👇👇👇If you read one opinion piece this week, make it this one👇👇👇

Misunderstandings and the Treaty

It is Richard Prebble's response to Dame Anne Salmond's earlier attack piece on him in which she called him "illiterate," "irresponsible," and accused him of "inciting racist ill will."

Prebble gets some absolute zingers into his piece in response to the disrespect demonstrated by the Dame, but it is his very, very good points about contracts and treaties that should be paid attention to.

He takes apart the argument that only te reo speakers are entitled and qualified to speak about the Treaty of Waitangi. While we know this to be true, the simple terms Prebble puts it in bring it into stark relief. He says:

"If Salmond is correct, then only Chinese speakers can make a contract with the Chinese.

I have negotiated contracts in China.

When out of Parliament I negotiated a US$350 million contract. None of our engineers spoke Chinese. None of the provincial officials spoke English.

Like at Waitangi in 1840, there are English terms for which there are no Chinese equivalents."

He is right! To play by Dame Salmond's rules would see international trade grind to a halt. No business among speakers of different languages and no modern treaties agreed between countries without a common language.

How ridiculous! 

We know that translators work diligently for governments, companies, and organisations to ensure contracts and treaties are understood by all signatories. Historic documents show that this was true back when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. 

The translator of the Treaty, Henry Williams, wrote to Bishop Selwyn on April 3, 1847:

“I can, however, confidently state that at the three several meetings held at Waitangi, on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of February, I gave the fullest explanation of the Treaty, and that no one chief signed the same through misapprehension, for I took the utmost pains to make them understand perfectly the character of the proposed engagement.”

The Government needs to get brave very quickly and wrap up the Waitangi Tribunal. Any remaining or future claims can be dealt with either by direct negotiation with the Crown or in the courts.

Sincerely,

Don Brash
Trustee
Hobson’s Pledge

P.S. Just a note to clarify - We have heard that some supporters have emailed Minister McKee regarding Janet's case after our last email and the minister is responding that the Te Kākano course "is no longer a mandatory topic that licensees are required to complete". That is all very well, but it does Janet no good as she did not complete it when it WAS compulsory and so still will lose her licence if we don't keep fighting for her. It also doesn't mean the REA won't make it compulsory again next year or bring in any number of new compulsory Māori education modules, or follow the Treaty indoctrination path that we are seeing for nurses, midwives, pharmacists, and others.

P.P.S. Hobson's Pledge can only take on fights like bringing about the conclusion of the Waitangi Tribunal with the support of New Zealanders who share our concerns. If you can, please chip in to ensure we can keep on fighting.

Bugger! If you haven't seen the news, former Labour Minister and ACT Party leader Richard Prebble has resigned from the Waitangi Tribunal.

Appointed in October last year, Prebble was a controversial pick but one that brought hope to those of us who want to see the radicalisation of the Waitangi Tribunal tempered. 

It is precisely that radicalisation that led to Prebble's resignation. 

In a searing rebuke of the Tribunal and successive governments that have enabled its extremist turn, Richard Prebble announced his resignation via a column in the New Zealand Herald. 

The line that stood out most for me was:

"I will not participate in turning the Treaty into a socialist manifesto."

Prebble's opinion piece is spot on. It is a real shame that the Herald have chosen to place it behind a paywall. He calls out the ludicrousness of the modern idea that Māori never ceded sovereignty and his succinct reasoning should be repeated for all to hear:

"There were chiefs who had been to Australia and England. Chiefs who signed the English text. Chiefs who did not sign because they said they would not cede sovereignty.

No chief, including Hone Heke, who may have regretted signing, ever said that sovereignty had not been ceded.

Letters written by chiefs who signed the Treaty to governors complaining the Treaty was not being honoured never denied that sovereignty had been ceded.

Partnership is a 20th-century invention."

The former Labour Minister and ACT Party leader's assessment of the state of the Waitangi Tribunal is, in my view, painfully accurate. We are dealing with activists who have not only rejected New Zealand's history, they have rewritten their own.

The Tribunal has "declared it is not bound by previous tribunal rulings that sovereignty was ceded or by decisions of the courts." This means they have freed themselves up to deviate from historical rulings to change the narrative completely.   

Even more important than his evisceration of the Tribunal is the righteous disdain he has for successive Labour and National governments and their failure to address the rapid radicalisation of the Tribunal and its proxies. He says:

"Parliament, by empowering the tribunal to make recommendations based on the principles of the Treaty, has allowed the tribunal to create Treaty principles.

The tribunal’s rulings only have legal effect when the Crown adopts them. The Labour Government and now National have failed to respond to the tribunal’s radical ruling.

The Minister of Justice should have upheld earlier tribunal decisions that sovereignty was ceded."

Prebble calls on our current Government to enact the New Zealand First coalition agreement that says:

“Amend the Waitangi Tribunal legislation to refocus the scope, purpose and nature of its inquiries back to the original intent of that legislation.”

We must echo Prebble's call. We are at a dangerous crossroads in our nation's history, and if our elected leaders do not take action to stabilise our country and halt the radical destruction of democracy being advanced, we are in very big trouble indeed.

I'll leave you with the final sentence of Prebble's article because it is the most important of all:

"It is time for the Prime Minister to lead and uphold that there is one Treaty, one country and one citizenship."

You may not have heard of InternetNZ or know exactly what they do. I didn't until I read some alarming news about the organisation this week. I knew immediately that I had to make Hobson's Pledge supporters aware of the situation.

I was first alerted to the issue via an email from the New Zealand Free Speech Union which said:

The InternetNZ Council, which is the body that is responsible for administering the .nz domain name, has recently declared that InternetNZ is systemically racistand is proposing a new constitution that will make the organisation co-governed.

The proposed principles for the new constitution include the following:

• InternetNZ must centre Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its work
• InternetNZ will be co-governed with two co-chairs – one of whom must be Māori
• Any member who does not agree with InternetNZ being a Te Tiriti centric organisation will be ineligible to be on the Board
• At least one third of the Board must be Māori

Think about how prevalent the use of .nz domains are in New Zealand. Our own domain is hobsonspledge.nz!

I don't imagine those wanting to centre the Treaty in InternetNZ's work would view Hobson's Pledge as fitting the brief.

So where does that leave us? 

Well, it potentially leaves us without a website domain. InternetNZ could decide that we don't meet their terms of service and pull the rug out from under us.

What can we do? The Free Speech Union has asked its supporters to join InternetNZ as members meaning that they can take part in voting on constitutional matters. We are suggesting the same to our supporters.

For just $21 you can join as a member of InternetNZ and join us in resisting this regressive racialisation of the internet in New Zealand. 

The idea is that we will have enough votes to ensure race-based constitutional changes do not get made to the organisation.

From the internet to medicines, nothing in New Zealand is safe from Treaty mania.

You'll be familiar with Janet Dickson's battle against unnecessary politicised Treaty and te reo indoctrination as imposed by the Real Estate Authority. But you may not realise how widespread the issue is. When we began speaking about Janet's experience we started receiving more and more correspondence from New Zealanders facing similar situations in other industries.

A recent example is the New Zealand Pharmacy Council—and my goodness it is a cracking example. Chris Lynch drew attention to the story and the wildly unnecessary requirements for pharmacists in this country:

"All pharmacists to be “confident to perform waiata tautoko,” a Māori support song, and to advocate for “giving effect to te Tiriti at all levels,”“prioritising Māori voices and trusting Māori intelligence.”

Pharmacists must also be familiar with Māori health models such as Te Pae Mahutonga, which, according to the Health Ministry, refers to the Southern Cross constellation.

Additionally, pharmacists are expected to explain the impacts of pre- and post-Te Tiriti o Waitangi events on the health of New Zealanders.

The Pharmacy Council said on its website the introduction of these standards involved “a whāriki tāpui”—a formal woven mat—symbolising a deliberate integration of Western and Te Ao Māori ideologies. The Council described this as an effort to create a “stronger and more cohesive fabric” by merging two distinct worldviews.

Call me crazy, but when I go to pick up my prescriptions I would rather the pharmacist have some medical knowledge rather than the ability to belt out a te reo tune or recite the phases of the Māori lunar calendar.

New Zealanders should not have to submit to indoctrination in order to be allowed to do their jobs. We have already been the laughing stock of the global scientific community with icons such as Richard Dawkins telling the scientific world of the lunacy of the prioritisation of Mātauranga Māori in our institutions.

