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, Paige, 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, Paige. 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.

There are many reasons to support the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and to have your say in a submission. You can read the key reasons we've identified on our Treaty Principles Submission Tool.

Equal rights, fundamental human rights, rule of law, liberal democracy, clarity of understanding, Parliamentary supremacy, to name a few.

But there are other reasons why David Seymour's Bill is worth speaking up for...

1. The status quo will not remain. Unless this Bill becomes law, things will get very much worse. Te Pāti Māori will continue to push rhetoric that would have been unthinkable not long ago and the media will publish it uncritically. Ideas like Māori not ceding sovereignty are relatively new and the mind boggles as to what new concept they will promote next.

2. It has become mainstream to refer to any New Zealander who doesn't have a Māori ancestor as "manuhiri", which translates to visitor. Calling the place of your birth or citizenship "home" should not be a political act that you have to fight for. Speaking up is a way of demonstrating that you will not be bullied into accepting that you are allowed to live in this country only by the grace of New Zealanders who have at least one Māori ancestor. 

3. You are being silenced virtually everywhere else. Let's just look at the New Zealand Herald as an example. They are often touted as the best media outfit of a bad bunch, but a Hobson's Pledge supporter has pointed out how much they have been censoring any comments that are remotely positive toward the Bill.

And (with some help from The Centrist) he provided receipts.

The first screenshot shows that there were 169 comments on the article and the second shows that within a matter of hours the comments had disappeared.However, our eagle-eyed supporter managed to grab screenshots of the comments that the Herald decided to hide.

Look at the number of likes on the comments. It's almost like the Herald doesn't want New Zealanders to realise that large numbers of other New Zealanders also support the Bill and their concerns about separatism.

We haven't spotted anything objectionable in these comments. If there were one or two violent comments, surely they could have removed those and left the largenumber of totally reasonable ones?

This isn’t the first time that the NZ Herald has been caught out deleting comments, especially on Treaty issues. They did it to a story on taxpayer-funded te reo Māori lessons, and then again last month on their article about race-based prosecution guidelines.

This mass censorship of New Zealanders' opinions on a Bill that is before Parliament is why getting your thoughts on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on the record is so crucial. It is not a symbolic gesture either. Making a submission contributes to building a wave of support that the Prime Minister will have to explain ignoring. 

When the media are pushing such a deliberate narrative that anyone who supports the Bill is racist or stupid, we all need the reassurance that we are not alone. There is strength in numbers and through this submission process we can demonstrate that we have the support to look at a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

It is now or never. I'm not sure how many different ways I can emphasise the critical juncture we are at. All we are demanding is equality. Nothing more and nothing less. We need your voice in the chorus. 

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

Don't listen to the Prime Minister. He may say that he has made his mind up and the Treaty Principles Bill will be voted down after select committee, but it isn't over until it's over. 

It is crucially important that as many New Zealanders as possible share their thoughts on the Bill with the select committee via a submission. 

The odds of changing the Prime Minister's mind may be slim, but a show of strength from a large number of New Zealanders will send a very strong message, which then can be built on for the next election or possibly even for a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

As promised, we have created a Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill submission tool.We want to make it as easy as possible for you to get your thoughts on the record. Our tool allows you to build a submission by choosing the key points that you agree with and then adding your own if you wish.

We, of course, are supportive of the Bill going through, though we do express concern about the framing of Article/Principle 2. If you are similarly worried about the loophole that this principle could create, I encourage you to include that key point in your submission.

You may have heard that there is a six-month consultation period. That is true, but that includes oral submissions and the process of going through all of the written ones and producing a report.

Written submissions are only open until the 7th of January 2025.

That sounds kind of far away, but it is really only a matter of weeks. Add Christmas and New Year in and the time is going to fly by. We strongly recommend you get your submission done and dusted as soon as possible so it doesn't get forgotten in the chaos of the silly season. 

One thing you should be aware of is that the Justice Select Committee (which is in charge of considering the Bill) has told media that they will not accept any submissions that have swearing or accusations of racism in them. 

We need your submission to count so please take a deep breath and keep it direct and professional. Trust me, this is one of those situations where I can understand the urge to express yourself strongly, but it is more important that we build pressure on the committee to acknowledge the strength of feeling because of the sheer number of submissions.

This is one of the most important submissions we will ever make. It has the potential to reveal the will of the people and if the Government then ignores that will it opens the door for a Citizens Initiated Referendum, or for ACT - or indeed any other political party - to take the issue to the next election with a strong mandate. 

Add your voice so that the silent majority is silent no more. Then chat to friends and family and help them access our tool so that they can have their say too. 

This is a rare opportunity for us to get our demands for equality under the law on the record and to force MPs from all parties to pay attention to our arguments for de-racialising our systems and Government.

Don't miss out. Take the opportunity to tell Parliament that you are a New Zealander, not a visitor. 

We have to make an impact and can't do it without you.

At the end of last week, I told you that we were planning to turn up the heat on the Prime Minister and I have never received so many responses to one email. It appears we are agreed that urgent action is merited, and now is not the time to hold back.

That's why we have built ScaredyCatChristopher.nz so that everyone can send an email to Christopher Luxon telling him just how disappointed and disrespected we are all feeling.

Satire and lampooning have a long history in politics and it is our view that the Prime Minister well and truly deserves to be called a Scaredy Cat. He clearly has allowed the media to bully him into making increasingly more strident statements in opposition to the Bill and seems to be so afraid of accusations of racism that he would prefer to dodge important conversations.

Christopher Luxon is so afraid of the media, the Left, and Māori activists that he would rather avoid upsetting them than deliver on what his voters elected the Coalition Government to do.

