This week, Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins has stirred controversy by asserting that “Māori did not cede sovereignty” when signing the Treaty of Waitangi. According to the New Zealand Herald, Hipkins was “unequivocal” in this claim.

Hipkins stated:

“It’s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, the academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.” He further clarified, “That doesn’t mean the Crown doesn’t have sovereignty now, but Māori didn’t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.”

Such statements from a major political leader are deeply concerning and irresponsible. How can Hipkins claim Māori didn't cede sovereignty while also acknowledging the Crown's current sovereignty? This contradictory stance raises serious questions about his understanding of New Zealand’s history and constitutional framework.

FACT CHECK 👇

Article One of the Treaty states:

“The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty…”

The intent of the Treaty was to unify New Zealand under a single sovereign authority.

Historical records, including speeches by Māori chiefs in 1840 and at the Kohimarama conference in 1860, confirm that they understood that they were surrendering authority to the Crown.

Sir Apirana Ngata, perhaps the greatest Maori leader of all time, emphasised this a century ago:

“Clause 1 of the Treaty handed over the mana and the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.”

New Zealand has operated as a unified nation under the Crown's sovereignty for more than 180 years.

Hipkins’ claim that Māori did not cede sovereignty threatens our national unity and could undermine our legal and political system, creating divisions based on heritage where there should be none.

Former Labour Prime Minister David Lange observed:

“Democratic government can accommodate Māori political aspirations in many ways... What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy.”

Willie Jackson has dismissed the notion that Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty in 1840 as “laughable,” further fuelling division and confusion. In contrast, National Party leader Christopher Luxon, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and David Seymour - the leaders of all the parties in the Coalition Government - have reaffirmed the Crown’s sovereignty.

Disagreements about New Zealand’s founding document should concern us all.

It’s time to stand firm on the principles that unite us as New Zealanders—one law for all, under one sovereign authority.

Months ago, Hobson’s Pledge appeared before the Environment Select Committee regarding the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill. We did not take a position on whether the Bill threatened the environment, as our supporters have varying views on this.

However, we strongly objected to the Bill's initial proposal, which suggested that every small group of experts assessing projects for fast-track treatment should include both a local authority representative and an iwi representative.

This implied iwi should have as much say in deciding which projects could get the accelerated treatment as the local authority in whose territory the project was to take place.

We thought that that was outrageous.

Yesterday’s Government announcement initially appeared to be an improvement. It stated that expert panels would “include an iwi authority representative onlywhen required by Treaty settlements.”

While this may seem like progress, many Treaty settlements contain clauses granting iwi significant powers over large areas of land and water.

Additionally, the announcement revealed that expert panels “will include Māori development and te ao Māori expertise in place of mātauranga Māori.” This means the law will still grant iwi disproportionate power in deciding which projects receive fast-track approval.

We all know, from bitter experience, that this leaves the rest of us open to extortion.

We like to think of New Zealand as free of corruption. If you believe that, have a chat with any developer—whether involved in housing, infrastructure, or power stations—and get their reaction.

If the law goes ahead in its current form, the risk of rorts will continue.

It has been quite a week, but this information is time-sensitive, so I'm emailing you again!

You may think the Māori wards battle is done and dusted, but there are some tricky fish hooks that need attention.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown's law change means councils must in the future allow ratepayers to petition for a referendum if they (councils) want to establish Māori wards, returning the legal position to what it was before the Ardern Labour Government changed the rules in 2021.

But what about those councils that took advantage of the Ardern Government's law change removing the right of ratepayers to petition for a referendum on the issue, or have already voted to create one, although it is not scheduled to exist before the local body elections in 2025?

Councils have until 6 September 2024 to either disestablish their Māori ward(s) or rescind their vote to create them.

>>> SEND THEM A MESSAGE <<<

32 councils established Māori wards following the passing of Nanaia Mahuta's law, which removed the right for ratepayers to demand a referendum when councils proposed creating one or more Māori wards.

🔲 Disestablish now, with effect from 2025

🔲 Referendum in 2025, with effect from 2028

13 councils have voted to create Māori ward(s) but they have not yet actually been established (in other words, they are intended to exist from the 2025 local body elections).

These councils can choose between:

🔲 Rescind their vote to create Māori ward(s)

🔲 Referendum in 2025, with effect from 2028

Overwhelmingly—with the single exception of Wairoa, which voted in favour of Māori wards—all the referenda held on this issue (before the change of law by Nanaia Mahuta) were strongly opposed to Māori wards. In the case of Western Bay of Plenty, for example, 78% of those who voted were against Māori wards.

What can we do?

Put pressure on councillors to either disestablish Māori wards or rescind their votes.

It is the simplest way to get rid of Māori wards, save ratepayers the expense of referenda, and avoid one-term Māori wards.

>>> SEND A MESSAGE TO YOUR COUNCILLORS ASAP <<<

We've pulled together a quick template for you to use to email all of your councillors at once. This is a template letter, but we encourage you to add your own thoughts.

Thanks for all of your support this week. It has been a big one and your encouragement online and in messages has been the antidote to all the nasty messages and threats.

We must keep pushing for an equal, democratic, and unified New Zealand.

National and New Zealand First have declared, once and for all, that they intend to waste the time of New Zealanders by continuing the charade of supporting the Treaty Principles Bill to the Select Committee stage and then swiftly exiting stage left!

What a joke. A waste of time and money while tensions ratchet up for no reason.

The process of making our laws should be taken seriously, especially the important phase of hearing the feedback of New Zealanders through select committees. To tell us that they intend to ignore whatever our contributions might be is disrespectful.

Disrespectful is how David Seymour characterised it too. He posted the below statement to X (the app formerly known as Twitter).  

Seymour is correct. We need to have the courage to have conversations that are uncomfortable. We will inevitably offend each other and disagree totally at times, but it is better than allowing a festering wound to remain. 

Hobson's Pledge is backing the Treaty Principles Bill. 

We believe that National and New Zealand First are wrong to have ruled out advancing the Bill before it has even been introduced. How do they even know exactly what it will contain and how it could be improved in select committee? They don't. 

We have been thinking about how to approach this issue as the Bill does seem to be on life support. However, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. If enough New Zealanders submit we could very well shift the Prime Minister's opinion...again.

We have also been discussing the possibility of a Citizens Initiated Referendumon the matter. It would be a massive challenge to get the required 10% of eligible voters, but not outside the realm of possibility. 

Let us know your thoughts by replying or heading over to Facebook.

In slightly better news, it was a relief to learn that our judiciary delivered an emphatic decision to Ngāti Whatua's attempt to demand in the High Court that Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith consult them BEFORE drafting legislation. They also wanted the courts to intervene in the legislative process.

Quite extraordinary demands.

Justice David Boldt's comments left no room for doubt that the separation of powers in New Zealand was not to be trifled with:

“The Minister is entitled to consult as much, or as little, as he wishes. Criticism of the scope and length of the consultation the Minister has offered may come as part of the political and Parliamentary process, but it is not a matter for the Court."

Sanity prevails for once!

I will be in touch very soon as Hobson's Pledge is concerned about a number of issues that really cannot be ignored. There is no one else standing up consistently for an end to race-based policies and law, and an equal future for all New Zealanders. We can't afford to stop for a moment.

A letter signed by more than 170 legal “experts” has been circulated around the media and quoted extensively. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate the letter in its entirety but have gathered some quotes.

The letter claims to "fact check" Hobson’s Pledge’s ad which was published on the front and inside pages of the Herald last week. But this group of alleged “experts” appear to have analysed the law as they wish it to be rather than how it is.

Why don't we fact check them in return...

Here are some of their key points followed by my remarks:

1. “The foreshore has never historically been in public ownership: it is not owned by anybody, except for the areas of the foreshore that are currently in (mainly non-Māori) private ownership.”

This is not true. In 2004, Helen Clark’s Government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It was, of course, highly controversial. This law was in place until John Key’s Government replaced it with the Marine and Coastal Areas Act in 2011 (MACA).

For seven years the law of New Zealand stated:

"the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown, so that the public foreshore and seabed is held by the Crown as its absolute property.” 

13(1)Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004

We can quibble about the words ‘Crown’ and ‘Public’ but for the purposes of land ownership ‘Crown ownership’ and ‘Public ownership’ are equivalent for the New Zealand population. It is certainly incorrect to say it “has never been in public ownership” and “is not owned by anybody.”