Who is going to take us seriously if we keep insisting on placing traditional Māori knowledge over scientific knowledge? Who is going to want to study in our universities? Who is going to want to invest in businesses knowing the nonsensical hoops they'll have to jump through to prove cultural competence?

We are kicking own goals. We are tying one hand behind our own backs! 

This is why Janet's case is so important. It isn't about one real estate agent not wanting to do a Māori course. It is so much bigger than that. We have to bring an end to industry bodies having the power to impose political and cultural beliefs on professionals, who submit because they have to in order to obtain a licence. 

As I mentioned last week, Janet is looking to appeal her case. She is willing to fight on if we are willing to get her the support required. By "support" I mean, of course, financial support. Taking legal action is extraordinarily expensive and we reassured Janet that we would bring our supporters on board to get it funded.

Will you chip in to ensure Janet's case gets an appeal?

We will take the fight as far as we can and stand shoulder to shoulder with Janet, but we need the backing of people who share our values and concerns. Every dollar counts.

In general, I advise against counting your chickens before they hatch, but it appears some may have come home to roost for Te Pāti Māori. So to speak.

Not only has the head of Statistics NZ fallen on his sword (or he will in the not too distant future) due to the fallout of investigations into data breaches and misbehaviour at Manurewa Marae, but yesterday we learned that Te Pāti Māori haven't even filed their annual finances for the election year properly. 

The whole sorry saga is symbolic of the rot that has accumulated in New Zealand as a result of race-based politics trumping democratic process.

We have had two damning reports so far from Stats NZ and the Public Service Commission. The Police are investigating the matter also. As the saying goes: "where there is smoke there is fire".

Stats NZ says it is highly probable that Manurewa Marae copied census form data and used it for its own political purposes. Given a Te Pāti Māori candidate was heading up the marae, those political purposes are quite clear. Takutai Tarsh Kemp is, of course, now a Te Pāti Māori MP after winning the Tāmaki Makaurau seat by just 42 votes.

Even worse, the Public Services Commission said there were few, if any, privacy safeguards in place from government agencies when dealing with the marae and there were no conflict of interest checks despite the marae being effectively run by Te Pāti Māori.

It’s all very dodgy and has John Tamihere’s fingerprints all over it. He is the President of Te Pāti Māori, the CEO of Waipareira Trust, and the CEO of Whānau Ora. Through these connections, Manurewa Marae was funded by the Government to collect data for the census and, promote and administer vaccinations during Covid.

Check out this data from The Facts NZ. It shows that at Manurewa Marae, the TPM candidate got nearly three times the number of votes as she achieved in any other polling booth. We have no doubt that Peeni Henare and Labour were robbed.

Questions have to be asked as to whether assigning Manurewa Marae as a polling booth was simply gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to preference Te Pāti Māori.

Six government departments have been found incompetent in relation to this matter - Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Health, Te Whatu Ora/Health New Zealand, Statistics New Zealand, Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development. They all owe New Zealanders a thorough explanation.

And there is now further evidence that Te Pāti Māori think the rules are for everyone except them. Yesterday, Business Desk reported that the party has filed its annual accounts for the election year (2023) six months late. What's worse, they were incomplete, not signed by the executive team, and the numbers did not match other filings. 

Can you imagine if any other political party operated like this? There would be a media circus! They would be calling for heads to roll! 

Indeed, if this kind of stink was surrounding any other party we would be predicting their imminent downfall. The protection racket unfortunately has Te Pāti Māori well insulated.

Before I sign off, I just want to draw your attention to a particularly good piece published in Bassett, Brash, and Hide recently. Rodney Hide describes the alarming rubbish being taught to Kiwi kids in our education system. 

Things like that colonists were all genocidal and wanted to exterminate Māori. This is not only a perversion of history; it’s designed to create guilt and fuel racial division. 

Ironically, this particular example was from an English course; just another example of our children’s education being hijacked by radical Marxists determined to indoctrinate them and teach them to discriminate and hate based on race.

I encourage you to check with your own children about what they are being taught in school.

As you know from last week’s email, Janet Dickson lost her case against the Real Estate Authority.

The High Court ruled that it is perfectly legal to force professionals like Janet to undergo political, cultural, and spiritual courses – in this case, Māori tikanga and the Treaty – with little to no relevance to their actual professions.

We here at Hobson’s Pledge are appalled by the decision, and as we have supported Janet from the outset, we will continue to do so with your support.

The question everyone must ask is: Who is next?

Currently, it is Janet and the Real Estate Authority, but which organisations are next? What are the next set of courses and requirements, with a strong political, cultural, or spiritual bias, that will be forced onto everyday New Zealanders?

Hobson’s Pledge already know the answer because we can see these courses expanding.

You may recall an earlier message to you about the Nurses Association expecting nurses to prioritise culture over medicine.

More recently, the Pharmacy Council has issued new competency guidelines which include “advocating for giving effect to te Tiriti at all levels” and “prioritising Māori voices.”

These have nothing to do with pharmaceutical management, but everything to do with political and cultural agendas. There are many more examples.

The High Court’s decision should send chills down the spine of every New Zealander simply trying to get on with their job. It says that any regulatory body, particularly those captured by activists, can force any array of nonsensical ideas onto members of their organisations.

Even the idea of ‘freedom of speech’ went out the window, with Janet effectively being told that she was not allowed to speak, but instead simply had to listen.

We view this as compulsion, and worse still, the penalty for her is the loss of her practising licence for five years.

The Minister needs to act but seems to think she has the matter in hand. She does not.

Minister Nicole McKee believes it was enough to write a letter to the Real Estate Authority (REA) saying she does not agree with the five-year ban and wants to update legislation accordingly. But this does not address the core of the issue.

In fact, all the letter has done is highlight the harsh consequences of the REA’s decision, but it does not address the problem. The real problem is the ability of these organisations to force New Zealanders to undergo indoctrination in political, cultural, or spiritual matters.

It has to stop, and we need your help.

Firstly, we are going to continue backing Janet, and along with her lawyers, are considering an appeal.

This costs a lot of money, so please consider donating generously so that Hobson’s Pledge can continue to back her. We have already spent tens of thousands of dollars, and many more will be needed.

Secondly, back our call for the Government to act. The easiest and most appropriate solution to this problem is through a change in legislation.

Make contact with your local member of parliament and ask them to fix this issue, changing the law to ensure no one is compelled into such courses.

This is most pressing if your MP is from ACT, New Zealand First, or National. These are the governing parties and have the power to make this simple but necessary change.

Please also write to Minister Nicole McKee –[email protected]– and ask her to use the very powers she has as Minister, along with the philosophies of the ACT Party that she is part of, to make the necessary and sensible decisions to change the law.

All three parties have spoken against the use of power to pursue political or ideological causes. You need only think about their reaction to a bank that wanted to use its power to defund customers who didn’t fit their climate agenda, in this case, legitimate coal mining businesses.

The situation with Janet is little different. She should not be bullied by her professional organisation, and the Government must step in and stop this abuse.

Please help us help Janet, and all New Zealanders. As we said at the start – who’s next?

It was worth a try, but the Advertising Standards Authority has rejected our appealon the ruling against our "controversial" front page advertisement regarding the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

Given the ideological capture of institutions in New Zealand, it is hardly surprising that the appeal board of the ASA came to almost the same conclusions as the initial ruling. In these institutions there is visceral hatred, revulsion, and fear of anything that disrupts the current narrative around the Treaty and Māori special rights.

Our front page advertisement definitely disrupted the narrative. It showed New Zealanders just how much of the New Zealand coast is under current application by iwi. In case you don't remember, it is virtually the entire coast. 

We maintain that our advertisement was factual and did not breach standards.  

This ASA decision tells the media decision-makers who want to refuse to run our advertisements that they are entitled to block ordinary people seeing reflections of their own concerns and reasoning in the media.

The class now ruling the mainstream media find ways to stretch and manipulate any rules. Or they just make them up, or ignore the inconvenient ones, including rights to freedom of speech and non-discrimination on the grounds of political belief, or race.

Anything that conflicts with the dogma of the professional-managerial-academic-political-entertainment elite is likely to be blocked, ridiculed, or accused of misinformation. These elites feel virtuous censoring out anything they feel or think the masses should not believe.