That has to change. We need the Prime Minister to fear upsetting his own voters more than he does the people who are already committed to disliking him.

It is important to keep correspondence with elected officials respectful, but that does not mean that we cannot tell the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms how much we disagree with his actions.

He has disrespected us by making it clear that he will be ignoring our submissions despite the select committee consultation. He has taken us for fools by saying he likes nothing about the Bill when the very first principle in it begins with: "The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern..." If he disagrees with that he should resign.

He has disrespected the many Hobson's Pledge supporters who voted for a change of Government at the last election. Throughout the election campaign voters made it clear that we wanted an end to race-based policy and for the country to move toward a future where everybody has equal rights.

Scaredy Cat Christopher needs a reality check. He needs to understand how many New Zealanders are unhappy with him and his leadership because of his handling of the Treaty Principles Bill. 

>>> Send a wake-up call to Christopher Luxon <<<  

It is not sustainable for our country to continue bowing to the pressure of activists whose agenda is to create division in our society where rights and responsibilities assigned depend on race and ancestry.

We need clarity and common understanding of what the Treaty Principles are to move forward as a cohesive country. This is absolutely not about disrespecting Māori. It is about respecting everyone who calls New Zealand home.

Did you know polling completed last month showed just 25% of New Zealanders oppose the Bill? It is very unlikely that the Prime Minister's office haven't seen this polling. So why are they ignoring the will of the people?

If you share my concerns about the future of New Zealand - and the emails I received in response to my last email indicate that a lot of Hobson's Pledge supporters do - please take one or two minutes to send a letter to the Prime Minister. 

Once you've done that, share the link with your friends and family, and post it on social media. We need Christopher Luxon's staff to tell him that his inbox is overflowing with emails from disappointed and angry New Zealanders.

What is the point of getting your preferred Government and Prime Minister elected if they advance policies of the people you voted out?  

The only way that Christopher Luxon will change his mind is if enough of us show him that it is political suicide not to do so. Collectively, we have the power to remind him that without our votes he will be a one-term Prime Minister. 

A picture paints a thousand words and the photograph above is a snapshot of the most disgraceful reading of a Bill I can recall in New Zealand's history.

The Treaty Principles Bill is not the first controversial and polarising Bill to have been introduced to New Zealand's Parliament. We have debated abortion, same-sex marriage, and the foreshore and seabed. Inevitably emotions have run high and sharp words have been exchanged, but the behaviour displayed yesterday fell far below the standards we expect of elected officials.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke instigated a haka as the vote was being tallied at the end of the speeches. She tore the Bill in half and took to the floor along with her party colleagues. She and Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer performed the haka right up to where David Seymour and ACT sat. Their actions were intimidating and aggressive, and that was the intention.

Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee was left with no option but to suspend the House and empty the gallery which was full of Te Pāti Māori supporters who were also taking part in the haka. It was complete disorder.

Once everyone returned to the House - except Willie Jackson because he had been kicked out earlier for calling David Seymour a liar - Parliament voted to suspend Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for 24 hours. The Government majority outvoted the opposition parties who all voted against the punishment.

Now, a 24-hour suspension might seem like a pointless and meagre consequence, but the act of the Speaker 'naming' an MP as Speaker Brownlee did is very significant. Maipi-Clarke will have one day of pay docked also.

However, the young MP should not have been the only MP to face consequences. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi was disorderly in his own speech and concluded it by shouting the colloquialism "see you next Tuesday" at David Seymour. He will, of course, say that he was referring to the protest next Tuesday, but it is relatively well-known that it also refers to a certain four letter word.

Likewise, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's intimidation of David Seymour was not unlike that of Julie Anne Genter toward Matt Doocey some months ago, and that resulted in a referral to the Privileges Committee. There is no excuse for aggression and intimidation in our House of Parliament no matter if it is cloaked in claims of cultural practice.

We can all stand around pointing and saying "how disgraceful," but there is action we must take on a few different matters.

1. I encourage you to send an email to the Speaker urging him to crack down on disorderly conduct and slipping standards. His email is: [email protected]

2. You might also like to send an email to the Government party leaders asking them to make an appeal to the Speaker for stricter policing of rules and standing orders. [email protected] [email protected]and [email protected]

3. Write to the media about the matter: a letter to the editor, or an email to decision makers about how they are reporting on the issue.

3. Get ready for the first phase of our response to the Treaty Principles Billwhich will come next week. This phase is about putting pressure on the Prime Minister to respect New Zealanders and listen to our submissions.

4. Pop over to David Seymour's Facebook, Instagram, or X and give him a few words of encouragement. What he is doing takes a great deal of courage and we should make sure he knows he has the backing of many New Zealanders.

5. Chip in to our fund to make sure we keep the attention on support for the bill throughout the 6-month Treaty Principles Bill consultation period. Donate here.  

I am worried. We are at a crossroads and I fear it could go either way. Our leaders need us to strengthen their spines because they are vulnerable to the intimidation, manipulation, and coercion of the media and activists - some more vulnerable than others.

The media are firmly supportive of the activism of Te Pāti Māori and their hīkoi. In fact, one of TVNZ's most senior executives, Nevak Rogers, has taken annual leave this week to attend the hīkoi. Her social media posts and activism are directly oppositional to TVNZ's laughable claims of impartiality. How can we be expected to have faith in TVNZ's balance when their Chief Content Officer is behaving in such a partisan manner?