The legal experts may prefer the approach of John Key’s Government, but that doesn’t mean they can write Helen Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act out of history.

Many New Zealanders would like to see a return to Public/Crown ownership and when they advocate for this they are neither misinforming nor being discriminatory. It is a simple preference of Clark’s law over Key’s.

Te Pāti Māori, who have been chief among those crying “misinformation”, should be well aware of the nuances of this Bill given their now-President John Tamihere was one of its main proponents.

2. "Secondly, they [the legal experts] say the ad implied that “customary marine titles” gave iwi, hāpu and/or whānau the right to own parts of the foreshore. This is not true.”

The authors of the letter have again rewritten history and this time have ignored the intent of the Marine and Coastal Area Act. In the lead up to the passing of the Bill, John Key and Chris Finlayson were grilled by media on the meaning of words and the intentions of their legislation. It was a high profile and significant piece of legislation.

A quick Google search of articles from the time shows that the Minister in charge of the Bill – Attorney-General Chris Finlayson – was adamant that Customary Marine Titles were a form of ownership.

The NZ Herald reported:

"Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said yesterday that customary title was "an ownership title" - meaning that Maori groups awarded customary title in the foreshore and seabed will be the legal owners of it and the minerals beneath it."

At the First Reading of the Bill, Minister Finlayson said:

"This bill provides for the exercise of a number of valuable ownership rightsbecause, once granted, such titles will have the following rights in the customary title area: the right to permit or not permit applications for new resource consents, with limited exceptions defined in the bill; the right to give or withhold permission for conservation activities; the protection of wāhi tapu; the ownership of minerals other than petroleum, uranium, silver, and gold; the right to create a planning document; and the presumed ownership of taonga tūturu, which are Māori cultural or historical objects."

Indeed throughout the process of the Bill through Parliament, the Green Party's Metiria Turei argued that the concepts of ownership as relating to Customary Titles should be redefined to recognise tikanga approaches to ownership.

Ownership was a central part of the discussion of the legislation. One cannot read the transcripts without concluding that Minister Finlayson intended that his Bill provide ownership rights to Customary Marine Title holders.

3. "Thirdly, they [the legal experts] say the ad implied a “customary marine title” would prevent New Zealanders from accessing beaches, including to fish and swim. This is not true. The legislation enabling the award of customary marine titles secures public access to the foreshore."

Our advertisement doesn't claim that Customary Marine Titles automatically trigger a restriction of public access. We acknowledge that the legislation states that public access and activity such as fishing won’t be impeded. However, MACA contains a significant carve out.

It provides for title holders to declare an area ‘wāhi tapu’. This means that the area is of special significance in accordance with tikanga.

Section 79 (Wāhi tapu conditions) of the Marine and Coastal Area Act says:

“The wāhi tapu conditions that must be set out in a customary marine title order or an agreement are…the prohibitions or restrictions that are to apply, and the reasons for them; and any exemption for specified individuals to carry out a protected customary right…Wāhi tapu conditions—may affect the exercise of fishing rights…”

This means that there could be any number of wāhi tapu areas which restrict access. As we see with the use of rāhui to blockade areas for various reasons, these kinds of concepts are liberally used once given the power.

4. "And fourthly, they [the legal experts] say that “contrary to the impression created by the advertisement, there are very hard legal tests to be met before a wāhi tapu (including a rāhui) will be recognised”.

There are criteria to be met in order to declare a wāhi tapu area. However, we can hardly be expected to put much stock in the robustness of this threshold when the very reason the Government is planning to amend the law is that the judiciary have expanded criteria so vastly.

This criteria pertains to “exclusive use” and is the reason that despite Prime Minister John Key emphatically stating that very few awards of Customary Marine Titles would be made, almost the entire coastline of New Zealand is now under application.

The judiciary have behaved very boldly in relation to MACA and have rapidly evolved its scope and outcomes.

In any case, it is difficult to see how the criteria for wāhi tapu could be considered “hard legal tests”.

Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011:

78(2)A wāhi tapu protection right may be recognised if there is evidence to establish—

(a) the connection of the group with the wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area in accordance with tikanga; and

(b) that the group requires the proposed prohibitions or restrictions on access to protect the wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area.

Hard legal test? Pull the other one.

5. “Moreover, wāhi tapu are subject to statutory restrictions, and cannot, for example, prevent fishers from taking their lawful entitlement in a quota or fisheries management area.”

This is correct, according to the legislation. However, it is irrelevant to what we are suggesting. The issue Hobson’s Pledge are concerned about is that particular areas are restricted for fishing, sometimes with exemptions for Māori fishers via customary rights.

Recreational fishers have connection to place as well. They may have a spot that is local to them or that they have visited for many years. Sure, they can go fish somewhere else, but depending on the size of the wāhi tapu area they may need to go some distance.

Theoretically, people or businesses might be still ‘entitled’ to their quota, but if the geographic area is restricted considerably and excludes the most fish-dense spots, they are going to struggle to make it.

The legal activists might say "tough luck," but it wrong to suggest that the law doesn't affect fishing rights and access.

6. "The group [the legal experts] says Hobson’s Pledge is entitled to “robust expression of opinion but are not entitled to mislead and deceive consumers”.

Quite. Likewise, a group of 170 legal “experts” are entitled to have their opinions but it is wrong that they can present their activist beliefs as fact.They cannot rewrite history or misrepresent the law.

Hobson’s Pledge expects robust debate. We don’t expect to be subjected to a barrage of false accusations of misinformation, lies, racism, and hatred. 

__________

If you have the entire letter do let us know if there are other points we can fact check.

We must push back on the unchallenged comments of activists who rely on their credentials to give credence to what are opinions, wishful thinking, and distortions of the law.

Since the media won't publish our rebuttals, make sure you share this information far and wide. People power is the only avenue we can truly rely on.

Well, that was short-lived!

The New Zealand Herald has caved to the cancel mob of Te Pāti Māori activists and cancelled our full page ad booking in tomorrow's paper.

Then this morning we found out that they have also cancelled full page ads that were booked and approved by their legal team last week to run in regional papers! 

We booked this package of ads a couple of weeks ago.

The Herald told us:

I’m touching base as I wanted to let you know about a recent development regarding the upcoming advertisement from Hobson’s Pledge.

After careful consideration and in light of feedback we've received from our subscribers and our team, NZME has decided not to proceed with running the advertisement.

I wonder how many Hobson's Pledge supporters are NZ Herald subscribers? Perhaps those of us who are should share some feedback with the New Zealand Herald also!

If you would like to share your thoughts, or talk about your subscription, send an email to:

[email protected]

It is outrageous that Te Pāti Māori and its posse of academics and activists are able to dictate what ads are published in the Herald. Not because the ad isn't factual or because it's objectively offensive, but because they don't agree with the stance taken on legislation about to be debated in Parliament. 

If we had placed an ad objecting to the Government's plan to amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act to make the threshold for awarding Customary Marine Titles higher would the Herald have printed it?

If we had placed an ad saying that Māori never ceded sovereignty and so the entire coast is rightfully theirs anyway would the Herald have printed it?

Contested facts, political opinion, and differing perspectives.

You can see our ad below and judge for yourself if it is misinformation and offensive or if it is simply an ad providing sources for one particular perspective regarding Customary Marine Titles.

Don't worry, this will not hold us back. We will find other ways to spread the message. Te Pāti Māori do not control everyone. 

We wonder what advertiser they will object to next, now that they know the power they have.

Tell the Herald what you think!

The reaction to our front page ad last Wednesday has been extraordinary. In public, prominent Māori figures have loudly accused Hobson’s Pledge of misinformation, racism, hatred, and more. In private, our inbox has been hit with explicit death threats the likes of which we have never seen before.

We are not backing down. We are running another full page ad in the New Zealand Herald on Wednesday.

This ad will give New Zealanders the chance to fact check us themselves. Te Pāti Māori, Willie Jackson, and other activists have accused us of 'misinformation' and 'lies,' so we are 'showing our working'.

Here is a sneak peek (subject to going through the NZ Herald legal team):

Click here to chip in to the Save Our Shores fund so we can keep placing ads.

There was nothing disparaging or untrue in our ad, but you can judge that for yourself. Accusations of misinformation have been levelled without evidence or even specifics of what exactly we have got wrong.