We’ll never get good faith engagement from our opponents, and we accept this sad reality. Totally spurious reasoning is par for the course in decisions from the lanyard-wearing class. 

What we don't accept is that we should be content to allow this unfairness to continue unopposed.

It is long past time for a law change to extend the Commerce Act, so that the powerful who control dominant media will be liable, just as cartel conspirators are, if they use their dominance to suppress competition in the marketplace of ideas.

We’d be glad to debate the truth and fairness of our communications with anyone, but that is not what the ASA want to allow. They want to silence us. They want to suppress our views and by extension yours.

The ASA grounded their decisions - the first and the appeal - in opinion rather than objective fact. Facts are still facts, even when they are inconvenient to the beliefs of the members of the ASA. 

The tendency for amateur authoritarians to paint those whom they disagree with as ‘evil’ rather than just holding a differing viewpoint has been cancerous to our ability to debate important and difficult subjects. 

We fight these battles not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because we know that once emboldened, our opponents will go after the next organisation or group.  Today it’s mainstream media deliberately ignoring what may happen if iwi control large swathes of our coastline. Tomorrow it'll be our democratic rights.

>>> Click here to chip in to our fund to fight institutional elites who want to silence us <<<

We let you know about Whanganui District Council's sneaky co-governance (they vote on it on Thursday) and sadly we have to advise you of another sneaky scheme...

Rotorua Lakes Council's Co-Governance Plans

Rotorua Lakes Council are attempting to bring in co-governance via the Te Arawa Partnership Plan.

The Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers (RDRR) Association have written to the Minister of Local Government to urge ministerial intervention. They shared this letter with us and here are some important excerpts:

In September 2024, the Te Arawa Partnership Working Party Facilitator’s Report called for embedding Te Arawa 2050 principles into governance and proposed the establishment of a Te Arawa Vision Committee to formalise extended co-governance arrangements. Council subsequently endorsed this direction without authentic public consultation.

Rotorua’s Long-Term Plan 2024-2034: Implications for Governance

Under Mayor Tania Tapsell, after the thwarted Local Bill, expectations for inclusive democratic processes were high. However, the Long-Term Plan (LTP) adopted on November 1, 2024, entrenched the Te Arawa Partnership Plan as the primary governance framework, sidelining other interest groups. This contradicts the Coalition Government’s 2023 mandate to democratise local governance and focus on core services...

...The LTP explicitly privileges Te Arawa over other stakeholder groups, undermining equal representation.

The Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee: A Structural Power Shift

A significant governance shift occurred in late 2024 with the establishment of the Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee, a policy advisory subcommittee of Council. It comprises the mayor, all 10 councillors, and five TTOTAB members. Since nine of its 15 members whakapapa to Te Arawa,the committee effectively institutionalises co-governance , prioritising tribal interests over democratic decision-making.

The RDRR raised some important concerns with the minister and we share these concerns:

1. Overreach of the Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee:
   • The committee wields disproportionate influence, overriding rights of the 72 percent non-Māori electorate.
   • It subverts the LGA’s (Local Government Act) democratic principles of equal suffrage and pluralistic majoritarianism.
2. Lack of Public Consultation:
   • The committee was established without broad community engagement, violating the LGA’s (Local Government Act) requirements for transparent decision-making.
   • Te Arawa 2050 is being positioned to replace Vision 2030 without a public mandate.
3. Bias Towards Co-Governance:
   • The mayor and three Māori ward councillors appear to prioritise tribal interests over their duty to represent all constituents.
   • The Te Arawa Vision 2050 Committee’s structure and council’s executive influence signal a shift towards governance that favours a single minority group and minoritarianism.

We look forward to hearing what Minister Simon Watts has to say about this and will be pursuing answers of our own. Watch this space.

Our councils are clearly still dead set on smuggling anti-democratic co-governance into local government and apparently our universities are just as hellbent on establishing racial segregation in higher education.

University Pushing Racial Segregation in Higher Education

We’ve seen an internal email from a student at Canterbury University who was dismayed to learn that they were excluded from particular tutorials simply because of their race. The email outlined that "tutorials will prioritise first filling Māori and Pasifika students …with the goal to build whanaungatanga and manaakitanga."

This is being done in the name of whanaungatanga (kinship/connection) andmanaakitanga (kindness/respect/care). The irony of claiming such a motivation when they are excluding some students based on race! 

Invoking such principles does not magically absolve the university from its responsibilities to all students as stipulated in New Zealand law. We remind the university of its legal obligations under New Zealand’s Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act, and the Education and Training Act.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter how the university chooses to dress it up.

All students have the right to education and access to the relevant lectures, tutorials, and materials related to their courses.

I am writing to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Canterbury about this matter and I will be asking what the position of the university is concerning the access of all students, regardless of their race, to university courses, tutorials, and materials.

I'll also be requesting reassurance that if such discriminatory practices are occurring these will cease and staff will be instructed to comply with the aforementioned New Zealand laws.

We are keeping an eye on councils, universities, the public service, and on everyone who wants to divide us by race. We will keep you updated and call on your support to hold the powerful to account.

This is not the update I wanted to bring you. We are all so disappointed.

Janet Dickson's Judicial Review was not successful.

Janet Dickson is, of course, the real estate agent who was threatened by the Real Estate Authority with having her practising licence cancelled because she did not wish to take part in an online course on te reo Māori, tikanga, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hobson's Pledge and our supporters have backed Janet from the very beginning. We understand that compulsory Treaty courses are at best only peripherally connected to most professional employment. Additionally, these courses are inevitably highly subjective, politicised, and often factually dubious. And, it can hardly be denied that the heavy hand of cancelling practising licences for those who don’t comply, is coercive and abusive.

The court has said that real estate agents can be forced, under the current rules, to take part in mandatory courses or activities that have little or nothing to do with their professional work. And although cancelling a licence and imposing a five year ban from reapplying is a “harsh consequence”, the court 'shrugged,' saying it is a consequence allowed under the Real Estate Agents Act. 

This judgement will be worrying to many New Zealanders. It is not the place of real estate authorities, or any professional body, to force members to take part in ‘struggle sessions’ or courses that are effectively indoctrination.

I told the media in the press release we just sent out:

“It is not the place of real estate authorities, or any professional body, to foist political, religious, or cultural views onto its members."

This outrageous case highlights the need for the Government to update legislation on the powers of regulatory bodies as a matter of urgency. 

We call on Minister Nicole McKee and the Coalition Government to ensure that professional bodies do not get too big for their boots by forcing particular political and cultural views onto their memberships in ways that have nothing to do with the professional work being undertaken.

Janet's lawyers are working with our team to go through the judgment with a fine-toothed comb and we will provide you with a more comprehensive summary of what it says in the coming days.

Outrageous. That's the word of the day. Just outrageous.

Yesterday afternoon we received an apology from the Justice Select Committee for the incorrect public statements the Chair James Meager made about Hobson's Pledge. James Meager also made an apology on the livestream later in the day.

We appreciate the acknowledgement from the committee and understand that miscommunications happen. Unfortunately, however, despite being eager to report when we were being called political opportunists and liars, the media are unlikely to run stories on the apology.

That's life in New Zealand in 2025 when the media don't agree with you!

Anyway, this was just a quick update so that at least you know that we got an apology.

The Justice Select Committee haven't given Hobson's Pledge a slot to speak at the oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill.

Yes, you read that right – the largest, most vocal, and organised organisation advocating for ‘one law for all’ – and with more than 140,000 supporters – has not been given a speaking slot, while the likes of John Tamihere and Lady Moxon have been.

We are very grateful therefore to the team at Democracy Action who gave us their speaking slot today. We had anticipated that if not given a formal slot on Monday, then it was a given that we would be given a slot on Thursday. We therefore agreed to swap with Democracy Action. Just this morning though, the Democracy Action team got an email from the Committee Clerks saying no slot has been given to Hobson’s Pledge and so no swap is currently possible.

We view this is as totally outrageous. As I noted above, Hobson’s Pledge is a leading voice in this debate and supported by thousands upon thousands of kiwis. It is incomprehensible how our leading organisation could be ignored by this committee and it does beg serious questions about this whole process.

Again, our thanks to Democracy Action for giving us their slot and we will be advocating that they be given a time to also speak. The committee seems very happy to allow voices in opposition, but it appears less helpful when it comes to those in support of this Bill.