The time has come for New Zealanders to loudly express our honest opinions. This doesn't come naturally for many of us. We are generally a non-confrontational and laidback people, but too much is at stake. We need to openly state support for the Treaty Principles Bill and David Seymour's agenda for equality and clarity. Share your views with friends and family. Post on social media. Be bold.

If we do not emphatically stand up for democracy and what is right now, we will lose the ability to do so at all. New Zealand needs you.

Remember "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

A quick note from me just to make you aware of the politicisation occurring in New Zealand schools.

And I would like to quickly acknowledge that you will be hearing from us a bit more frequently in the coming weeks as there is so much happening around the Treaty Principles Bill that we need to keep you updated on. These issues are too important not to share with you.

Yesterday, the hīkoi that was meant to be about the Treaty Principles Bill made its way across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. I say 'meant to be' because those taking part cited a number of issues as their reason for being there, including hatred of David Seymour, a desire to get rid of the Government (that was Willie Jackson), and (judging by the flags) pro-Palestine activism.

It was a school day, and Associate Minister of Education David Seymour made it clear that students should be at school. Some schools, it seems, disagreed.

On his Kiwiblog, David Farrar shared correspondence that some schools sent out encouraging hīkoi attendance and excusing absences!

Here is one example from Naenae Primary School. Kiwiblog also shares one from South Wellington Intermediate School.

David Farrar has suggested that New Zealanders concerned with the blatant politicisation going on should report schools which are breaching political neutrality to the Teaching Council.

We think this is a great idea.

As we are demonstrating with our approach to fighting back with the media, Hobson's Pledge is done with politely tolerating the behaviour of radicals. Our opponents use any means possible to silence and attack us, why should we not use regulatory tools (appropriately, I might add) to disincentivise destructive activism. 

The Kiwiblog article shows some examples that you can report to the Teaching Council, but you may have heard of others. Please let us know if you have, and we can report those too.

CLICK HERE FOR THE TEACHING COUNCIL COMPLAINT FORM

Once the form has been completed, email it to: [email protected] or post to: Manager Professional Responsibility Teaching Council Aotearoa New Zealand PO Box 5326, Wellington 6140 New Zealand.

The Prime Minister says there is NOTHING he likes about the Treaty Principles Bill.

NOTHING.

Presumably this includes Principle One that says:

It seems pretty messed up for a prime minister to not want the power to govern and not support the rule of law or a free democratic society.

What about Principle Two?

I have my own reservations about this one, but that’s because I worry it could be a loophole for race-based policy. I would have thought Luxon would agree with protecting the rights of Māori as agreed through Treaty settlements though!

Surely he must be mistaken about Principle Three though. No one could oppose this...

We have big problems if our Prime Minister opposes equality before the law and human rights. What kind of tyrant is he?

I can't detect anything wrong with those three principles and that is all the Treaty Principles Bill is. The principles are faithful to what the Treaty of Waitangi explicitly says. The creative principles pulled out of thin air by the judiciary are far more outrageous.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. Christopher Luxon doesn't care that a majority of New Zealanders support the bill. Voters of National, New Zealand First, and ACT especially.

He is turning his back on the people that voted his Government into power and what for? Pats on the head from the media? Well, tough luck, mate. The media are giving him grief regardless. 

The media are acting like promoters of the hīkoi and protests. They are directing readers to meeting points and portraying the whole thing as a moral crusade. Not once have they asked the protestors to explain what they don't like about the bill. Do they know what they are protesting about?

Is Luxon afraid of the Māori activists? We know that Toitū Te Tiriti (the group organising the hīkoi) is just an astroturf for Te Pāti Māori. They have never minced their words about how they feel about Luxon either.

I wonder how his MPs feel about him pandering to the media and Te Pāti Māori supporters all of whom would rather eat glass than ever vote National. They must see the polling in support of the bill and wonder what the heck their leader is doing.

There will be a six month consultation process through the select committee on this bill. Thousands of New Zealanders will make submissions. Will the Government even bother to read them? Christopher Luxon has repeatedly said that nothing will change his mind on the bill. Frankly, his casual refusal to listen to the views of New Zealanders is rude.

Regardless, we are building a tool to enable Hobson's Pledge supporters to make meaningful Treaty Principles Bill submissions. We will get our perspectives on the record even if they aren't respected by the Prime Minister.

But we also want the Prime Minister to understand how angry we are. We cannot afford for Luxon to be another John Key; taking our votes only to cowardly hide from dealing with tough race relations issues. 

Christopher Luxon needs to remember who will vote him into a second term as Prime Minister. It won't be radical Māori activists. 

We are thinking about setting up a tool so that everybody can send letters to Luxon directly, so that everybody can let him know how we feel about how he is treating this bill and New Zealanders. What are your thoughts?

I'm keen to go hard on this. If National don't get how important this is to us they will keep trampling over us. Do you think it's time to stop playing nice?

I'm willing to call it what it is: weak leadership, cowardice, and really, really dumb.

If our supporters are keen to send a message to Luxon and give him a reality check, we will get the tool built and send you the link ASAP.

We've been waiting for its arrival and tomorrow we will get our first look at the Treaty Principles Bill when it is introduced to Parliament.

News of this earlier introduction was allegedly leaked by the ever-combative Waitangi Tribunal.

Tomorrow, we will finally know the exact wording and be able to form our own opinions on the Bill.

Chris Hipkins hasn't been willing to wait, however, and has been handwringing on TVONE this morning. He even claimed that it would put existing Treaty Settlements at risk which has never been on the table with this Bill.

Unfortunately, I think we can expect to see a continuation of the underhanded and less than honest approach opponents to the Bill have being employing thus far. Even as I write, threats are being made to close down motorways next week in protest – because nothing expresses care for people and society like stopping kiwis getting to and from work or school.