Given the map was sourced from Te Kete Kōrero a Te Takutai Moana Information Hub (Kōrero Takutai) on the Te Arawhiti Māori Crown Relations website we would expect it to be accurate. Likewise, our information on the rights that come with Customary Marine Titles was sourced from the Te Arawhiti Māori Crown Relations website.

The level of rage the ad generated speaks to the degree to which radicals have whipped their supporters into a frenzy. It is concerning and appears to be escalating.

We have been clear that we abhor political violence and that all of our activism and advocacy is utterly non-violent. Judging by the messages we have received in the past few days, our opponents do not take the same position.

Our opponents appear not to be angry because we said anything false, but because we printed truthful information that they do not want to be widely understood. Whatever your position on customary rights to the foreshore and seabed, New Zealanders having access to more information about it shouldn't be a negative.

The information is already there on a Government website, we are simply drawing attention to it.

Those flinging accusations of misinformation need to front up with evidence to demonstrate what is incorrect.

Is it not true that almost our entire coastline is currently under High Court Application for customary title? Because the map on a Government website says that is the case.

Is it not true that Customary Marine Title gives iwi the right to veto (say ‘yes’ or ‘no’) to resource consents and conservation activities? Because that’s what the Te Arawhiti website says.

Is it not true that it gives iwi the right to be notified and consulted about marine mammal watching permits and Coastal Policy Statements? Again, see the website.

Is it not true that declarations of wāhi tapu can restrict access to areas?

Is it not true that Customary Marine Title grants iwi ownership of minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver, uranium, and in some circumstances pounamu?

Is it not true that iwi are granted all “newly found taonga tūturu” (treasures of cultural significance)?

And is it not true that iwi can create and lodge plans for the management of natural and physical resources that must be taken into account by local authorities and government? According to the Government’s own website all of this is true.

Te Pāti Māori should be condemned for attempting to strong arm the media into not publishing advertisements that they disagree with. They are interfering in commercial relationships. The kind of power they are demanding is intoxicating and will not stop here. Once they know they can bully media they will use the same tactics on other issues and other advertisers. It starts to look like cartel behaviour when activists coordinate to bully businesses which publish information that they don’t want shared.

I repeat, the information on our ad was factual and sourced from a Government website. We said that we don’t agree with the status quo. If discussing legislation and its implications is now beyond the pale and generates such visceral anger, we are in big trouble. Healthy democracies do not accept suppression of political discussion and dissent.

Te Pāti Māori and its proxies are welcome to share their alternative perspective, but they aren’t entitled to bully and silence their opponents.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel. Click here so we can do what Te Pāti Māori don't want us to: spread the word to more New Zealanders.

Make sure you get your copy of the New Zealand Herald on Wednesday!

Geez! The degree of anger our front page ad generated could run New Zealand's power grid for a month🔥

The reaction from activists and politicians has been (as predicted) over-the-top and aggressive. It is no surprise, but it still makes me shake my head. If someone could explain to me what is racist about the statement "we are all New Zealanders"that would be great.

Some extremists and radicals believe they are entitled to be as inflammatory as they like, but when an alternative perspective is voiced they cry crocodile tears that it is fuelling tension.

It is interesting to see the elite Māori activists all put their two cents in. It's always the same people from the media and politics. They have appointed themselves the authorities on what every Hone, Tamati, and Tui think about the world.

WE ARE SORRY 😔

We do owe you an apology though... because apparently we got it all wrong. None of this is happening. You will only be safe if you immediately proceed to the nearest pile of sand and stick your head in it.

We should never have used the map from the Te Arawhiti (Māori Crown Relations) website. Their tool that shows how much of the coast is under current application by iwi is - according to NZ Twitter - "misinformation," "racist," "propaganda," and part of an extensive web of right wing conspiracies 🤷

Next time we will just ask John Tamihere or Khylee Quince to draw us a map.

The chairs of the Māori Journalists' Association are furious with us. And the Herald. And anyone who doesn't agree with their specific view of the world. 

They seem to think that unless people are advocating for their particular opinion of the Treaty, they must be shut down. That is wrong. New Zealanders are allowed to think differently than that promoted by Radio New Zealand and some racist activists.

Not all Māori agree with the chairs of the Māori Journalists’ Association. I don't. We don't. And we hold many different views.

Our ad was indeed a “deliberate attempt to sway public opinion” as the Radio New Zealand article accuses; but not “against Māori interests”. This is a disgusting smear. We stand for a New Zealand where we have equal rights and interests, whether Māori or non-Māori. 

The Māori Journalists’ Association need to point to the parts of the ad they believe are “misinformation” and provide evidence for their disgraceful accusations. They apparently need to be reminded that just disagreeing with something doesn't make it false.

Ironically, in her article about how inaccurate and harmful our ad is, Shilo Kino forgets to be accurate, fair, and balanced herself. She reckons that private companies should make their business decisions based on her personal politics. 

The New Zealand Herald is not a public entity. Perhaps the media industry wouldn’t be in such dire straits if they weren’t so pestered and bullied by activists like Shilo Kino who want to dictate the content of their advertisements. Judging by her public list of grievances, she would be vetoing advertisers left, right, and centre.

But, after reading that she is a serial reporter of ads to the Advertising Standards Authority it is hard to take her seriously. The ASA probably have a special shelf just for her complaints. 

Willie Jackson of course popped up to say his bit. He reckons:

"[Hobson's Pledge] love perpetrating lies and one of those lies is that we are going to block people from our beaches and we are going to take over the country. We are under attack constantly." 

The Māori Journalists' Association also pulled the victim card. Radio NZ reported that the group are "concerned for the Herald's Māori journalists and had reached out to them to offer support."

I hope no journalists are distressed due to seeing something they disagree with in the newspaper. That's just embarrassing. It makes a joke of both the credibility and robustness of journalists. They are surely faced with many things that they disagree with or are offended by every day.

It also makes me wonder if the Association care if other New Zealanders are distressed when content is published that suggests they are secondary to anyone with Māori heritage.

>>> SIGN OUR "APPALLING" PETITION TO SAVE OUR SHORES <<<

Fact checkers can drop us a line if they have actual evidence to contradict us.

But angry words from professional activists won't stop us from bringing this issue into the light.

It is true that iwi have applications currently in the courts for most of the coast. If awarded this gives them customary marine title which operates similarly to ownership.

It is true that holders of customary titles have a right of veto over all resource consents and conservation activities; involvement in coastal planning and policy development; the ability to charge commercial operators, restrict public access through wāhi tapu; and ownership rights to all non-nationalised minerals – including royalties from existing mining operations, back-dated to when the application was first submitted.

It is true recreational fishing, navigation, and public access, are meant to be protected but in reality...nope! Fishing comps have been shut down, boulders dropped in front of entrances to beaches, and entire beaches shut off to public access. The Police have shown they aren't keen to take action when New Zealanders rights are breached either. This means that iwi can bar access unlawfully and no one will stop them.

New Zealand is at a race relations crossroads and we are entitled to consider a variety of views on our future.

It follows that those who seek to win a battle of ideas by shutting down their opponents don't think they can succeed by persuasion.

At the end of the day, all these tantrums and attacks in the media basically ensure that more Kiwis see our ad and hear our message. People who don't spend their lives obsessed with race and looking for ways to be the victim can see our ad is not racist. They think for themselves. 

And most New Zealanders know the way forward lies in William Hobson’s words at Waitangi in 1840: He iwi tahi tātou / We are now one people.

We are making sure New Zealanders know just how much of our coast is being carved up into customary marine titles and today we hit the front page.

It is thanks to Hobson's Pledge supporters, like you, who chipped in to our Save Our Shores fund that we have been able to place ads on the *FRONT PAGE* of today's New Zealand Herald plus the inside cover.

Additionally, you'll find similar full page ads in several regional papers this week.

We are expecting some blowback and the poor folks at the Herald will no doubt be receiving complaints, but this is because our opponents don't want New Zealanders to be informed on this issue. If we weren't exposing truths that Te Pāti Māori and the like don't want to be public knowledge they wouldn't react so aggressively to our attempts to gather awareness.

Speaking of which, I read this morning that New Plymouth Councillor Murray Chong has been targeted due to his opposition to Māori Wards. Someone fired a shot at his car!

The poor man is clearly terrified for himself and his family. He told reporters:

"I'm now scared. I've had my life threatened several times in letters.