Tune in via the Parliament website or RNZ's livestream from around 2.20pm to hear our presentation and get in touch – be it via email or on our social media – to let us know what you thought. Only ten minutes have been allocated, so it will have to be direct and to the point.

We received almost unanimous support for our idea for a boycott of National membership until Christopher Luxon makes the Treaty Principles Bill a conscience vote. So, it is full steam ahead and we will be rolling out a social media campaign.

But, you may have noticed that we aren't shy of fighting on multiple fronts when necessary. So I will set aside Boycott for the Bill for a moment and direct your attention to a matter that is simmering away largely unnoticed in local government.

Long story short, a stealthy iwi takeover of Whanganui District Council is underway. 

Whanganui iwi and the Crown are currently negotiating a Treaty settlement and as part of it they want to embed several co-governance dynamics into the Whanganui District Council.

This would mean that co-governance would be locked into the council via legislation. So much for an end to co-governance!

Additionally, the 'relationship agreement' is set to include a large amount of land transferred to iwi and the establishment of a charitable trust run by iwi and council.

I know you're able to appreciate the significance and finality of these kinds of decisions and how important it is that we fight them before it is too late. Once settlements are finalised in legislation, it is all but impossible to unwind them.National especially likes to put things in Treaty settlements and then hold up their hands and say "can't change it now!"

Our friends over at Democracy Action say:

While Mayor Andrew Tripe and the council appear to be largely supportive of this initiative - what the mayor calls ‘a world-first indigenous-council partnership’ - the council is encouraging its citizens to have a say on the proposals.

Under the plan iwi would participate in decision-making in the joint management of lands, resources, and socio-economic strategies. If approved the proposals would bind future councils, future generations.

This is a matter of utmost importance to the people of Whanganui, but it is also a glaring red flag and warning siren for the rest of the country. If Whanganui iwi succeed in gaining this power, other iwi groups will attempt to obtain their own co-governance powers in similar ways. Council co-governance, coming to a town near you! 

What can we do?

Take part in the public consultation. And do it ASAP. Feedback closes on 2 February 2025.

Tell the council in the strongest terms (without getting disqualified due to profanities!) that you oppose local democracy being dismantled via central government legislation. The council has set up a short survey, but you can make comments.

That is the most important thing you can do☝️☝️☝️

The next thing is for Whanganui residents to contact their councillors.

This is an example of what you might like to say:

Dear Mayor/Councillor,

It has come to my attention that a proposed Treaty settlement with local iwi is set to embed co-governance into Whanganui District Council via legislation. As a local resident, I oppose this completely. Local democracy must be protected. I have provided feedback via the council website, but I wanted to make it clear to those who have been elected to represent us that I oppose co-governance in any form.

I seek your assurance that you are committed to local democracy and intend to protect equal representation and rights at Whanganui District Council. What will you do to ensure no Treaty settlement compromises democratic process?

I will not in good conscience be able to cast a vote at the upcoming local elections for any council candidate who supports co-governance being embedded in Whanganui District Council.

Regards,

[Your name]

Here are the email addresses:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

For those not in Whanganui, you can focus your attention on contacting the relevant ministers:

Dear Prime Minister/Minister,

It has come to my attention that a proposed Treaty settlement with Whanganui iwi is set to embed co-governance in Whanganui District Council via legislation. 

I have been advised that should this go ahead iwi would participate in decision-making in the joint management of lands, resources, and socio-economic strategies. If approved the proposals would bind future councils, future generations.

I oppose this completely. Local democracy must be protected.

All three coalition partners promised an end to co-governance before and after the last general election. It was a key promise and a key issue for many voters.

If this Treaty settlement is passed with stealthy co-governance fish hooks snagging local government, it will be a huge betrayal of those who voted for this Government.

I seek your assurance that you are committed to democracy and intend to protect equal representation and rights throughout New Zealand including Whanganui District Council. What will you do to ensure no Treaty settlement compromises democratic processes?

I will not, in good conscience, be able to cast a vote at the upcoming local elections for any council candidate who supports co-governance being embedded in Whanganui District Council. Likewise, come next general election I will not vote for a party that promised to end co-governance and then went back on their word.

Regards,

[Your name]

Here are the email addresses:

Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith

NEW Local Government Minister Simon Watts

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon

ACT Leader David Seymour

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters

Every single Hobson's Pledge supporter who gives feedback or contacts the people above makes a difference. Trust me, I know how tiresome it can be to send off submissions and emails to ministers and councillors. My best advice is to keep it short and simple. 

We appreciate your support as always.

After seeing our Prime Minister caught on camera gleefully promising to "kill" and "spike" the Treaty Principles Bill before a single submission has been read, the Hobson's Pledge team put our thinking caps back on. 

Clearly, Christopher Luxon has no respect for his voters. He must have seen the polling on the Bill. Polling that shows 64% of decided National Party voters support passing the Bill.

With such a mammoth response to the public consultation and support from all decided coalition party voters (53% NZ First and 95% ACT), the Government should pass this Bill and send it to a referendum.

That is an important thing to remember. The Bill will not become law simply by the Government passing it. First, it will go to a binding referendum at the next election and will only be enacted if that referendum passes.

So what can National voters do? Hobson's Pledge has written letters, sent emails, and made it pretty clear that Christopher Luxon is upsetting a large portion of his own supporters. But he has dug in. 

It's time to step things up and we have an idea, but we wanted to put it to you first and see what you think.

What if National Party members cancel or don't renew their membership unless Christopher Luxon and the Government make the Treaty Principles Bill a conscience vote?

A conscience vote means that instead of each party voting in a bloc, every individual MP casts a vote. Generally, conscience votes are used for Bills regarding controversial or 'moral' issues e.g. alcohol laws and Easter trading.

What do you think? Are you a National Party member? Would you be willing to cancel your membership in order to remind National who their voters are?

If we get enough support for this idea, we will launch a Boycott for the Bill campaign.

Click the button if you back our idea and want to chip in to fund spreading the word*.

I have had some good news... apparently because of my race, I get to pay less to attend music events organised by a group called Browntown than my non-Māori/Pasifika friends! 🤯🤯🤯

Chris Lynch reports from Christchurch that tickets for a Sunday Session event featuring King Kapisi and others was initially advertised with different tiers for pricing based on race.

“Early bird (for all Tangata): $15, Tangata Moana (for our Māori and Pacific Tangata): $20 and Tangata Tiriti (for our allies): $30.”

Browntown was founded last year by Devyn Baileh, Grace Colcord, and Shea Wātene (pictured below) and promotes itself as "a platform for cultural engagement aimed at addressing racism".

Browntown founder and director Grace Colcord (pictured left), allegedly of Malie and Afega descent, was defiant in the face of criticism of their racist ticket pricing. She told Chris Lynch that it was "in line with our kaupapa" and "pricing models based on specific groups aren’t unique to this event. Many venues and organisations offer discounted pricing for children, seniors, students..."

Not quite the same thing, mate.

The group has received $35,000 in funding from Creative New Zealand's Pacific Arts Fund. Another case of arts funding going to blatant racism.

What Browntown haven't got is an understanding of the Human Rights Act 1993 and how discrimination works! Or maybe they just don't care?

A Pasifika Community Leader who didn't want to be named - probably because he would be harassed for daring to speak out - said: 

“This is a blatant attempt to manufacture victimhood, and Creative New Zealand fell for it. Charging higher prices for white people doesn’t foster unity; it drives a wedge between communities."

I couldn't agree more. We don't need this racist crap in New Zealand. What's next? Separate drinking fountains?

The manager of the bar Muy Muy, where the event is scheduled to be held, was unaware of the discriminatory ticketing and told the organisers to amend the pricing or face cancellation of the event.

“At Muy Muy, we have a great sense of acceptance for all cultures and traditions. We support all communities equally,” Bugz Munasinghe said.

Chris Lynch says that by yesterday afternoon, the wording for the ticket prices had been changed to “early bird, $15.00, Alofa Access Ticket $20.00 and Ally Access Ticket $30.00.”

Not really an improvement.

You and I both know that if the ticket pricing was arranged the other way, and Māori and Pasifika were expected to pay higher prices, there would be an uproar. 