We are holding our breath to see how the Government have shaped up the Bill in regards to Article 2 of the Treaty. There has been speculation, but we will reserve our judgement until tomorrow!

We will make sure to keep you in the loop with the Bill and are working on a tool to assist you in submitting your thoughts when it goes to the Select Committee. The consultation period will be six months long so we intend to make sure everyone takes their time and gets a thorough submission in.

Advertising Standards Authority Appeal

Not a lot to share on this today except that our lawyers are working on our appeal and we intend to challenge the decisions of the Authority. As soon as we can share our appeal documents without compromising our case we will do so.

My thanks to those of you who were willing and able to chip in to contribute to legal costs.  That generosity is always appreciated and for those who still wish to help out you can do so by clicking here.

Teach your kid to be a raging racist!

We were sent an opinion piece written by Josie Pagani in August this year about a book called Paku Manu Ariki Whakatakapōkai.

Josie calls the book "a daring and delightful account" but is disturbed by how it promotes divisive race narratives in quite an adult voice.

For example, the main character says, "I will hit all the English people in the face because they stole the land”. He also says, "My Dad is Māori like me. I feel sorry for my Mum. She's only Pākehā.”  

Is this really what we want our kids thinking is okay? To hit people because people of the same race as them did something more than one hundred years ago? To present races as unequal? One race being worthy of pride and one not?

Depressingly, the book has won awards and accolades. It makes you wonder about the people who give these awards out.

Royal Society gets a telling off by Māori academics

The Royal Society Te Apārangi is proposing a governance restructure which will remove dedicated Māori representation from its council. It will also entrench the power of its Academy of Fellows. The new structure halves the council’s size, from 12 to six, and removes its two existing Māori seats.

The Royal Society Te Apārangi is a not-for-profit providing funding and policy advice in the sciences and humanities.

The proposed restructure has drawn the ire of some "prominent Māori academics" who have signed an open letter to the society President, Distinguished Professor Dame Jane Harding.

The letter contains a not-so-subtle threat that "if there is no visible space for Māori decision-making in this reimagined structure, the creation of an independent Māori Academy may be the path forward.”

They also said:

“It feels like a major step backwards from the inclusive governance model we have been working towards and lacks any meaningful consideration of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

The Treaty does not provide for race-based representation in any kind of governance so this is just another example of Treaty-creep where the reach and scope of the Treaty are expanded.

Needless to say, we at Hobson's Pledge think that removing race-based representation is an excellent move and we hope the Royal Society holds its nerve under the attacks from academia, media, and activists. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will email you again shortly with more on the Treaty Principles Bill and no doubt other matters, but in the meantime I am sure we all have our eyes cast to the United States! Here's hoping for a swift result and a dignified concession from the unsuccessful candidate. Democracy is precious and we must all protect it in our various corners of the world.

This week one of our battles came to somewhat of a close (though we'll continue to keep an eye on it) and we've decided to kick another up a gear.

Alongside Hobson's Pledge's legal counsel Brigitte Morten from Franks Ogilvie, Ipresented to the Justice Select Committee about our perspective on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

You can watch our submission on our Facebook Page. 

We left no doubt that we support the passing of the bill because of the way the courts have distorted Parliament’s original intention with the 2011 Act, but we also made it clear there are vulnerabilities in the new bill and we would prefer a return to the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004.

A highlight for me was when Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris attempted to cast the law as "Pākehā law" and Brigitte Morten responded that as a lawyer she recognises only laws from the New Zealand Parliament and doesn't distinguish between "Pākehā law" and "non-Pākehā law".  

The Justice Select Committee will write a report once they have concluded consultation and then the Government will proceed to the Second Reading. Our job is to ensure there is no funny business as it makes its way through Parliament to be passed.

Stiffening our spine

In the past year or so, you may have noticed a shift in our approach to dealing with those who attack us. We have always been forthright and confident in our principles, but we have recently made a conscious choice to meet more of the attacks on people like you, and New Zealand's democracy, head on.

We have taken more legal action and been more outspoken in our advocacy. We have been unafraid, for example, to place an ad on the front cover of the NZ Herald that we knew, despite being factual, would be received by our opponents as a declaration of war. 

We have made these choices, but we could not take a single action without the backing of you and our team of around 140,000 New Zealanders. The determination of our supporters to create change has inspired us and the generous donations to the cause have funded the fights we take up on behalf of you all.

So, what's next? 

Well, we're calling in the lawyers again. This time it is to appeal the Advertising Standard Authority's ruling on our front page advertisement about New Zealand's coastline and Customary Marine Titles.

The ASA received more than 600 complaints relating to our ad. Much of that appears to have come from a concerted and organised effort.

You may have seen the gloating from Te Pāti Māori and allies as they used the ASA decision to justify their assertions that we were wrong in our claims. Want to prove them wrong and stop the glee? Get on board with our battle. 

We were not wrong. The ASA simply grounded their decisions in opinion rather than objective fact. Although we were glad to see that only a small part of the complaints was upheld, they are significant and it we are loathe to see the judgement used to misinform New Zealanders about the facts.

Legal action and lawyers don't come cheap, especially excellent lawyers who understand this area of the law so well. So I am asking you to join the fight and chip in what you can so that we can launch an appeal.

We have to play the ideological regulators and managerial class at their own games. Not the least because they hate to be beaten on home turf.

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. 

Hobson's Pledge and our supporters are a team. We have the platform and voice to take on the battles and our supporters bring strength in numbers, bolster our confidence, and ensure we can afford to pay the bills that come with these fights.