"I now can't walk by myself at night because I've been told I will be king-hit and I'll wake up in a hospital. I've had people say they will grab my dog, chop it up into quarters and leave it on my doorstep. I've had my daughter hassled."

It is worth remembering that these threateners and thugs are extremists. Murray Chong may be in the minority on the council, but polling shows that New Zealanders (including a majority of Te Pāti Māori voters) support referenda for Māori Wards!

This incident, as well as the other harassment Councillor Chong has endured due to his stance on Māori Wards and related policies, demonstrates how high the political temperature is in New Zealand currently.

Because of this, I have reached out to Te Pāti Māori co-leaders offering a joint statement condemning the violence directed at Murray Chong and calling for calm. We await their response and will go ahead with a solo statement this evening if they decline or we don't hear back.

These are incredible times. I share your intense dedication to pursuing our goal of an equal and unified New Zealand. Hobson's Pledge will not take our foot off the pedal, but we will do so with an utter commitment to non-violent advocacy and activism.

I urge you to join us in standing firm in our beliefs and principles and rejecting violence.

Cheers again, to everyone who contributed to the Save Our Shores fund. We'll be in touch with more details as to the next stage of this campaign.

P.S. Keep an eye out for another small campaign we are kicking off soon to ensure that our Prime Minister doesn't listen to John....

Did you catch this Herald article over the weekend?

Former National Party leader Sir John Key has urged people to “take the temperature down a wee bit” in the debate surrounding race issues. He believes this is an area where any government needs to “tread carefully.”

He also mentioned recent issues such as ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, the removal of Section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, and National’s move to overturn a court decision on the Marine and Coastal Area Act.

It seems clear that Sir John Key prefers to avoid difficult conversations. When he was Prime Minister, he favoured deals that solved immediate problems and did not allow division and resentment to foster in the long term.

The reality is, if we had always trod carefully and feared stepping on toes, we wouldn’t have achieved nearly as much progress in halting separatism as we have.

Avoiding tough discussions has led successive governments to allow officials in Wellington (as well as special interests) to take New Zealand down a dangerous path of co-governance and a two-tier democracy. There’s still a long way to go to ensure equal rights for all, and we certainly won't get there if our political leaders are too timid to talk about it!

Restoring public access to the foreshore and seabed in the Marine and Coastal Area Act, removing Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and addressing ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill are ongoing issues that can’t be ignored simply because Sir John Key suggests we "cool down."

He stated: “The important thing is that we’re all New Zealanders and I think everybody wants to live in a place where we can respect one another, get along well, and foster a better New Zealand. So I’d kind of encourage everyone to maybe take the temperature down a wee bit.”

This is exactly the point.

These conversations must persist because we share a vision of New Zealand where everyone is equal and where no one is given special rights based on their ancestry or skin colour.

“You should always treat race issues carefully because, in the end, we all want to live in a harmonious society. Māori are the indigenous population of New Zealand and Treaty partners, so you have to treat them with respect and care,” Sir John added.

While we respect Sir John Key’s contribution, we must respectfully disagree.

Capitulating to special interests is not a sign of respect or caring.

If we respect the value of all New Zealanders, we must discuss any moves to weaken our democracy.

What is there to disagree with in the Treaty Principles Bill?

• The Bill aims to finally define the principles of the Treaty as frequently mentioned in law and clarify what the three articles of the Treaty actually mean in 2024 and for the future (and reject what the activist academics have reinterpreted it to say).
• It will not alter the Treaty itself.
• New Zealanders as a whole have never been democratically consulted on these "Treaty principles."
• The Bill seeks to clarify that the Treaty was meant to ensure equality for all, not to justify offering different access to taxpayer-funded services, guaranteed positions on government boards, or a separate healthcare authority based on ancestry.
• It promotes equality before the law.

The issue isn’t the content of the Bill but the fact that it’s even considered controversial. This should be a concern for the National Party

The decisions to create and remove Māori Wards are once again in the hands of local communities!

From now on local communities can demand a referendum on Māori Wards if they gather 5% of voters' signatures. Councils that have already brought in Māori wards without a referendum will need to hold one - or scrap the wards they had set up.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown said:

"[Labour] took away the voices of local communities across the country and undermined the principles of democracy. Today is a great day for local democracy."

Don't under-estimate the role you and other Hobson's Pledge supporters played in ensuring this legislation was introduced by the Government and passed.

As you know, we have been making noise about Māori Wards for a long time. We opposed Labour's underhanded changes to the law in 2022 and were on the frontline of the battle in Rotorua when the council attempted to do away with proportionate democracy. 

This is a moment for celebration. Local democracy has been restored.

However, through the passing of this bill we have also seen the reason for Hobson's Pledge's existence reaffirmed. The media reporting has been outrageous.

The ridiculous claims of "racism" from opposition parties have been used to frame the narrative of this legislation. It has been presented as if it is an almost universally held truth that the bill is racist, but polling shows New Zealanders support referenda for Māori Wards.

Even Te Pāti Māori voters support referenda for Māori Wards when polled!

And Labour's accusations are bizarre given this law change simply returns us to the way things were under Helen Clark's Māori Ward law. Imagine the names 2024 Labour would call Helen Clark's Governments!

The media is operating as the Government's extra Opposition when it comes to matters of race-based policies and equal rights. Only the negative perspectives and often the extreme rhetoric of Te Pāti Māori get proper coverage.

Hobson's Pledge is increasingly finding that we have to look for ways to get the truth out to New Zealanders that bypass the media gatekeepers. We couldn't do this without supporters like you. It is people power that enables us to get the word out and mobilise New Zealanders to put pressure on our elected officials.

And the fight is never-ending! This week Te Pāti Māori have announced they want Waitangi Tribunal rulings to be binding on the Government. Are they kidding? We may as well chuck our democracy out the window and let the Tribunal rule over us unelected and with total control.

We have a petition to end the Waitangi Tribunal. If you haven't signed it yet, click here. 

There is a lot to do and this may just be our busiest year yet. But, now is the best chance we have to make change and set New Zealand on the right path. If we don't take our opportunities now, I fear it will be too late.

Cheers to Māori Ward referenda and cheers to fighting the good fight.

Two things - Major news came through yesterday regarding Customary Marine Titles and I have shared Janet Dickson's written submissions for you to take a look at should you wish.

SAVE OUR SHORES - MARINE AND COASTAL AREA ACT

At the beginning of the week, I sent you information about our campaign to save New Zealand's shores (see below in case you missed it). At the heart of the issue is the legislation that replaced the Foreshore and Seabed legislation of Helen Clark's Government: the Marine and Coastal Area Act (MACA).

Just TWO days after we launched this fight, the Government announced their intention to make changes to the MACA legislation!

We allowed ourselves a moment of celebrating before we had a proper look at what the Government plans to do.

In accordance with the New Zealand First coalition agreement, the Government intends to pass legislation to "overturn a Court of Appeal decision and amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act in order to restore Parliament's test for Customary Marine Title".

Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says:

"All New Zealanders have an interest in the coastal waters of our country...

...the Government has agreed to propose legislation which will ensure these tests for applications directly with the Crown or through the Courts are upheld as originally intended.

These measures include:

• Inserting a declaratory statement that overturns the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and High Court in Re Edwards, and the reasoning of all High Court decisions since the High Court in Re Edwards, where they relate to the test for CMT.

• Adding text to section 58 to define and clarify the terms ‘exclusive use and occupation’ and ‘substantial interruption’.

• Amending the ‘burden of proof’ section of the Act (section 106) to clarify that applicant groups are required to prove exclusive use and occupation from 1840 to the present day.

• Making clearer the relationship between the framing sections of the Act (the preamble, purpose, and Treaty of Waitangi sections) and section 58 in a way that allows section 58 to operate more in line with its literal wording.

Cabinet also agreed that the amended section 58 test should be applied from today’s date, if enacted. This will be reflected in the proposed legislation. This means existing CMT decisions will continue to be recognised." 

This is a big win! If MACA is returned to its original intent very few Customary Marine Titles will be awarded. 

The Government is working on the Bill now and we will reserve our final judgment until we have seen it all in writing. 

However, we are left with one big question: is this enough?

Does this legislative action restore public ownership to most of our coast? 

We want to hear from our supporters. Is this a big enough step in the direction we want things to go? 