I guarantee you, Chris Lynch wouldn't be the only brave journalist reporting on it as is the case here. TVNZ would have a reporter stationed outside the bar calling for it to cancel the event. Stuff would have a journalist tracking the three Browntown organisers and writing full exposes on them and their immediate families. The Spinoff would spontaneously combust.

It sickens me that this kind of thing is happening in New Zealand. It isn't 'progressive'; It is divisive.

Shout out to Chris Lynch for covering this story. If only we had more journalists like him.

Before I sign off, I just saw a video that is doing the rounds on socials of Christopher Luxon telling some people at the airport (I think) not to worry because he is going to kill the Treaty Principles Bill. He's going to "spike it"!

More than 300,000 submissions and our Prime Minister doesn't give a flying you-know-what about considering a single one. He has made up his mind and our opinions don't matter.

No wonder the polls aren't looking too good. Don't forget you can still send him a message on our Scaredy Cat Christopher website telling him to support the Bill or lose your support.

When I was at school we called people like him 'try hards'. Trying to fit in with people who blatantly don't like them.

Someone tell the Prime Minister all the cool kids believe in equality.

I hate to break a promise, and I did say that my previous email would be the last reminder about the Treaty Principles Bill consultation, but the breakdown of Parliament's submissions process has resulted in the Justice Committee reopening submissions until 1pm on Tuesday 14 January. I figured you would forgive me for letting you know!

We have quickly put our submission tool back online and we encourage you to use it rather than going through the Parliamentary website. It is likely that the Parliament submission system will again come under immense pressure due to large numbers of people attempting to submit at once. However, to be extra sure of success, we are collecting, printing, and delivering all submissions that come through our submission tool.

Justice Committee Chair James Meager told media that they have received more than 300,000 online submissions so far.

This blows previous records for number of submissions out of the water and doesn't include hard copy submissions.

As we have seen in the extensive coverage the media has given to those opposing the Bill, we are far from the only community organising to support each other to make submissions. Though the integrity of some of these efforts appears dubious. 

We have been contacted about allegations of groups opposing the Treaty Principles Bill submitting multiple times using their children's names to make the submissions appear unique. We have also been contacted about influencers advising their international followers that they can submit against the Bill and indeed encouraging it.

This just reinforces that we must use these extra five days of submissions to ensure that every New Zealander who supports the Treaty Principles Bill has their say. We won't play dirty like the other side, but we do need to make every effort to throw our weight behind the Bill and behind the simple idea that we should all have equal rights.  

Don't worry if you've never written a submission before. Our tool helps you choose the points you agree with and builds the submission for you. Quick and easy.

The sheer number of submissions clearly demonstrates that a referendum is warranted on the matter. Naysayers who oppose the people of New Zealand voting on the Treaty Principles Bill must explain why more than 300,000 submissions have been received online alone. New Zealanders want to have their say!

I urge you to join us in this last push for submissions. Talk to your friends and family. Send them the link to our submission tool.

Let's ensure that the message of equality and democracy is heard loud and clear by the Justice Select Committee.

This is the last Treaty Principles Bill submissions reminder I will send you! I promise.

Today is the LAST day to have your say on this important Bill, so head to our easy submission tool NOW. We will be dropping submissions off to Parliament tomorrow!

Don't worry if you've never written a submission before. Our tool helps you choose the points you agree with and builds the submission for you. Quick and easy.

Thank you for understanding the need for all of these reminders. If you've seen our billboards, you'll know we have thrown the kitchen sink at this.

Happy New Year!

With the start of a new year, there are only days left to make a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill, if you haven't already.

If you have submitted, make it your mission to find someone who hasn't and direct them to our quick and easy tool.

Submissions close on the 7th so we are running out of time to ensure the Select Committee has thousands and thousands of pro-Treaty Principles Bill submissions to read.

I realise that many New Zealanders are enjoying our wonderful beaches at this time of year and are not in the mood for writing submissions. BUT, if we don't fight for equal rights those beaches could be closed to the public in the future.

Fortunately, we have built a very easy to use tool that makes having your say a 5 min task.

I promise that I will only send one more reminder about this on the last day for submissions. I appreciate that repetition can be tedious, but this is simply too important not to take every opportunity to get one more submission.

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Together, we have spent 2024 fighting for the future of this great country and together we will carry that fight on in 2025.

However, the next few days should be spent enjoying the very things we value the most with those we love.

My previous email was long enough so I will keep this one short.

Thank you again for supporting Hobson's Pledge and championing equal rights for every New Zealander.

Happy Christmas and best wishes for summer,

They call it the 'silly season' for a very good reason and, if your December is anything like ours, I am sure you are very busy indeed. 

This email is a long one - a Christmas bumper issue - as this year has been our busiest yet and that is saying something after last year's election! We have a lot of matters to update you on as someone who has supported us in our endeavours.

I want to make it very clear that every single action Hobson's Pledge takes is only possible with the financial and moral support of people like you.Please accept my thanks on behalf of everyone at Hobson's Pledge for standing with us and getting behind our campaigns. 

Now for some updates!

The Marine and Coastal Area Bill (MACA)

Just when we thought we'd won this hard fought battle, the Supreme Court threw a spanner in the works. The Bill to amend MACA was all set to be passed before the end of this year when the Supreme Court rushed out a ruling that very cleverly gave with one hand and took with the other.

We initially got very excited because our highest court ruled that the Court of Appeal had "erred" in a landmark case and the Attorney General could appeal it. The Supreme Court explained that the error was in how the Court of Appeal interpreted 'without substantial interruption' in regard to land use and occupation. It also addressed the issue of 'exclusively used and occupied'.

Unfortunately, as we dug deeper into the judgement, it was clear that judicial activism was at play however.

Gary Judd KC says:

The Supreme Court said, “[227] The appeal by the Attorney-General in relation to s 58 of MACA is allowed.” That is not a judgment, decree, order, direction or determination which could be sealed.

As I shall show, it was beyond doubt a pronouncement the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to make. It has brought New Zealand one step closer to the constitutional crisis Roger Partridge described as “looming” in Who makes the law? Reining in the Supreme Court.

...

Can there be any doubt that the Supreme Court’s unusually speedy delivery of this “judgment” was anything other than an attempt to pre-empt Parliament’s further consideration and enactment of the Amendment Bill?

Once again, the Supreme Court has exposed itself as politically active. In doing so, the Supreme Court is responsible for undermining its own credibility by failing to maintain its proper position within the constitutional order. Doing so has created the looming constitutional crisis.

And the solution that Gary Judd KC suggests::

What should the government do? It should introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) at the Bill’s committee stage to declare the court’s 2 December pronouncement to be a nullity and to require the court to decide the appeals in accordance with the law stated in what will be the Amendment Act.

The saying 'They muddy the water to make it seem deep' seems to apply here. The Supreme Court has sought to halt the Bill's progress and to confuse us all. 

Rest assured, we will hit the ground running in the New Year with a plan to impress on the Government the importance of passing the Bill.

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

Submissions remain open until January 7th - a very inconvenient time to hold consultation, but we are doing our best to get as many Hobson's Pledge supporters to have their say as possible. 

Click here to use our quick and easy submission tool.

Of course, our Prime Minister has made a lot of the fact that he and his Government will vote the Bill down at Second Reading. So the other part of our campaign is demonstrating to Christopher Luxon that there is a majority of voters who wish to see it passed. That is why we set up our Scaredy Cat Christopher website for supporters to send the Prime Minister an email.

Click here to send the Prime Minister an email.

We recently did some polling on the Treaty Principles Bill which we shared in a previous email so won't double up here. However, the ACT Party also did their own polling, although with different questions. 

They asked if respondents would support or oppose Parliament passing the Billand they found that 39% support the passage of the Bill, 36% oppose, and 25% are unsure.

David Seymour says:

"When Kiwis hear what the Treaty Principles Bill does, instead of what the media or Te Pāti Māori says it does, they support it."

So they followed up with more specific questioning that outlined each of the three principles and asked if respondents support or oppose each of these.

1. The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Support: 45%
Oppose: 24%

2. The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, this applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Support: 42%
Oppose: 25%

3. Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Support: 62%
Oppose: 14%

The front page ad saga continues

Just to let you know, Hobson’s Pledge continues to fight a small aspect of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decision around our running those very popular and successful front page ads in the NZ Herald about all the foreshore potentially going to iwi ownership.