What do you say? Are you up for another fight? We won't give up if you won't.

As you probably know, we have been running a petition to End the Waitangi Tribunal. That campaign continues, but in the meantime we heard some news that brought a smile to our faces... the Government has appointed former Labour Minister and ACT leader Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal!

The outrage machine has kicked into action with Willie Jackson even saying:

"I think we were all in shock [on Thursday] ... but what next - are we going to make Don Brash the new chair of the tribunal?"

Now there's an idea...

Anika Moa and Kiri Allan's racist podcast tirade

Radio NZ actually pulled the episode, recognising it was not in line with their values. But unlike how hard they have fought Official Information Act requests previously, they happily handed over the episode to other media who published it anyway.

In the episode, Anika Moa was outspoken about her disdain for white men and not shy about displaying her ignorance of New Zealand Parliament. She said:

“Everything they do in parliament is white man rules, white women rules, white this, white that, whitewash.”

Given there are a record number of Māori MPs and ministers in Cabinet as well as many other ethnicities and cultures making up Parliament, Ms Moa's comments are seriously ignorant.

A train crash from start to finish, former Justice Minister Kiri Allan minimised her behaviour on the night she crashed into a parked car and fled from the police while under the influence of alcohol.

According to Stuff, Allan "said the parliamentary system was not designed for Māori women, citing the number of wahine Māori MPs who had left parliament under a cloud."

It was a divisive discussion that demonised white New Zealanders and perpetuated victim narratives. For those of us who believe in equality before the law and want to see New Zealanders valued by the content of their character rather than their skin colour or ancestors, the episode was indicative of the toxic race narratives that exist currently.

Electorate seat change

Statistics New Zealand has announced that next election there will be 64 electorate seats rather than 65. There will be an additional list seat to compensate. The number of Māori seats remains the same, at seven.

It is disappointing that New Zealand still has Māori seats. One of the reasons for moving to the MMP system was that it would allow for a more diverse group of New Zealanders to be elected to Parliament. The intention was that we would not need quota seats after this change.

"With the introduction of MMP in 1996, the proportion of Māori in Parliament increased from 8% to 14%, a total of 17 MPs. In 2011, 22 MPs (18%) were Māori; the number increased to 28 (23%) in 2017, but fell to 25 (21%) in 2020, when no New Zealand First MPs were re-elected." - TeAra Encyclopedia

And those saying this were right! None of the record number of Māori in Cabinet were elected in Māori seats. Likewise the disproportionate number (compared to the wider population) of Māori MPs in all parties. 

It is time to do away with the Māori seats.

State-sponsored terrorism of Māori kaumatua, women, and children?  

I've saved the most ridiculous for last. It truly beggars belief.

This week New Zealand Police carried out a large operation that targeted gangs mostly in Ōpōtiki. Firearms and drugs were seized. Violent offenders were apprehended. A successful mission to disrupt the scourge of organised crime that should have been supported by all.

Not Te Pāti Māori. No. Rawiri Waititi launched an attack on the Police Minister alleging that elderly Māori along with breastfeeding women were victimised by the operation. He called it state terrorism.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell wasn't having it though. In response to Waititi's "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?" line of questioning the minister informed him that the operation had uncovered how the gangs were running methamphetamine through schools.

Te Pāti Māori's stance is hideous in that it links gangs to Māori as if they are some kind of extension of the whanau. They forget that not all gang members are Māori and not all Māori are gang members. 

They also justify and defend violent crime and destruction of communities via drugs, intimidation, and weapons. 

Māori in Ōpōtiki are more likely to be victimised by the gangs than the police trying to rid the place of them. All New Zealanders are entitled to live in safe communities without the violence of gangs.

----------------------------------------

I'll close on a positive note by repeating my congratulations to all Hobson's Pledge supporters who joined us in condemning the racist new Prosecution Guidelines. We secured a swift U-turn from the Solicitor-General and should all be very pleased. However, we are keeping a close eye on what the guidelines will look like after this 'review'. We wouldn't put it past Crown Law to try pull a swift one.

Have a wonderful long weekend.

Congratulations! You are part of a community of people who speak up against racism, inequality, and division, and that community has had a big win!

The Solicitor General heard our cries of "You cannot be serious" and has pulled a quick U-turn on her dodgy Prosecution Guidelines.

Una Jagose KC has taken down the Prosecution Guidelines and is reviewing them. They will be republished once amended.

Significantly, she told the media that she realised she had missed the mark after reading and listening to public commentary. That is us! Public commentary is all the Hobson's Pledge supporters who spoke up.

We provided you with the Facebook, Instagram, and X accounts of the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister, and the leaders of New Zealand First and ACT, and encouraged you to demand answers from them.

Hobson's Pledge supporters heard the call and showed en masse on their social media pages and in their inboxes. You made a difference. We can all be very proud of this result.

A recap in case you missed the insanity this week:

The Solicitor General released her new Prosecution Guidelines to be effective 1 January 2025. In those guidelines were alarming instructions to treat Māori offenders differently to everyone else.

"The guidelines ask prosecutors to think carefully about particular decisions where a person (whether the victim or the defendant) is Māori."

A defence lawyer writing to David Farrar's Kiwiblog said:

Essentially the new guidelines require prosecutors to take into account race when deciding whether to prosecute someone, or withdraw charges against them. Despite the claim that "this does not promote different treatment based on ethnicity", it is clearly designed to do exactly that.

As a defence lawyer, when advocating for my clients it will now be logical for me to include in my emails to the prosecution something like "I note that my client is Māori and therefore consideration must be given to the new Solicitor-General's guidelines when deciding whether it is appropriate to continue with this prosecution."

