Formal Complaint Update One

On December 19th the first person tested positive under the new roadside drug testing regime. The NZ Police press release on this issue, statements by the Director of road policing, Superintendent Steve Greally, and two articles from the NZ Herald and 1News incorrectly stated that the driver was under the influence of methamphetamine and that he tested "positive for methamphetamine" despite the cited evidence being incapable of showing this.

These false claims give the idea that this roadside testing regime is accurate and that it will be successful at reducing drug driving contrary to the evidence. As such, these falsehoods are not merely inaccurate reporting, but also borderline propaganda. We have been fighting these false claims through formal complaints. If you have not seen the post on our initial complaints, this can be found here.

Our initial complaints were to NZ Herald and to 1News about their reporting. They have both responded, accepting no wrongdoing and taking the position of "well the Police said it so it's true". We disagree. It is the duty of journalists to validate the accuracy of claims before stating them and, when those claims come from a single source, at least one alternative source should be investigated to ensure this. Neither organisation included any source in their articles except statements from NZ Police. As of this, we have raised these complaints to the New Zealand Media Council.

In addition, as this issue came about due to inaccurate information being presented by NZ Police, we have also made a complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority over the inaccurate information in the original Police press release and the inaccurate statements made by Superintendent Steve Greally. While the inaccurate information from NZ Police is the root of this issue, SSDP have continued their complaints against NZ Herald and 1News as we believe that their failure to scrutinise this inaccurate information, to consult alternative sources, or to change their articles once we informed them of the inaccuracy of the Police press release is poor journalism and is in breach of the NZ Media Principles.

The summaries of our two complaints to the NZ Media Council and response to statements made by NZ Herald and 1News are below.

NZ Herald:

Tēnā koe,

I am lodging a formal complaint on behalf of Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa (SSDP) regarding the article titled “Wellington meth driver with young daughter in car first to fail new roadside test”, published on 19 December 2025 by the NZ Herald.

We consider the article to contain misleading and inaccurate content in breach of the New Zealand Media Council Principles, particularly Principle 1 (Accuracy, Fairness and Balance) and Principle 4 (Comment and Fact). We first submitted a formal complaint directly to the NZ Herald, who replied on 6 January denying wrongdoing and showing no intention of addressing our concerns. We are therefore escalating this complaint to the Media Council.

Our key concern is the article’s inaccurate statements describing the driver as a “meth[methamphetamine] driver”, despite the evidence cited being incapable of determining whether the driver was under the influence of methamphetamine. The NZ Herald has defended its reporting by stating it was simply repeating information from NZ Police and that “if we[they] discover the information is incorrect, we[they] will correct it”. We maintain that journalists have a responsibility to critically evaluate information provided by public bodies and to conduct due diligence by confirming accuracy through at least one additional source before publication.

Our complaint to the NZ Herald included evidence demonstrating that the information was incorrect, yet they have shown no intention of correcting the article, relying solely on the fact that Police have not amended their release. We have also submitted a complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority regarding inaccuracies in the Police press release. As you will appreciate, it was unlikely the IPCA would respond before the deadline for submitting complaints to the Media Council. Regardless of whether the Police correct their release, we believe the NZ Herald could have avoided this issue had they critically evaluated the information they were provided in the first place.

The NZ Herald has argued that their reporting is balanced because opposing viewpoints have been published in other stories. While this may contribute to balance on the broader issue, it does not constitute balanced reporting of this specific incident. They note that the Media Council has previously ruled that “balance on long‑running issues can be achieved over a series of stories”. However, as this incident concerns the first-ever positive roadside drug test, we do not yet consider it a “long‑running issue”. Furthermore, their other reporting demonstrates that the NZ Herald already possessed information contradicting several statements in the Police press release, including the inability of the tests to determine if someone is under the influence at the time of testing.

Whether knowingly or not, the NZ Herald has contributed to the redistribution of misinformation by failing to critically assess the information provided to them. Simply reproducing a press release without additional sources or scrutiny is poor journalism, and we request that the NZ Herald correct this error.

1News/TVNZ:

Tēnā koe,

I am lodging a formal complaint on behalf of Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa (SSDP) regarding the article titled "First positive roadside drug test: Dad driving on meth with child in car", published on 19 December 2025 on 1News.

We consider the article to contain misleading and inaccurate content in breach of the New Zealand Media Council Principles, particularly Principle 1 (Accuracy, Fairness and Balance) and Principle 4 (Comment and Fact). We submitted a formal complaint directly to TVNZ/1News, who replied on 23 December, denying wrongdoing and showing no intention of addressing our concerns. We are therefore escalating this complaint to the Media Council.

Our key concern is the article's inaccurate statements describing the driver as a "driver on meth [methamphetamine]", despite cited evidence being incapable of determining whether the driver was under the influence of methamphetamine. 1News has defended its reporting by stating that it was consistent with public information provided by NZ Police. We maintain that journalists have a responsibility to critically evaluate information provided by public bodies and to confirm accuracy through alternative sources. SSDP has complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority regarding inaccurate information in the NZ Police press release on this incident.

1News does not believe the tests inability to differentiate MDMA and methamphetamine, or their high error rates are crucial for public understanding. We disagree. Police use the same test to detect methamphetamine and MDMA. Stating that a positive test for methylated amphetamines (i.e., MDMA and methamphetamine) is a positive test for methamphetamine is equivalent to claiming that a positive breathalyser test indicates the type of alcohol consumed, or that a positive COVID test can identify a specific variant. The claims made are more specific than the testing method can identify. 1News believes that this distinction is unimportant because both are impairing drugs. If so, then they should have stated “qualifying drug” instead. They did not, clearly recognising the importance of noting which drug was present and benefiting from the shock factor of “meth” to heighten interest.

Contrary to the position of 1News, the inclusion of error rates is crucial. The media does not typically discuss breathalyser error rates because they have a near-zero false positive rate (https://fyi.org.nz/request/3266/response/10396/attach/9/2014%20Technical%20Report%20on%20the%20Drager%207510.pdf), in contrast to the up to 28% false positive rates of DrugWipe tests. Combining a title asserting the driver was definitely "on meth" while omitting the high level of uncertainty surrounding that claim is misleading. In addition, this article was not about an everyday DUI; it was the first case under a novel and highly controversial program.

This article repeatedly represents police comment as fact and the omission of alternative sources and crucial details overexaggerates the certainty of claims made. We do not seek to alter the overall topic and appreciate 1News' other reporting on roadside drug testing concerns. Whether knowingly or not, 1News has contributed to misinformation by failing to critique information from a single source nor verify it with alternative sources, and we request that 1News correct these errors.