Either way, we still have a big part to play. If we need to push the Government harder, we will. But we also need to get behind them in getting this legislation through. 

The media and Opposition will not like this one bit. Just as with Māori wards and removing section 7aa from the Oranga Tamariki Act, they will run a campaign of distortion and dramatics.

New Zealanders need to understand what is really going on and why it isn't racist to amend the MACA.

The media will try to paint a picture of mass opposition to the Government on this. We need to provide proof to the contrary. We were already planning social media, print newspaper ads, and other attention-grabbing tactics. We will go ahead with these.

Basically, we are in for a fight either way. The message just changes slightly depending on our direction. 

What are your thoughts? You can reply to this email or head to our Facebook page to join the discussion.

________________________________________________________________

JANET DICKSON V REAL ESTATE AUTHORITY UPDATE

We sent an update to everyone who donated to Janet's case a little while ago, but we have received a few requests from other supporters for an update too so here we go!

First, Janet wants to express her heartfelt thanks to everyone who has supported her in any way thus far.

Janet has had her day in court where her lawyers argued that the Real Estate Authority did not follow proper processes for approving the rules they used to make Te Kākano mandatory, that the course is not relevant to real estate agents' practice, and that this was an unjustified breach of Janet’s freedom of expression.

>>> YOU CAN ACCESS HER FULL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HERE <<<

We now await the decision from the Judge, and there is a lot at stake. Janet is at risk of losing her real estate licence for five years if the REA is allowed to continue imposing controversial courses like this.

Unfortunately, our courts are under immense pressure so while the expected timeframe for hearing back should be 90 days, it is likely to be longer. We will keep you posted, but we've been told to expect a wait

We will update you as soon as we hear back from the court.

________________________________________________________________

Those are our two updates. We will be in touch again soon once we have established what Hobson's Pledge supporters are thinking regarding the proposed amendments to MACA.

On Friday I asked Hobson's Pledge supporters to back us in the fight against the snatching up of New Zealand's shores.

It was an immense relief to me that we received such an overwhelming response. I was horrified to see the map (below) showing that virtually New Zealand's entire coast has either been awarded to iwi, is under High Court application, or is being negotiated directly with the Government. I am glad to see I am not alone in my concern.

Bolstered by the backing of supporters like you, we immediately got to work setting up a campaign to call attention to the need to oppose the land/shore grab.

We are calling it: SAVE OUR SHORES

The first step is a petition. We are asking New Zealanders to sign their names if they agree with our demand for the Government to return the foreshore and seabed to public ownership.

>>> SIGN THE PETITION <<<

We will be running lots of ads on social media that will draw attention to the issue and the petition. You will see them on Facebook and Instagram. We ask that you share our posts and ads to your own accounts so that your friends and families have the opportunity to sign the petition too. It is vital that we spread the word.

Our first job is to make New Zealanders aware of what is happening. The media will not report honestly on the matter, so we have to go around them.

As I said in my Friday email, we have to speak directly to Kiwis. We are kicking off the social media aspect of the campaign immediately and will be focused on gathering signatures for the petition to demonstrate the strength of feeling surrounding this. 

I wanted to update you right away on this first stage, but there will be more to come. Rest assured I will be in touch to let you know as our strategy develops.

The central point we will be shouting from the rooftops is that we are all New Zealanders and public ownership must be restored.

Can I ask that you forward this email on to others who you think are likely to share our concerns about this? If everyone sends it on to one or two friends or family members we will have signatures rolling in for our petition.

I will include the link to the Save Our Shores fund here too in case those you forward the email to would like to chip in. Click here to contribute.

We knew things were bad. We knew the number of claims being lodged through the Marine and Coastal Area Act by iwi far exceeded what John Key and Chris Finlayson forecast when they championed the law in 2011.

But few knew that almost the ENTIRE coast of New Zealand would be claimed by iwi either through the courts or by direct negotiation with the Crown.

This is bad. It has happened largely under the radar and most New Zealanders have no idea. Many think this was all sorted with the Foreshore and Seabed legislation under Helen Clark's Labour Government. That could not be further from the truth.

We have to stop this blatant land (coast) grab. We have a plan to demand that the Government restores our coast, foreshore, and seabed to public ownership. We are calling on supporters like you who are willing to take a stand with us to save our shores. Will you join us?

The red on the map shows coastline that is currently under High Court Application. 

Our clogged up courts may just be our saving grace as without the backlog it would be too late for us to halt the seizing of our beautiful beaches and marine areas. It has bought us some time to organise, but time means little if we don't have the means to fight this battle. Will you chip in to ensure we can have as much impact as possible?

Our first job is to make New Zealanders aware of what is happening. This is no small task given we can't rely on the media to report honestly on the matter. So-called journalists are too often cheerleaders for signing over public land and marine areas to iwi.

We have to speak directly to Kiwis. This requires a massive social media campaign, newspaper ads, and (if enough supporters chip in) even billboards.The scale of our campaign depends on supporters like you. Are you with us? 

There is a lot of completely false information we have to cut through - much of it deliberately disseminated by those supporting the land grab. For example, we are told ad nauseum that Customary Marine Titles (CMT) awarded to iwi won't block public access to beaches or prevent fishing.

This is a lie.

Once an iwi has a CMT they need only declare a rahui (order to stay away) or wahi tapu (place of special/sacred importance) in order to prevent access to a beach or marine area. In some instances iwi leaders have placed boulders in front of access points and although they are technically not allowed to do this local authorities aren't interested in taking any action. Contribute to our fund to save our rapidly disappearing coast.

In addition, CMTs allow iwi veto over all resource consents and conservation activities; involvement in coastal planning and policy development; the ability to charge commercial operators, and ownership rights to all non-nationalised minerals – including royalties from existing mining operations, back-dated to when applications were first submitted.

All of this could soon apply to almost the entire coast of New Zealand.

To put it more directly:

• Every commercial operation on New Zealand's coast will have to pay iwi (sometimes multiple iwi) to be able do their business. From fishing to tourism and everything in between.
• Everyone along the coast seeking resource consent on private land could be at the mercy of iwi who wield veto powers if they can prove it relates to their CMT.
• On-water events, including fishing and boating competitions, held anywhere along New Zealand's coast could be slapped with a rahui and be forced to cancel. This has already happened up North.
• This has the potential to make iwi very wealthy, especially if they hit the jackpot and can draw royalties from non-nationalised minerals.

This is not right. We are all New Zealanders and public ownership must be restored.

Governments have been mucking around with our foreshore, seabed, coast, and marine areas for far too long. It is time to deal with the matter once and for alland ensure that all Kiwis have equal rights to public land and water now and into the future. 

Will you join the fight to save our shores and protect the rights of all New Zealanders? 

If we don't take action now, many of the reasons we love this country and choose to live here will no longer exist. What's the point in living in a beautiful island nation if you can't enjoy the wonderful natural shores and waters that surround it? Take action now.

Kiwis deserve to know the consequences of what is going on and the extent of it. I like to think that most Kiwis would support public ownership and be horrified to know that our coast is being parceled off to iwi groups. If you agree, do your bit to ensure we get the word out far and wide.

New Zealand must wake up before it is too late. It is as simple as that.

This year is flying by and it seems like just yesterday we were introducing you to Janet Dickson, the real estate agent who is challenging the Real Estate Authority's power to impose compulsory courses like Te Kākano on licensees in the High Court.

Well, Janet's day in court is fast approaching! Tomorrow - Tuesday 18 June - all systems are go.

Her lawyers will be arguing that the REA did not follow proper processes for approval of the rules they used to make Te Kākano mandatory, that the course is not relevant to real estate agents' practice, and that this was an unjustified breach of Janet’s freedom of expression.

Since Janet filed her case, she has attracted a lot of media attention and support. Including from Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters who called the REA’s mandatory Treaty and tikanga course “woke madness”.

Janet is at risk of losing her real estate licence for five years if the REA is allowed to continue imposing controversial courses like this.

A recap on the case:

Janet is a dedicated real estate agent with more than 30 years experience, but the Real Estate Authority has threatened to cancel her licence for five years. Why? Because Janet took a principled stance in refusing to complete an online training course instructing real estate agents on te reo Māori, tikanga, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Her refusal is based on concerns that an industry body can force members to complete training on a subject only very peripherally connected to their job under threat of losing their right to work.