As you may recall, we were cleared on most counts, but the ASA felt our opinion about iwi ownership was wrong.  Yes, you read that right – they disagree with our opinion, and not on any matter of fact!  We have appealed and we have initial good news as the Chairperson of the ASA appeal board has determined that the appeal meets the grounds for reconsideration.  We will likely get a decision sometime next year; we don’t know exactly when but this is a positive step.

Janet Dickson and the Real Estate Authority

This week, our lawyers from Franks Ogilvie represented Hobson's Pledge and Janet at the Governance and Administration Select Committee in Parliament. They sought to have a change included in the Statutes Amendment Bill that would give the REA more discretion around imposing punishments rather than requiring them to ban agents for five years like they did (or tried to do) to Janet because she saw absolutely no reason to take a course on Māori protocol which had nothing to do with selling real estate.

Immediately after the presentation to MPs, we were informed that the Government has tabled a new Bill that addresses the five year punishment for not undertaking such a course.

This is a fantastic win and we acknowledge Janet’s leadership, integrity and perseverance. A big thank you to Hobson's Pledge supporters who chipped in to her legal fund.

It’s not a complete win, as we would have liked the law changed to stop such compulsory courses being introduced, but it’s still a win! For those interested, the Bill is called the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.

We will keep you updated on the progress of this new Bill. We have also promised to keep you updated on Janet's case and receive many messages asking for information each week. Unfortunately, the wheels of our legal system turn very slowly so there is not anything for us to share at this point. We, like you, are waiting for the court to release its decision.

My appearance on Duncan Garner's Podcast

About a week ago Duncan and I had a lengthy discussion about the Treaty Principles Bill. We touched on a number of important points and you can listen to it here. Let me know what you think.

Electoral Commission tells us off about...nothing

I was alarmed to receive a letter from the Electoral Commission last week advising me that they had received several complaints about the advertisements we are running on Facebook and Instagram. 

These ads pertain to the Treaty Principles Bill and encourage New Zealanders to either submit on the Bill or send a message to Christopher Luxon. We always follow the rules around tagging the ads as political and social issues, and there was nothing objectionable in the ads themselves.

As I read through the letter, I realised that the Commission hadn't found anything that we had done wrong. They warned us to not do things we weren't doing.

It was a strange letter to receive. It felt like we were being told off, but we weren't. I was left with no question that the Electoral Commission is keeping an eye on Hobson's Pledge and will leap in to tell us off at the first opportunity, even if we are not doing anything wrong.

Nursing Council of New Zealand embarrasses us all

Click here to read the Standards of Competence.

Confused local councils

It seems a number of councils around the country have become confused about their roles in the community. Instead of focusing on roads, rubbish, footpaths and local events, they are instead spending time and your money discussing their position on the Treaty Principles Bill.

The likes of Auckland Council, Wanganui, Wellington, Waikato District Council, and many others have agreed motions opposing the legislation. This will frustrate the majority of New Zealanders who want MPs or a referendum to sort the issue, not their local councils who have no jurisdiction on this matter whatsoever!

It really is a load of 'virtue signalling' nonsense. As Auckland Councillor Maurice Williamson rightly said:

"The Treaty is an agreement between the Crown and Māori… we’re not the Crown. Why are we getting involved in something that has nothing to do with us?"

My defamation case

My sincere thanks to all who have donated; it’s a timely and costly proceeding.

As you know, Matthew Hooton's attacks on my character were substantial and this legal action was absolutely necessary, not just for my reputation but also the work of Hobson’s Pledge.

There isn’t much to update you all on other than the case continues on and we are awaiting the defence’s reply to the initial filings.

National Library tries to censor top Treaty historian

Renowned historian Professor Paul Moon has pulled the pin on a lecture on British policy leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Stuff reports:

This paints a bleak picture of our National Library and calls into question the integrity of the many events they host. Are all of their speakers put through the NatLib censor machine?

A Christmas miracle for our Treaty Principles campaign

After our email explaining that we had our print ads and billboards cancelled, we were contacted by Primedia and LUMO saying they would happily work with us to get some billboards up. We are glad to see there are still some companies that haven't fallen to the censorious regime.

From next week, you'll be able to see our billboards all around the country calling for equal rights. Grab a photo if you can and share it on social media!

We took on board some of the feedback from my last email and came up with some new designs. Here's a sneak peek at one of them:  

Phew! I told you it would be long, but it is even longer than I expected it!

Thank you again for the support you have given to Hobson's Pledge this year. I hope you get a bit of a break and some time with family and loved ones - preferably with some good weather thrown in.

Very quick message from me today.

You have hopefully heard about our Treaty Principles Submission Tool by now. It is a quick and easy way to have your say on this important piece of legislation.

I also want to share with you our complete submission. This is the comprehensive document that we have sent in on behalf of Hobson's Pledge.

Feel free to use it to formulate your own comments in our submission tool or send it to people you think would be interested.

Look out for my longer wrap-up of 2024 later in the week. 

The debate about the Treaty Principles Bill is one of the most important public conversations of our lifetimes.

Hobson's Pledge has done our best to facilitate debate and put forward the perspective that all New Zealanders should have equal rights.

We planned a campaign with billboards, print ads, and a social media advertising. Alas, we have only been able to book ONE billboard as landlords and companies said that while they support our message they are terrified of the backlash from activists.Vandalism, harassment, and attempts to ruin reputations would be expected.

We want to know who is pulling the strings behind the big media and advertising companies. Who is deciding that a Bill before our Parliament is too contentious for New Zealanders to discuss?

After all the drama with NZME over our front page ad on the Marine and Coastal Areas Amendment Bill, we took our print ads to the Stuff group of newspapers.

We attempted to book the Sunday Star Times, The Post, the Christchurch Press, and The Southland Times. It would have been a tidy sum of money for the financially beleaguered media outlet...

Our ad was very simple. Just words on a page communicating what is at the heart of the debate - equal rights. Vote for the Bill for equal rights. Say no to the Bill, say no to equal rights. Take a look at the offending ad:

We provided an explanation and evidential sources to Stuff to back up our (very straightforward) claim and to speed up the process of approval. We told them:

The purpose of these ads is to advocate for support for the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and to encourage New Zealanders to make a submission on it. This is a Bill currently before the Justice Select Committee.

It has been commonplace for advocacy groups and charities to engage in public debates about legislation that is being considered by Parliament on contentious topics such as abortion rights, euthanasia, legalisation of cannabis, and same-sex marriage. Placing ads in newspapers has been a staple part of this campaigning.

It is clear that the matter of ‘equal rights’ is central to the debate on the Treaty Principles Bill with both sides addressing their side of the argument repeatedly. Seymour and the ACT Party contend that all New Zealanders should be equal under the law with the same human rights. Te Pāti Māori take the position that Māori do, and should, have special or additional rights.

Therefore it can fairly be concluded that to oppose the Bill is to oppose the concept of equal rights for all New Zealanders.

References:

David Seymour, the minister in charge of the Treaty Principles Bill has frequently stated that its intent is to ensure equal rights for all New Zealanders. For example:  HISTORIC: David Seymour lays down the Treaty Principles Bill in Parliament

In the proposed legislation, the Summary of Key Features states:

“Right to equality—everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.”

In interviews, Te Pāti Māori, the main opponents of the Bill who organised the hikoi to Parliament, have stated that Māori have more rights or special rightsunder the Treaty. For example: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why she’s so strongly against Treaty Principles Bill | Q+A 2024

In polling (Curia Market Research December 2024), respondents were asked if they agreed with the statement:

"I want New Zealand to honour the Treaty of Waitangi, but only if it can do so in a way that doesn't undermine fundamental human rights such as equality of suffrage where all votes have roughly equal power.”

62% agreed, 12% disagreed, 11% were neutral, and 15% were unsure.

However, after a legal and editorial review we received this response:

Why is Stuff refusing advertisements on THIS issue? And only from 'lobby groups'? 

This also raises the persistent, but never answered, questions about who it is that sits in the shadows behind the Stuff empire.

Remember that Sinead Boucher purchased the company for just $1 despite other (allegedly large) sums being offered. Of course, the symbolic dollar says nothing of the immense amount of existing debt owed to a parent company that someonehad to have taken on.

There have been many rumours about who might be the true "owner" of the company, but the most often repeated one is that a large iwi took on the debt and is the real power behind the scenes. I must emphasise that this is a rumour and not substantiated, but it is certainly intriguing. Such rumours can run only because of secrecy.

