on examination of public documents released by the NZ Treasury, originally generated in August and November 2025.

DCN briefly reported on the story the following day.

Mr Peters complained to the Media Council that The Post article and its headline contain “a significant factual error”:  Its claim that the ferry replacement program as a whole is $167 million “over budget” is “misleading and factually inaccurate”. The complaint was made under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness, and Balance that says publications should not “mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission” and that “In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view”.

Mr Peters claimed the error stemmed from a misunderstanding of the two key figures involved in the project to replace the Cook Strait ferries and that the overall program budget remained at NZ $1.867 billion “and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. It is not possible for a budget to remain exactly the same but be reported as being “over budget”… Presenting the difference between these numbers as “over budget” when the budget is totally unchanged is misleading and inaccurate journalism,” the complainant said.

He noted that no other media outlet ran this “over budget” angle, and the error was avoidable if The Post reporter had sought comment before publication from the responsible Minister, Ferry Holdings, CentrePort, or Port Marlborough.

The Post editor rejected the complaint in full, arguing the minister’s complaint was over a matter of interpretation and that the headline was consistent with the story and “a fair and accurate distillation of the reporting”.

The editor said the publication had responded promptly to Mr Peters’ concerns about the article and had offered to include a quote from him or a spokesperson, but none was provided. “The opportunity to comment was therefore available but not taken.” Follow-up letters from Mr Peters had ended up in the spam folder.

The NZMC upheld Mr Peters’ complaint. 

“The article reads as if the $1.867b estimate is an over-spend of the government’s $1.7b allocation. It is not. It is simply a restatement of the total project cost. The Post seems to have either misread a) the “current cost estimate” of $1.867m in the new documents as something other than the budgeted cost or b) the government’s November 2025 announcement.

“As such both the article and the headline are inaccurate and mislead the public. The headline does reflect the story, but it reflects the story’s inaccuracies and so is therefore inaccurate as well.

“On the question of balance, Mr Peters is correct to say that The Post’s confusion could have been avoided if the reporter had simply rung any of the relevant parties to check her facts. Having said that, The Post's editor is also correct that the media often report on official documents without seeking comment on them. When complex issues are being canvassed and significant claims made, it is in the public interest for journalists to be thorough in their fact-checking. But there is no breach of principle or inherent lack of balance in relying on official documents without further comment.

“When it comes to Mr Peters’ right to reply to the article, it is clear from the correspondence that the reporter immediately offered to add a quote from Mr Peters and that Mr Peters – or his staff – chose not to take up that offer on the day. However, it’s also clear from correspondence that the very next day the minister’s office sent a letter to The Post’s ‘letters’ inbox. It followed up that letter two working days’ later. The Post has not published his letter to the editor because it was sent to spam. That is no excuse for a lack of balance, but The Post had properly offered Mr Peters a right of reply in the article itself. He could have followed up that offer of balance but did not. Letters to the editor are published at an editor’s discretion so not publishing the letter does not breach any Media Council Principles.” 

Decision: Due to the inaccurate claim in the article and headline that the ferry replacement project is “over budget”, the complaint is upheld under Principle (1) and Principle (6).