This legal action is a critical step in addressing the overreach of authority by the REA and may be an effective curb on the risk of similar overreach by other statutory professional organisations.

The Judge can clearly see the broad importance of this matter, because in the security for costs decision the Judge found that this case is in the public interest and that there were 92 other real estate agents in the same boat.

Similar training mandates have detrimentally affected a wide array of professions, including doctors, teachers, and lawyers. The imposition of these mandates, infringing upon the fundamental freedom of conscience, requires immediate action.

If the court finds in Janet’s favour, it has the power to make declarations that this course cannot be mandatorily imposed and will no doubt have ramifications for other government agencies trying to do the same thing.

Without the financial contributions of Hobson's Pledge members, this important judicial review would not be taking place. Our combined efforts have enabled Janet and her legal team to establish legal precedents that will protect New Zealanders from ideological and overreaching industry bodies. Presuming the case is successful, of course!

We will update you on how the hearing goes so keep an eye on your inbox. Fingers crossed!

Since Don emailed you last week things have got even wilder with Te Pāti Māori.

They've escalated from revolutionary rhetoric to straight up announcing that they are going to establish their own Parliament.

Oh and by the way they're demanding 20% of New Zealand's tax revenue in order to fund it!

We all got an insight into what a Te Pāti Māori-led Māori Parliament could look like a couple of days later when The Post reported a whole lot of allegations that don't look good for the party.

The allegations have come from whistleblowers who worked at Manurewa Marae and the Ministry of Social Development. According to advocates, they have been punished for speaking out, losing their jobs or being reallocated. 

They say that Manurewa Marae staff (of which Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp was CEO prior to the election) photocopied census forms after they were contracted by Whānau Ora to collect them. They also entered personal information into a database for Waipareira Trust.

This information was then used by Te Pāti Māori to solicit votes at the election. 

There is a common denominator here. The CEO of Whānau Ora, the CEO of Waipareira Trust, and the President of Te Pāti Māori are all the same man:

John Tamihere

Further allegations have now emerged that the same data misuse occured when the same organisations were engaged to work on the COVID-19 vaccine drive.

Can you imagine a Māori Parliament with this lot in charge?

If these allegations are proved true Te Pāti Māori are too crooked to put their pants on straight!

As far as our work goes, all of this further highlights why race-based systems and policies are no good for New Zealand.

We have our work cut out for us raising awareness about all the ways that democracy is being undermined in New Zealand and, as Don said in his email last week, we can't be caught napping.

Our efforts to oppose racial division haven't gone unnoticed. In a press release on Thursday night, John Tamihere named Hobson's Pledge as one of a handful of organisations he is putting "on notice".

Neither Tamihere nor Te Pāti Māori can hope to intimidate your Hobson's Pledge crew.

He Iwi Tahi Tātou (We are now one people) 

There have been racial tensions throughout our nation's history, but I cannot recall a time when rhetoric danced so close to outright sedition.

Te Pāti Māori and its supporters believe that Māori never ceded sovereignty. By extension they view every democratic election held since 1840 as illegitimate.

A few days ago, in a rant that can only be described as unhinged, Kiri Tamihere-Waititi (who works for Te Pāti Māori, is married to co-leader Rawiri Waititi, and is the daughter of Te Pāti Māori President John Tamihere) declared:

"We could overthrow any government. We could do whatever the f*** we want."

Today, the Party led protests it referred to as a "rangatira revolution". Rangatira means sovereign or control and the Oxford Dictionary says a revolution is "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system".

I am worried. There are far too many ill-informed Kiwis who still think that this is about righting the wrongs of the past. These naive folks are enabling a minority of radicals to advance a race-based power grab that is not far at all from refusing to recognise the authority of our current Government. 

We have to be ready to fight off the inevitable attacks on our democracy. Hobson's Pledge is preparing for any eventuality, but we are a small group of volunteers and we cannot prepare effectively without the support of people like you who are equally as concerned. Will you chip in to our fighting fund so that when the time comes we're ready to defend our values?

Under Labour, race-based policies and laws were embedded giving these radicals more power. Now that the Coalition Government has explicitly ruled out further race-based policies and begun reversing some of those introduced by the last Government, ethnonationalists are switching tactics.

Our biggest challenge is getting through to the majority of New Zealanders who value their fellow countrymen and women not by their race but by the content of their character. We need to convey to them the urgency of the situation and that we must stand up for our vision of an equal New Zealand. 

We are committed to peaceful expression of our defence of democracy, rule of law, and equal rights. You won't see us with smoking guns on our posters or 'fire and brimstone' style videos on social media.

Instead we want to plaster billboards, newspapers, bus stops, and social media with messages that assert our values and call on New Zealanders to raise their voices to defend those values. These things do not come cheap. We have to battle media companies to even get our messages published in the first place and then we have to find the money to pay for them! Will you chip in to ensure this is possible?

Te Pāti Māori supporters are turning out in droves to spread their messages of division and racism. We can't sit back and let them drive us to the brink of civil war. We've seen this overseas and it always seems unthinkable until it happens. 

>>> Make a contribution to our Fighting Fund so we can defend New Zealand and the values we cherish <<<

I'll be honest, I was hesitant to speak in such frank terms. To even say out loud the words 'sedition' or 'civil war' feels like madness. However, we have a group of powerful radicals challenging the authority of our democratically elected Government and it is plain to see they won't stop pushing the boundaries until enough of us get brave enough to say "no".

Te Pāti Māori now routinely refers to New Zealand's laws and Parliament as Pākehā laws and Pākehā Parliament. Nevermind the many Māori New Zealanders who have contributed to making our laws over the years and who have proudly taken seats in our Parliament. TPM are marching closer and closer to rejecting the law of the land and the supremacy of Government.

This is not the future I want for our country. I have been repeating messages of racial equality for decades now and it is disheartening to see that instead of growing closer to that goal, we have been driven further apart. I wanted better for my children and grandchildren. I had hoped they wouldn't know racial disharmony and strife.

New Zealand has one Government and it is democratically elected. No matter what ideas Te Pāti Māori has about the chiefs not ceding sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840, the Government's authority has been cemented by every subsequent general election and in our body of legislation.

I understand not everyone is in a position to speak up about such 'controversial' issues. It is challenging to speak about race at the best of times but to do so now can provoke aggressive attacks. We at Hobson's Pledge are not afraid to draw attention to the issue and with any monetary contribution you make to boost our effectiveness we can make a world of difference.

We do not want to be caught napping on this. I hope I have conveyed the critical juncture we are at in New Zealand and that you will stand with us in defence of equality and democracy.

It feels like it has been a long time since we were able to encourage you to make a submission to SUPPORT a Government bill, but the time has come! In fact there are two bills I encourage you to support.

The first bill is a matter of urgency as there are only two days left for you to submit. The Government is pushing it through a rapid process as there are deadlines that need to be met for local body elections.

This bill is the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill introduced by Local Government Minister Simeon Brown.

You'll probably recall Nanaia Mahuta removed the right of ratepayers to petition for a referendum when councils decide to create Māori wards. She did this with an even shorter consultation period than the Government is now doing to reverse it.

Your submission need not be lengthy or complex. A simple paragraph supporting the return of the right to demand a referendum before Māori wards can be implemented by councils will do. You may like to mention that this is enhancing local democracy and ensuring that a matter of constitutional and representative significance is decided by the people. You could also mention that democratic principles like 'one person, one vote' and equal weighting of votes are important to you. 

>>> CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT IN SUPPORT OF SIMEON'S MĀORI WARDS AMENDMENT BILL <<<

We have a little bit longer to submit on the second bill. Thirty-seven days to be precise.

This bill is the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill introduced by Minister for Children Karen Chhour.

This bill and its minister have been at the centre of some really nasty attacks from the Opposition. That is because the bill will remove the section that has been used to justify Oranga Tamariki treating children differently because of their race and putting their identityahead of their wellbeing. 

It has resulted in children being uplifted from families in which they were happy and healthy because their foster parents were not Māori and placed with distant relatives elsewhere in the country. 

Incredibly, Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori are opposed to the idea that a child's wellbeing and safety should be prioritised above their race or culture. 

Again, your submission doesn't need to be long. The main point is to support the removal of section 7AA and to reinforce that every child in New Zealand is entitled to know that if they need the intervention of the state their race will not be prioritised above their wellbeing.  