To whom is Sinead Boucher beholden? Who is calling the shots at Stuff?

Who has an interest in discussions on the Treaty Principles Bill being shut down? Who wants to control the narrative?

If Stuff's commercial managers are being told to reject advertising money because editors have determined the topic is out of bounds, what confidence can New Zealanders have in Stuff's editorial balance and independence?

In most Western countries, though unfortunately not our own, media ownership laws would prevent the kind of underhanded and beyond-murky ownership set up Stuff has. Transparency expectations are much higher and people are able to access information on who owns media companies and who carries debt. 

New Zealanders should not have discussions about the Treaty and its so-called principles squashed, but we also should be able to see who is doing the squashing.

On the matter of our campaign: we will be focusing our energy online as we can use social media advertisements to spread the word. It is really disappointing not to have billboards up and down the country and advertisements in the newspaper as we have done in the past. But we adapt!

Excuse the broken record, but I will finish off this email with another reminder to get your submission done for the Treaty Principles Bill - click here for our easy tool.

Have a great weekend.

Last night, Maiki Sherman and ONE NEWS got very excited about their poll showing that more New Zealanders oppose the Treaty Principles Bill than support it. Never mind that:

1. The largest number are unsure about the Bill.

2. Other polls say the contrary.

3. Our polling shows that there is a large cohort of New Zealanders who oppose the Bill purely because they are worried about the division it is causing.

In our poll conducted between the 1st and 3rd of this month by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

More people agreed with that statement than disagreed. 

It is seriously concerning that in a liberal democracy, such as ours, people are opposing legislation not on its merits but rather because they are worried about social conflict.

This kind of thinking creates the conditions where political decision-making comes down to whichever group is making the most noise and causing the most intimidation. That is no way for a free and equal society to function.

We cannot be held to ransom because radicals scream racism over and over again and meet disagreement with fury.

It is not racism to advocate for equality regardless of race or ancestry, but if determined activists are given enough of a platform in our media, people start to feel that tensions are getting too high and are more likely to believe the whole exercise is not worth it. 

We must have the discussion. A fair one would be nice! We need to empower New Zealanders to feel they can have an opinion on the future of their country and that those who tell them their view is not valid are the extremists. 

Unfortunately, the whole establishment machine is invested in stifling debate and promoting only opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill. I have mentioned the media's clear bias, but it goes beyond that to elite institutions like academia, the public service, and local government. 

Some councils are wasting their ratepayers' time and money holding debates and votes on the Bill even though they have no influence on its outcome. Despite record rate hikes, failing infrastructure, and no shortage of local issues to deal with, they indulge their own egos and spend hours virtue signalling.

I'm looking at you, Auckland and Hutt City councils, and Environment Canterbury. Good on Taranaki Regional Council for being more sensible on the matter. Deputy Chair Neil Walker said:

"I think personally that the regional council is not a political body, and I certainly don't want to be sitting here time and time again, sending the government political messages about various things.

We're essentially an environmental council and a statutory body doing regulation. We are not doing all of these kind of things, lecturing the Parliament on everything."

It may feel like we are asking you to take a lot of action this year and that is because we are. As I have said before, we are in a now or never situation where we may never again have such opportunities to be heard on the future of New Zealand.

So I am, again, urging you to have your say by making a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill. We have created a tool that makes it quick and easy!

Another way you can make a difference is to talk to your friends and family about supporting the Bill in ways that promote unity and equality. We all need to have the courage to not bow to intimidation and to proceed with sometimes challenging conversations. The best way to do this is to relentlessly stick to our values.

Fundamental human rights for all should be the baseline for modern societies. We won't stop fighting for equality.

Given the overt support the media has demonstrated toward Te Pāti Māori’s Toitū Te Tiriti campaign, New Zealanders could be forgiven for thinking that there is clear consensus that the Treaty Principles Bill must not pass.

Those who support it might reasonably think they are in a minority.

We commissioned some polling and it shows that both assumptions are false.

Our polling was conducted between the 1st and 3rd of December by Curia Market Research and asked a range of questions about the Treaty of Waitangi, the so-called principles, and related issues.

It is safe to say that there is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty around the principles and I can understand why! The discussion is being stifled and stymied at every turn. Only one radical perspective is being promoted by media.

The question of which body, or bodies, should determine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is one on which New Zealanders have a range of views. But ultimately, when asked who should have the final say, 54% of respondents said either Parliament or a Referendum should make the final decision with just 8% opting for the Judiciary and 19% for the Waitangi Tribunal.

However, our polling showed that a majority of New Zealanders are supportive of honouring the Treaty, but only if it can do so in a way that doesn’t undermine fundamental human rights. In fact, voters from all parties except Te Pāti Māori had strong net agreement to this statement:

Similarly, only 13% of respondents agreed that the Treaty means that 50% of MPs must be Māori and only Te Pāti Māori voters were in net agreement with the statement.

A truly open conversation is needed on the clash between fundamental human rights (such as equal voting rights and political representation) and the way the Treaty and its so-called principles are being interpreted currently, particularly by the courts.

The disproportionate cheerleading Te Pāti Māori receives from the media is not a fair representation of the beliefs of the New Zealand public. The promotion of their activism as righteous and justified is distorting the true picture of an electorate that prioritises unity and human rights.

This polling demonstrates that Te Pāti Māori’s views on the principles of the Treaty and how the country should be politically organised are out of step with the great majority of voters, even including voters who support Labour and the Greens. Te Pāti Māori are radicals and in a minority.

Christopher Luxon has seriously misjudged the mood of voters in his careless dismissal of the opinions of New Zealanders submitting on the Treaty Principles Bill, particularly those who voted for his Government. He has allowed himself to be railroaded by the press gallery and intimidated by the noise made by a group of activists organised by Te Pāti Māori.    

New Zealanders are entitled to be informed of the bigger picture rather than lectured to directly from the Wellington beltway and activist academics.

New Zealanders are entitled to expect that any law, policy, or action taken by our Government should not breach fundamental human rights.

These are not big asks. It is not remotely racist to expect equal rights for us all.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT OUR POLLING

If you are in the Tauranga council area, you need to speak up – now!

For others around New Zealand, you just need to take note as this will soon be happening to you.

On Monday morning at 9.30am, the Tauranga City Council is meeting toapprove placing unelected iwi members onto three of their standing committees. 

You have read that right - an elected council is wanting to select unelected, unaccountable people, to sit on three of its key committees simply because of their ethnicity – in this case, because they are affiliated to local iwi. They want these people to have full voting rights and to be fully remunerated!

We need you to write urgently to Mayor Drysdale and local councillors to tell them that is entirely wrong and inappropriate.

A modern democracy is about one person, one vote; and about direct accountabilityto the voter.

There is no place in New Zealand for race-based appointments, let alone unelected persons sitting on council committees. What’s the point of electing a council when it then goes ahead and stacks the deck with the unelected!?

The three committees are substantial and include the Audit and Risk Committee; City Futures Committee; and Community and Performance Committee. It’s three today, but how long before more are demanded?

And get this – Tauranga already has a specifically elected Maori Ward, called Te Awanui.

Reading the council agenda, you won’t believe what they say –

“A Māori ward councillor is not expected to speak on behalf of tangata whenua, they speak for themselves when working with elected members.”

Yep, you read that right. According to the council documentation the specifically created Māori ward does not speak for Māori. They now need even more undemocratic representation. We wish we were making this stuff up!

So, if you are in the Tauranga Council area, you need to email the Mayor and councillors now and tell them to stop this nonsense. We have included their emails for you below:

Mayor Mahé Drysdale
Email: [email protected] 

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular (Mauao/Mount Maunganui Ward)
Email: [email protected]

Rick Curach (Arataki Ward)
Email: [email protected]

Kevin (Herb) Schuler (Bethlehem Ward)
Email: [email protected]

Glen Crowther (Matua-Ōtūmoetai Ward)
Email: [email protected]

Steve Morris (Pāpāmoa Ward)

Email: [email protected]

Marten Rozeboom (Tauriko Ward)
Email: [email protected]

Rod Taylor (Te Papa Ward)
Email: [email protected]

Hautapu Baker (Welcome Bay Ward)
Email: [email protected]

*Mikaere Sydney, the councillor for the Te Awanui Ward, is currently on a leave of absence. 