I can anticipate that I will get some replies saying this is only a small victory, and we are still faced with a deluge of race-based policies yet to be fixed. However, when faced with so much to be frustrated about, it is important that we take a moment to celebrate these wins.

Momentum is important. One backdown can precipitate another. Next time a senior public servant thinks they will get away with slipping racially segregated policies into their guidelines they will think twice. They don't want to have to front the media and eat humble pie.

So take a moment to toast the win this weekend.

I have a lot to update you on today, so bear with me. This is more of a newsletter than my usual style. Some good news and some not so good, but either way we are busy at Hobson's Pledge HQ!

The ASA Decision

You may have seen media reports that the 600+ complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about our advertisement on the front cover of the NZ Herald have been reviewed and the ASA Complaints Board has made a decision.

We were pleased to see that the majority of complaints about the advertisement were not upheld. However, the one small part that was upheld appears to tie itself in knots in its attempt to make something misleading out of the advertisement. We are considering our options and whether to appeal.

It is astounding that even though a majority ruled in our favour on most matters, a minority on the Advertising Standards Authority Board consistently held that statements unwelcome to Māori should be suppressed, irrespective of truth.

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. It was pleasing to see the following decisions in relation to nonsense complaints that sought to paint Hobson's Pledge as evil:

A majority of the Complaints Board said the advertisement did not reach the threshold to breach the ‘Decency and Offensiveness’ rule in the context of advocacy advertising.

A majority of the Complaints Board said the advertisement did not reach the threshold to cause fear or distress without justification.

We also note that the Complaints Board said they ‘accepted the source for the map and the factual claim that almost the entire coastline is under application for customary marine title.’ This was central to our advertisement and to have that validated is important.

MACA Submissions

As we shared with you a while back, we were having some real trouble with getting the Select Committee to accept your submissions if they didn't go through the special government web form.

We saw right through their objections. This is about control and deterring New Zealanders from exercising their right to submit on bills. They hate when groups such as ours work together to make having our say easier. 

We offered to send submissions through in one file - their choice of type - and let them know that if we weren't able to do this we would print out every single submission and hand deliver them to Parliament.

I guess they didn't take us seriously.

On Tuesday we delivered 5166 submissions to Parliament on behalf of Hobson's Pledge supporters. 

Update on defamation action

I have been touched by the level of support I have received thus far on this matter. Sometimes we just have to take a stand and refuse to let the usual suspects tell lies about us.

Here are some excerpts from the press release we sent out earlier this week:

Don Brash has today filed a defamation claim with the High Court in Auckland against Matthew Hooton after several attempts to resolve the matter privately.

Specialist defamation lawyers, Peter McKnight and Ali Romanos, have been retained as counsel for Dr Brash. Dr Brash received a delaying response from Mr Hooton’s lawyers just ninety minutes before the requested deadline and has been left with no choice but to file proceedings.

Mr Hooton seriously defamed Don Brash including suggesting he is profoundly dishonest, lacks integrity, and is corrupt. This goes far beyond disagreeing with what Dr Brash has said on any given matter and impugns his character in a very serious way.

In any case, debates relating to the Treaty cannot be allowed to deteriorate into personal attacks. It should not be beyond public figures to argue the facts and their beliefs without resorting to smearing reputations.

Outrageous new Prosecution Guidelines released by Solicitor General

If you haven't seen them already, prepare to be dismayed. Or furious, perhaps.

The guidelines quite literally call for a two-tiered approach to charging alleged criminals.

As the NZ Herald's Audrey Young wrote:

It is astonishing that the seasoned Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, KC, has got herself into political difficulty over the latest revision of the Prosecution Guidelines in which she asks prosecutors to “think carefully about particular decisions... where a person is Māori”.

...

She is clearly including guidance to think carefully about prosecuting when the offender is Māori.

That is problematic at any time, let alone for a Government that is united on one thing if nothing else – equal treatment of citizens.

As you might expect, Hobson's Pledge is horrified by this. We are in the process of pulling together a response. We are writing to each and every minister with a connection to this matter and pulling together a campaign to stop this race-based rubbish in its tracks.

Watch this space.

Gary Judd KC takes on regulations

Gary Judd KC has proven himself to be a heroic champion of common sense and equality. This week he brought another fight to the Parliament's Regulations Review Committee - the compulsory completion of Tikanga Māori courses for all law students. 

Gary argues that tikanga is different from law and that if the compulsory courses go ahead "they will essentially be seen to be giving the green light to what is really just political activism."

Gary has also said:

“For a custom to be accepted as law, it had to be certain, consistent, reasonable, and it had to be not repugnant to justice and morality.

“If judges were doing their job properly, they would have said, ‘tikanga cannot satisfy these requirements, therefore we reject the notion of tikanga being part of the law’.”

He is correct. Tikanga is variable from whānau to hapū to iwi. It cannot be treated as law. 

We will be keeping a close eye on this and will keep you in the loop.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phew! Quite a download of information for you.

Thank you for all your support on these issues and the many more that have come our way this year.

I can only assume that ministers have not seen the outrageous new Prosecution Guidelines released quietly at the beginning of this month. They cannot possibly have seen them because they contradict both Coalition Agreements and the promises the Government has made to end race-based policies.

David Farrar of Kiwiblog alerted me to the matter via a reader who wrote in to his blog about it. The reader is a defence lawyer and expressed surprise at the blatant race discrimination.

The new guidelines quite literally provide a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card to New Zealanders with at least one Māori ancestor.