>>> CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT IN SUPPORT OF KAREN'S SECTION 7AA REMOVAL BILL <<<

Have no doubt that those who oppose these bills will be submitting in droves. Even a short submission in support will give the Government more confidence that their bill is supported by the public. 

These are important reversals of race-based legislation that the previous Government foisted on us. Let's tell the Coalition Government that this is why we voted for them!  

We cannot rely on our courts.

The judiciary has been captured by the divisive ideology that separates New Zealanders into two groups - Māori and non-Māori - and assigns rights based on this.

Today, the Court of Appeals overturned the High Court decision that said the Waitangi Tribunal had erred in issuing a summons to the Minister for Children Karen Chhour. The new decision says that the Tribunal has an important constitutional role and full powers of a commission of inquiry.

We have to be strategic. The courts may be captured but the Government has made several promises in their coalition agreements to unwind racist policy and law. We must demand they end the Waitangi Tribunal now.

Here's why:

• It was always meant to be a temporary standing commission and it is nearly 50 years old
• It has been radicalised and is now run by activists rather than legal experts
• The bulk of Treaty settlements have been achieved and all remaining and future cases can be heard through the court system or negotiated directly with the Crown
• It has steadily pushed the boundaries of its purpose and power and is asserting the right to interfere with Government policy
• Helen Clark's Labour Government introduced a September 2008 deadline for the lodgement of all historic claims and that has well passed

SIGN OUR PETITION TO END THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

The only way we can achieve our goal of equality of all New Zealanders is by dismantling the systems that have been set up and manipulated to consolidate power in the hands of iwi.

The Waitangi Tribunal has done its dash. It served an important role in righting historical wrongs, but in recent years has begun creating new wrongs. 

It is time to wrap up the Tribunal. Sign our petition now.

If we don't achieve change with this Government, we may well never get the opportunity again. National appears to be the handbrake on this Government taking definitive steps toward removing race from our constitution. Winston Peters and David Seymour need to be able to demonstrate that they have public support so that they can carry Christopher Luxon, however reluctantly, over the line.

We need to get as many signatures as possible to show that the silent majority don't care what the media or academics say. We want change and we voted for it. Sign our petition to show that you support removing racist institutions.

If you agree that it is now or never and that we must push the Government to take action so that the courts can't run roughshod over our rights, sign our petition and then share it with everyone you know.

Quick, go sign it and then copy the link into your family group chat or send an email around your networks.

I feel quite ill thinking about how far down the rabbit hole our judiciary has gone. But given the Waitangi Tribunal is not a court, it is a standing commission of inquiry, the Government has power to disestablish it. That is where we must begin.

At least if the Waitangi Tribunal goes there will be one less lever for the activists to pull. 

Did you see the abhorrent comments by Auckland University of Technology's Dean of Law Khylee Quince circulating on social media last night?

I am shocked that a Dean in a New Zealand law school would say such a thing. In fact, I feel so strongly that I wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University.

Dean Khylee Quince who has a mere handful of years of junior practising experience prior to joining academia, is referring to Gary Judd who has been a Queen's Council and then King's Council for 29 years. He has appeared before the Supreme Court and Privy Council more than a dozen times each. Hat tip to Kiwiblog for this information. 

In my letter to the Vice Chancellor I convey our deep concern that someone in such a prominent position in their law school has:

a) used such abusive and disrespectful language;

b) publicly demonstrated disdain for our system of law and the right of people of all perspectives to take legal action;

c) contributed to the toxicity of the debate about the role of tikanga and the Treaty in law rather than using her position to foster respectful discussions.

d) failed to live up to legislative expectations of lawyers.

Click here to send your own letter to the Vice Chancellor.

In response to Dean Quince's comments, Gary Judd KC (whom she is talking about) said:

What sort of lawyers will be produced by a law faculty led by someone who resorts to petty abuse instead of engaging in rational argument? 

Why did she not explain why tikanga is law? Why did she not explain why a body of law built up over centuries for the purpose of testing whether a custom should be accorded the status of law must be jettisoned because tikanga cannot meet those standards? Why did she not answer other matters raised in my complaint to the regulations review committee? Responses like those could have been expected from a person holding a privileged leadership position.

I have been conscious to write my correspondence to the university in the manner in which I would have expected the Dean to communicate. I strongly encourage you to do the same. We do not advance our cause of equality in New Zealand by stooping to the level Dean Quince did.

We must let AUT know that New Zealanders are entitled to discuss, debate, and legally challenge matters regarding tikanga, the Treaty, and race relations in our country.

Students must not be taught that to question law and policy changes makes them "racist dinosaurs". They certainly should not be taught that it is appropriate to tell people they disagree with to "go die quietly".

As I write this I still can't believe this has happened to us. We hear of political interference happening overseas, but today Hobson's Pledge has been the target.

Facebook has deleted all of our posts that sent supporters to submit on the Fast Track Approvals Bill including paid advertising we were running. 

At first our team thought there must have been an error and attempted to post again. It became clear that anytime we used the link to the Government website to make a submission on the Bill, Facebook either blocked us or removed the post minutes after it went up.

As we were aware that the Māori Party were also promoting submitting on the Bill, we checked out one of their posts and found that there we could access the Government submissions page with no problem at all. 

This is discrimination and political interference. Will you stand with us against it?

For a start Facebook should not be able to block links to the Government website and impede democratic engagement.

They certainly shouldn't be able to pick and choosewhich organisation can help their supporters to access the submissions page.

It is nearly impossible to reach an actual person at Facebook to ask what on earth is going on.

Are they taking stances on all political issues? Or is this something an individual staff member has taken it upon themselves to do? Maybe it is simply that their systems are vulnerable to bad faith activists overwhelming them?

We would love to know. 

We will be doing our best to follow up and ensure that this kind of thing doesn't continue to happen.

Every New Zealander should be free to encourage submissions and indeed to submit. We would never dream of attempting to prevent Māori Party supporters from having their say. We live in a democracy!

Don't let political interference get in the way of you having your say on the Fast Track Approvals Bill and opposing special rights for iwi when it comes to consultation and decision making.

CLICK HERE FOR THE BANNED GOVT SUBMISSION PAGE!

I cannot overstate how much of a political intrusion this is. Hobson's Pledge already experiences significant hostility from the media and we use emails and social media as a way to go around the patronising so-called fourth estate to reach New Zealanders.

For our ability to use social media to be threatened is truly concerning. In today's online world, it is an attack on our right to freely engage in politics. 

I will keep you updated on where this goes. If there is any action we can all take, you can expect an email straight away.

I have received several emails asking what Elliot and I wrote on behalf of Hobson's Pledge in our submission on the Fast Track Approvals Bill. I thought you might be interested too!

It is short and to the point and we will elaborate when we get a chance to speak to the select committee.

Submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill by the Hobson’s Pledge Trust

• The Hobson’s Pledge Trust was founded in 2016 to promote the fundamental principle that all New Zealanders have equal political rights, as acknowledged in Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi. We named the organisation after Governor Hobson, who is understood to have said, as each chief signed the Treaty, “He iwi tahi tatou” (“We are now one people”).  We are convinced that acknowledging that equality of rights is the only way forward for a peaceful and harmonious New Zealand.

• From small beginnings, Hobson’s Pledge has grown to the point where some 130,000 people receive our regular emails.

• As an organisation, we take no position on the need for the Fast-track Approvals Bill. There is no doubt a wide range of strongly felt views on the Bill among our supporters.

• We respect the effort which the Bill makes to ensure that property rights are respected.

• But we are dismayed that the Bill gives a much greater priority to the rights of iwi than to the rights of other New Zealanders. The word “iwi” appears 56 times in the Bill, and the proposed four-person panels by which projects are to be evaluated are to include one person nominated by the relevant local authority and one person nominated by the relevant iwi. This apparent equivalence between local authorities and iwi authorities seems to us totally inappropriate, and is likely to result in the concerns of Maori New Zealanders being given much greater weight than the concerns of other New Zealanders.

• This not only causes us dismay: it also causes us surprise. During the election campaign, both the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party made much of their commitment to equal citizenship.  In the coalition agreements which both parties signed with the National Party in the process of forming a Government, there were numerous quite specific promises to eliminate the racial preferences which have crept into New Zealand law in recent years.  The National Party’s constitution includes a specific commitment to “equal citizenship”, and of course it too was a party to the two coalition agreements which enabled the formation of the new Government.

