NZ Media Council Upholds Complaint Over Crux News Column Targeting Queenstown Business Leader

The New Zealand Media Council has upheld a complaint against Crux News over an article alleging that prominent Queenstown businessman Richard Thomas wielded hidden political influence in the 2025 local body elections. The Council ruled that the article breached Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and (4) Comment and Fact—finding that the article blended speculation with unsubstantiated claims and presented opinion as fact.

The Crux article, published on 4 December 2025 and labelled “Analysis,” featured a large photograph of Mr Thomas and argued he was a behind‑the‑scenes powerbroker who had shaped both council politics and the mayoral bid of then‑candidate Glyn Lewers. It went further, suggesting Mr Thomas had “groomed” Glyn Lewers for the mayoralty, influenced councillors from “the shadows,” and played a central role in what it described as an “aggressive, sometimes abusive” campaign.

Mr Thomas complained the article made serious allegations about his conduct and motivations without evidence and without offering him a right of reply. He said claims that he manipulated elected officials, groomed political candidates, and acted like a “British Royal Family” figure were entirely unfounded. He also rejected suggestions that he sought financial gain through political influence, calling them speculative and defamatory.

Crux editor Peter Newport defended the piece as fair comment, arguing Mr Thomas was a well‑known figure with longstanding political influence and that Crux’s local audience would understand the context. He claimed the observations in the article reflected widely held community views and did not require a right of reply. Mr Newport further cited an alleged conversation between Mr Thomas and a councillor as proof of Mr Thomas attempting to interfere in council committee appointments.

The Media Council rejected these arguments. It found the article failed to distinguish fact from opinion, offered no factual foundation for key allegations, and made sweeping claims—such as political grooming and backroom influence—without evidence. The Council said that even if treated as opinion, the column did not meet the standard required.

The ruling noted that Crux News has had a number of complaints upheld against it involving extreme statements of opinion about local politicians, and that continued findings against it brought into question its ability to meet and maintain the high standards of accuracy, fairness and balance, and public faith in those statements.

The full Media Council ruling can be found Media Council - Richard Thomas against Crux News