The justification of this is that there are a disproportionate number of Māori in the criminal justice system:

“Research over many years has consistently found that Māori are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system at every stage, including as victims, and we recognised at the start of the project that the discretion to prosecute may contribute to that."

The authors of the two-tiered guidelines treat the New Zealand people as if we are a bunch of idiots. They claim, "this does not promote different treatment based on ethnicity or membership of a particular group; it instead alerts prosecutors to situations and factors that may deliver inequitable outcomes."

Which is totally contradicted by the instruction to consider not charging someone simply because of their Māori heritage: "The guidelines ask prosecutors to think carefully about particular decisions where a person (whether the victim or the defendant) is Māori."

The defence lawyer who wrote to David Farrar provided the following analysis:

Essentially the new guidelines require prosecutors to take into account race when deciding whether to prosecute someone, or withdraw charges against them. Despite the claim that "this does not promote different treatment based on ethnicity", it is clearly designed to do exactly that.

As a defence lawyer, when advocating for my clients it will now be logical for me to include in my emails to the prosecution something like "I note that my client is Māori and therefore consideration must be given to the new Solicitor-General's guidelines when deciding whether it is appropriate to continue with this prosecution."

I am not ordinarily foul-mouthed, but let me tell you, a few choice words came to mind reading about this. It is outrageous, to say the least.

The Hobson's Pledge team want to make as many people aware of this as quickly as possible, so we have come to our supporters in the hope you will raise the roof with us. 

If you use social media, please consider contacting the following ministers to ask if they are aware of the prosecution guidelines and to let them know you are in complete opposition to them and will consider this a broken election promise if they do not do something about it.

The guidelines were sent to lawyers on 3 October, but we are yet to see any reporting on it. You could also track down our media companies on social and email and send them a note.

These guidelines must be swiftly thrown in the bin before they come into force on 1 January 2025.

Ethnicity or whether or not one has a Māori ancestor should not be a factor in deciding to charge someone who has committed a crime. That is a separatist system. A two-tiered system. We cannot accept that our justice system is to work on the premise of "do the crime, do the time...except if you have Māori ancestry."

This is blatant discrimination. Why should a Chinese New Zealander, Samoan New Zealander, and an Irish New Zealander be charged for a burglary, but the 4th accomplice gets off scot-free by virtue of one of his great-grandparents being Māori?

We must make a racket. I can't imagine many New Zealanders would be happy about this, and that is probably precisely why the media aren't reporting on it.

So get out there and post on your own social media. Send emails. Spread the word. Tell the five decision-makers above how wrong this is and tell them on every platform possible. We will be doing the same.

Remember, this is our best chance to defeat these appalling policies, and we must not waste it.

The media, Opposition parties, the public service, and academics - also known as the Lanyard Wearers - are doing their best to make it taboo to state the truth that Māori did indeed cede sovereignty in 1840.

They repeat their assertion that Māori did not cede sovereignty ad nauseam presumably in the hope that if they say it enough times it will become true. New Zealanders are exposed to this propaganda on a daily basis.

We, at Hobson's Pledge, have been wondering what New Zealanders really think about it all when we came across a post on David Farrar's Patreon, which shared the results of a poll that asked New Zealanders just that.

Farrar's polling company Curia Research asked respondents:

Recently, a number of political leaders were asked if they believed Māori ceded sovereignty to the British Crown when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, with different political leaders expressing different views. Do you believe Māori did or did not cede sovereignty to the British Crown?

The results are very interesting.

With the barrage of rewritten history and mistruths New Zealanders are pelted with on a daily basis, by Lanyard Wearers, you might expect that a majority would agree with the powers that be and say Māori did not cede sovereignty in 1840.

That is not the case.

The largest segment - 38% of respondents - answered that they 'don't know'. 

The next largest segment - 35% - answered 'yes' they do believe Māori ceded sovereignty. While the smallest segment - 27% - said 'no'.

It is a pretty even split three ways, but despite having the most airtime for their perspective, those who argue that Māori didn't cede sovereignty in 1840 have failed to convince most of the population. 

Predictably this issue is divided along political lines with the governing parties' voters saying 'yes' and the left wing Opposition parties' voters saying 'no'.

And in news that should shock no one, respondents from Wellington were the only geographic group that had a plurality who thought sovereignty was not ceded. 

This poll tells us that New Zealanders need more information on the subject. They aren't buying that sovereignty wasn't ceded but aren't confident to argue the alternative.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote an article this week about the matter of sovereignty and in it listed some of the key arguments for the position that Māori did cede sovereignty in 1840. Below is a distilled list of points from the article that you might find useful when discussing the matter:

1. Article I in the official English-language version of the Treaty makes it unambiguously clear that in signing the Treaty the chiefs were accepting the sovereignty of the British Crown. We have known since its discovery in 1989 what the English text given to Henry Williams to translate into te reo Māori required, and while that text differs somewhat from the official English text it is absolutely consistent in making it unambiguously clear that chiefs were being asked to surrender ultimate authority to the British Crown.

2. We know, from the many speeches made by the chiefs on 5 February 1840and recorded by Colenso at the time, that they understood they were being asked to surrender to a higher authority. Many chiefs objected strongly, pointing out that signing implied that the British authorities would be entitled to hang them.

3. Speeches made at the very large meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860again made it clear that they knew that Queen Victoria was sovereign and had authority above them. 

4. When one of the greatest of the Ngāpuhi chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 died in 1871, his gravestone carried the words “In memory of Tamati Waka Nene, Chief of Ngapuhi, the first to welcome the Queen’s sovereignty in New Zealand”.