Please act today – you have till 9.30am this coming Monday (9 December) to have your voice heard before the Tauranga council hands even more power over to unelected people.

Yesterday we brought you the excellent news that the Supreme Court has determined that the Court of Appeals "erred" in their ruling on the claims brought under the Marine and Coastal Areas Act.

Today, iwi lawyer, architect of the original MACA Bill, and former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson is quoted in NBR calling for the Government to abandon its amendment Bill in light of the Supreme Court decision.

No. That is not an option. One ruling is not indicative of an end to judicial activism. The Marine and Coastal Areas Amendment Bill is vital to setting parameters so that we don't have to take things up to Supreme Court level every time because lower courts think the law should be interpreted in their political image.

We will be making our position clear on this and reaching out to our contacts to emphasise that Hobson's Pledge expects that Bill to proceed regardless. On the off chance you happen to bump into a minister, make sure you tell them to pass the damn Bill too!

Massey University endorses Te Pāti Māori

It has become fashionable for organisations of any kind to take public stances on political matters that have nothing to do with their purpose or cause.

I also find it quite presumptuous that they think that New Zealanders are hanging out to hear what Papamoa's Knitting Circle or The Greymouth Premier Chess Clubthink about a piece of legislation.

It is even worse when it is publicly funded institutions making grand political declarations. This week, the Free Speech Union posted that they were approached by a staff member from Massey University who shared that official banners for staff members to put in their emails were distributed that emphatically assert support for Toitū Te Tiriti. 

As most of us have figured out by now, Toitū Te Tiriti are simply Te Pāti Māori with a slightly different hat on. Winston Peters describes them as an "astroturf group".

Massey's endorsement of Toitū Te Tiriti and Te Pāti Māori destroys any claim of political neutrality the university might wish to make. Among their large number of staff there will inevitably be many different perspectives on this issue and this activism falsely suggests that they are all in agreement.

I don't know about you, but I resent my taxes going to institutions that so explicitly endorse the politics of a party that is observably extremist and often utterly contemptuous of our laws and Parliament.

I think it is fair to assume that the university would not allow a similar banner with "Support the Treaty Principles Bill" on it.

Rāhui are being treated as law by police - didn't we warn about this?

Remember when, not long ago at all, we ran an ad on the front page of the NZ Herald and Māori activists complained en masse that we were promoting "disinformation"?

Well, one of the key things they took issue with was that we claimed that rāhui were one way that iwi could restrict access to beaches. They pointed to the fact that the law is vague on rāhui and that they are usually not enforceable. We argued that a culture of de facto enforcement has taken hold in New Zealand whereby dominant cultural influencers like politicians and media treat rāhui as official and enforceable. As a consequence, the police, rangers, and other people of authority behave as if they are the law even if they are not.

This week we had a stark example of this.

Why are the New Zealand Police issuing a statement about a religious/cultural concept declared by local iwi?

Will the police fine or arrest any person who ignores the rāhui? 

The job of the police is to enforce the laws of New Zealand. Not to communicate and enforce the beliefs and practices of a select cultural group.

The Herald is deleting comments it disagrees with

I have previously shared with you one example of the NZ Herald deleting entire comment threads on articles because they weren't reflecting the opinions they wanted them to. 

We aren't talking about abusive or threatening comments. We are talking about comments in support of the Treaty Principles Bill, for example. 

Since I informed you about this last week, we have observed the practice of deleting in more articles related to the Bill or race relations in New Zealand. The vast majority of these comments are in line with what a Hobson's Pledge supporter might say. They are pro-one law for all and pro-equality.

Yesterday, it was an article on the Supreme Court ruling. One sharp-eyed supporter noted that after around 42 comments, and 40 minutes after commenting was opened, the NZ Herald closed it down and deleted readers’ thoughts. 

This is an outrageous display of contempt for their subscribers (they are the only ones who can comment). It is censorious and it highlights what we are up against when it comes to informing New Zealanders about what the Bill is really about. 

If you happen to be a Herald subscriber, I encourage you to enquire why they are deleting comments reflecting a particular viewpoint on Treaty articles. Tell them that included in your subscription is the ability to comment on articles and it is completely inappropriate for a moderator to delete them - not because they are violent - but because the Herald staff are as woke as the Wellington public service. 

Orwell must have been a time traveller

The 21st Century seems to be a rollercoaster of Orwellian nightmares running on a loop. George Orwell's 1984 is a treasure trove of quotes that are painfully relatable for any of us being battered by the culture wars. 

I came across a quote recently and I couldn't help but think of all the Treaty revisionism we have endured over the last few decades. I thought of how the iconic Sir Āpirana Ngata has gone from a man respected by all to having his wise words torn apart by Māori activists. The sudden assertion that Māori did not cede sovereignty is another example. Never mind the extensive records of speeches in 1840 at Waitangi and 1860 at Kohimarama nor the earlier reports of the Waitangi Tribunal - those have been memory-holed.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Actions to take

I'm again going to bang the drum of the Treaty Principles Bill. I appreciate that I am repeating myself, but this is too important not to ensure every last person possible submits on the Bill. If you have already done so, please encourage others to do so too.

Please remember that written submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill are only open until the 7th of January 2025.

Additionally, it is important that we apply pressure on the Prime Minister and National as they have already sworn not to pass the Bill. We created an easy email tool for you to send an email to Christopher Luxon telling him to support the Bill.His timidity around Treaty issues is not good enough and he should know that.

You're likely to hear from me or Elliot again soon as there doesn't seem to be a day go by without important news about the Treaty, New Zealand's future, and race relations. 

BREAKING NEWS:

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has made an incredibly important judgement today – and one in line with Hobson’s Pledge's advocacy and position.

It has essentially stated that the creative interpretation that allows such a broad application of the law - and so opened up most of New Zealand’s coastline to iwi claims - was wrong.

The Supreme Court has been reviewing the Court of Appeal decision around what is colloquially known as "the Edwards case". The Court of Appeal effectively reinterpreted the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA), which in turn meant that iwi could effectively claim all of New Zealand’s coastline.

Today, the Supreme Court has said that interpretation by the Court of Appeal is wrong. They said the lower court ‘erred’ in its decision making.

We can hardly believe it!

As you know, Hobson’s Pledge has been fighting hard for the right of all New Zealanders to share and enjoy our coastline. We even put out a full front page advertisement in the New Zealand Herald to point out what the earlier court ruling meant. Despite lots of vocal opposition to what we were saying, we feel vindicated by today’s ruling. 

We have consistently stated that if the Court of Appeal ruling went ahead, then all the coastline was open to being claimed. Parliament recognised this and has put together a Marine and Coastal Area Amendment Bill to ensure the original interpretation was kept. This Bill is currently going through Parliament and is due to become law in a few weeks. The Supreme Court’s decision today also confirms that the law was not being followed if iwi could claim everything.

You are owed an apology. Hobson's Pledge supporters, like you, stood up for what was right and true and were attacked by Te Pāti Māori, Labour, the Greens, the media, activists, and all sorts of characters on the internet! 

As you will recall, a change of law in 2011 was made to remove Helen Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act. This 2011 law meant iwi could seek rights over coastal areas if they could prove continuous and exclusive use of the area since 1840. The Minister in charge at the time, Chris Finlayson, suggested only around 10% of the coastline might be claimable. The Court of Appeal however took a very creative approach and "interpreted" the law to mean what it thought it should read, and not what Parliament had explicitly written. This meant most of the coastline could plausibly be claimed!

With today’s judgement by the Supreme Court, this radical and activist interpretation of Treaty related issues has been dealt a blow. 

We have supported the Government’s move to update the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 to ensure the original intention is honoured. It is good that the Supreme Court effectively agrees. We are also grateful to all of you as supporters for the hard work preparing submissions to the select committee.  Your voice and words have made a difference. 

We still have much more work to do though. Hobson’s Pledge advocates for a law change to return our seabed and foreshore to Crown ownership for the benefit of all New Zealanders. While we will continue to push for this change, we still see the current Bill going through Parliament as a major step forward.

Finally, there are still many other battles to fight to ensure the legal equality of all New Zealanders. We win battles when we all take action so please take a few minutes to use our submission tool to have your say on the Treaty Principles Bill.

Please remember that written submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill are only open until the 7th of January 2025.