• Clearly, in approving any new investment project under this Fast-track Approvals Bill Ministers must be mindful of the property rights of those New Zealanders who could be affected by the new project. But this principle should surely apply to all New Zealanders, whatever their ethnicity.  As drafted, the Bill fails to acknowledge that principle.

• We wish to appear before the Committee to present this submission.

I urge you to take a few minutes to send in your thoughts on the Fast Track Approvals Bill. You don't need to address every aspect of the Bill - if you're like me you may be in favour of it overall. Just make it clear that special powers and representation for iwi will slow approvals down and do not reflect the mandate given to the Government at the election to end race-based law and policy.

>>> CLICK HERE TO MAKE A SUBMISSION <<<

You only have until Friday the 19th April 2024 to submit! Don't miss out!

We aren't short on matters to update you on! The previous Government has left a legacy of race-based policies and legislation that the Coalition Government is having to unpick. Unfortunately, this racialised way of thinking has bled into social and cultural life also and it is largely up to organisations like ours to tackle those problems.

Segregation at University of Auckland

We filled you in about the photo that was taken of a racially exclusive room at the UoA Business School last week. Naturally the media found lots of defenders of the Māori-and-Pasifika-only room, but despite overwhelmingly negative responses online they opted not to talk to any opposers. Anyone watching and reading the reporting would reasonably deduce that only awful extremists would oppose such a thing, but the opposite is true.

The University of Auckland's Pro Vice-Chancellor Māori has since informed the media that the university won't be scrapping the segregated study spaces. At Hobson'sPledge we think the sign belongs in Apartheid South Africa or pre-Civil Rights Movement America, not New Zealand.

Māori Wards: ask the people or disestablish them!

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has announced:

““The Coalition Government’s view is that any decision to establish or disestablish a Māori ward is one that should remain with communities."

In practice, that means that any councils who have implemented Māori wards without going to a binding referendum will have to do so at the 2025 local elections. Any councils who do not want to hold a referendum must disestablish their Māori wards. The Coalition Government will introduce a Bill to achieve this in time for councils to prepare for their elections.

This is excellent news for local democracy. 

"Vague, unclear, inconsistent" - Education Minister

The new New Zealand History Curriculum the previous Government introduced has been thoroughly panned by historians and experts. It is ahistorical at best and deliberately politicised at worst.

Last week, Education Minister Erica Stanford didn't mince words when she called the history curriculum "vague, unclear, inconsistent" and promised it would undergo a "rebalance".

Labour MP Willie Jackson took a different position on the matter. He said: "why do we want to talk about everybody when we haven't even talked about Māori?...let's prioritise indigenous people to start off with."

Extremists piggyback kids' events

Whatever your opinion on the School Strike for Climate protests, they were at least in the beginning run by students and focused on their environmental concerns. This year, we saw a drastic shift away from this. 

Suddenly, the protests were being promoted as a kind of pick-n-mix of political causes including pro-Palestine, lowering the voting age, and the Te Pati Māori / Green Party view of the Treaty. Videos were popping up online of adults attempting to whip up a frenzy before the strikes. I am of course assuming that the man I saw in the video with a full beard and tattoos was not still in school!

Green and Te Pati Māori MPs were vocal in telling kids to take part in the protests and to focus on Treaty issues. The rhetoric was markedly more aggressive than previous years too. 

I can't help wondering how many parents allowed their kids to head off to an environmental protest without realising they were going to be pulled in to a number of other issues. 

Fast Track Approvals Bill

Watch out for our open letter in the New Zealand Herald this Friday. We were shocked to realise that there are some nasty fish hooks in the new Fast Track Approvals legislation.

I personally welcome the legislation in order to speed up the process of consenting important infrastructure projects, but unfortunately it has continued along the same vein as governments past by racialising certain aspects. 

Marine and Coastal Areas Act (MACA)

The Marine and Coastal Areas Act was National's replacement for the Foreshore Seabed legislation when John Key was Prime Minister. John Key and Chris Finlayson (then Attorney General and Minister for Treaty Settlements) both swore at the time that the law would not result in many claims at all. We now know that was either wishful thinking or a load of crock.

With hundreds of outstanding claims and huge lengths of coastline already awarded to iwi, the reality is that MACA is enabling an enormous landgrab (coastgrab).

Both coalition agreements pledge to do something about the legislation and New Zealand First have been clear that they expect a reversal of the Act. 

We are developing a campaign to drive this issue and ensure it doesn't fall off the Government's radar. Chip in to support an end to the carve up of New Zealand's coast.

Treaty Principles Bill

Despite the wild and ever-increasing assertions from the Opposition, the media, and the Wellington bureaucracy, the Treaty Principles Bill has not yet been made public.

We can make an educated guess about what it will contain based on Minister-responsible David Seymour's comments, but the complete picture remains a mystery. Seymour and his ACT colleagues have been clear that any claims that the Bill will seek to somehow erase the Treaty are ridiculous. 

Answering the question 'what will the Bill do?' ACT says:

"The Bill will define the ‘principles’ of the Treaty. The Treaty principles are often mentioned in legislation, but they have never actually been defined in law. Instead, the task has been left to the unelected judiciary to interpret the principles in an ad hoc manner without input from New Zealanders."

This Bill has the potential to bring certainty to all New Zealanders and to halt the creative interpretation of the so-called Treaty Principles by members of the judiciary. New and more extreme reinterpretations of the Treaty are proving to be increasingly divisive and in order to move forward as a cohesive multicultural society, New Zealanders need certainty that we are all equal under the law. 

Hobson's Pledge are preparing to support the Bill, but we won't be able to do so without your support. ACT need us all to get in behind them and show Christopher Luxon and the National Party that New Zealanders want this sorted out. We must make enough of a wave in the select committee process that they cannot ignore us.

We'll keep you posted on this as we learn more.

In case you missed it: a photo has been doing the rounds on social media this week. Check it out:

You can watch my full reaction on the Hobson'sPledge Facebook page, but I wanted to share some of my thoughts with you here too.

To have a room where only people of certain races are welcome is incredibly divisive, very racist, and shows just how dysfunctional our universities have become. 

The way I see it, segregation like this says two things:

1. That the university thinks brown people are weak and are unable to handle interacting in the real world.

2. That the university is holding certain races as special or higher up than the rest.

What makes this worse is that our taxes go toward funding the University of Auckland and policies like this. 

I find this offensive.

I stand with New Zealanders of any race in defending democracy and equality. 

We have to return to the words of Martin Luther King Jr. That famous saying that came to encapsulate the civil rights movement in America:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Hobson's Pledge will be writing to the University of Auckland to express our opposition to this regressive racist policy. If you would like to do the same you can email the media manager for the University of Auckland here.

Universities should be places where people of all races and backgrounds come together to share and debate ideas. They should not be places of racism and divisiveness.

He iwi tahi tatou. We are one people.

Really quick note - Janet has had another victory!

The Real Estate Authority's application for an order that Janet Dickson put up $15,000 in security to pay the REA’s costs if they win has been DENIED by Justice Grau in the High Court.

The REA tried to argue that Janet Dickson doesn't have the means to pay costs should the case go against her and suggested that Hobson’s Pledge’s fundraising efforts indicated this.

Thankfully, the judge disagreed.

The REA have badly underestimated the frustrations of not only their own licensees, but also the strength of feeling on the matter in wider New Zealand. We saw in the response to our emails just how fed up supporters like you are with the forced indoctrination going on in workplaces.

On a personal note, I was really pleased to see that Hobson's Pledge is making a difference and has ensured that Janet is able to fight off these spurious litigious attempts to outspend her by an REA that has clearly lost its way.

This judgement demonstrates just how much merit there is in pursuing this judicial review. It is in the public interest and engages issues of rights protected under the Bill of Rights.

Of huge interest to us was the revelation in the judgement that there are 92 other real estate agents objecting to the imposition of the Te Kakano cultural training course! Incredibly, the REA tried to persuade the judge that this was not relevant because it is only “a small number”.

Janet is not alone as the REA would like her to think. This information should give confidence to any other real estate agents who would like to speak out but have been suppressed by the threat of job and licence loss. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if that is you. 

New Zealanders should be able to go to work without having highly politicised cultural ideas forced on them. No one should fear losing their livelihood because they don't agree with their employer's Treaty politics.

The fight goes on!