5. Is it plausible that the chiefs who heavily outnumbered the British in 1840 would have been willing to surrender to some distant authority?  Yes, the previous four decades had seen extraordinary inter-tribal warfare, with tens of thousands of men, women and children slaughtered – more dead, it is believed, than all the New Zealand deaths in all wars since 1840. The chiefs would have seen British authority as a way of ending that inter-tribal slaughter and perhaps protecting them from French forces.

6. Great Māori leaders of the past, like Sir Āpirana Ngata, clearly accepted that in signing the Treaty the chiefs had effectively handed authority to the British Crown.

7. The most recent authoritative translation of the Māori language version of the Treaty, by Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1989, translates the first article of the Treaty as “the chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined the Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England forever the complete government over their land.”

Debating what the Treaty provided in 1840 is an interesting academic exercise, but the reality is that for some 180 years all of us have behaved as if the Crown issovereign. We’ve paid taxes, been employed by the state, received benefits from the state, carried passports issued by the state, obeyed laws made by the state. In other words, we have accepted that the Government has the right to govern all of us, Māori and all other New Zealanders.

We have the facts to back up our assertions, but we do not have the institutional or cultural power that our opponents do. The best thing each of us can do is to take those facts and share them with those around us.

Because as silly as it may seem to argue about this when the Crown clearly exercises sovereignty now, the radicals whose goal it is to install co-governance and race-based rights use sovereignty as a foundation on which to lay their claims.

Thank you for your support across the many campaigns we have live at the moment.

I'm sure you've been wondering what is happening with Hobson's Pledge's legal defence of Don.

First, I want to say thank you! Your contribution to Don's Defence fund has ensured that we could assure lawyers of support to take the next steps.

Letters have been going back and forth with Matthew Hooton's lawyers. True to form Hooton attempted to dodge accountability by posting a partial and barbed apology on his Patreon account (but not to his mailing list) and palming it off to Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury to read aloud at the end of a podcast episode.

Not good enough. He tried to frame up his rant as just part of a 'debate' with Don, when he has not bothered to engage on the real isues with Don for many years.

As it has been so vital to the go-ahead for this important action, we’re sharing with supporters who have helped make it happen, the letter that went to Hooton's lawyers today. You can also see the 'Statement of Claim' to be filed next week, if he continues to fudge.

You can read the letter here.

And the Statement of Claim here.

Money matters:

There has been some discussion of remedies and costs to be paid if Hooton is to avoid a law-suit. We’ve redacted those aspects from the letter and Statement of Claim because those negotiations are live. Defamation action in New Zealand is notoriously expensive. Defamation liability is a vital part of society’s defences against the pollution of public discourse with coldly calculated lies – the true ‘disinformation’. So the compensation awards have to be large now. That is the only way to ensure that even winners are not losers. They get vindicated when the court establishes that lies have been spread about them. But they need to win both compensation and a legal cost award, to cover the costs and the risks of the action. Don has made it clear that when he gets vindication, anything left over will go to Hobson's Pledge. 

Next steps:

Hopefully, my next update to you will be that Hooton has made a full apology and delivered it in appropriate forums. We would love to see this resolved without having things escalate further. But, if Hooton is determined to drag this on, we will lodge the Statement of Claim on Monday.

The ability for us to bring lawyers on board to defend Don is important not only because he has dedicated decades to arguing for equality and unity in New Zealand in measured ways, but because the same slurs Hooton so appallingly threw out about Don get used against all of us who share Don's vision for New Zealand.

We should be able to have discussions about the future of our country and object to different rights based on who one's ancestors were without being attacked and called names. 

We have all taken so much on the chin, especially over the last few years, and we shouldn't have to. This legal action represents us standing up and refusing to be demeaned, demonised, and silenced by bullies. 

It means the world to Don and to all of us at Hobson's Pledge that you are standing with us. 

Time is short! Submissions on the Marine and Coastal Area Amendment Bill (MACA) are now open, but not for long.

SUBMISSIONS CLOSE AT MIDNIGHT ON 15 OCTOBER

Making things even more challenging is the fact that the Justice Committee is doing its best to prevent your submission. They will not accept email submissions and are saying that everyone has to use their webform. This would prevent you from being able to use our easy tool.

We create these tools because of how onerous it can be to use the Parliamentary process. We provide the points that we think are important and you can pick and choose those that you agree with as well as enter your own text. 

We are facilitating more New Zealanders to have their say.

It is almost like the Justice Committee doesn't want submissions on the Bill. They certainly want to place roadblocks in the way.

We offered to provide them with one file containing all submissions but they said that was too much of an administrative burden. Our alternative is simply to collect all of the submissions and then print every single one... I suspect that will be more of an administrative burden for the select committee staff.

And won't someone think of the trees!

We will get your submissions in to the Justice Committee. Leave that with us. You just need to head to our website and put together your submission in a few short minutes.

This is important. Every submission counts. We have made the process simple and quick for you so please head to our submission tool and have your say.

We encourage you to support the passing of the Bill but there are some significant improvements that the Justice Committee needs to be urged to implement.

It is good news that the Government intends to return the law back to the original 2011 intention, but we are still wanting more – first and foremost that the Crown resumes ownership of all foreshore and seabed for all New Zealanders as it did under the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004.

We’ve analysed the bill for you, and got some legal advice too. There are a lot of good aspects to it. For example, the Government is reigning in the increasingly activist courts, returning the law back to what Parliament intended in 2011. Criteria are being tightened up with iwi needing to prove exclusive and ongoing use since 1840.

But there are some problems too. Chief among those is the fact that for those who are successful in their claims there are substantial special rights awarded. These include the ability to apply wāhi tapu (sacred areas) and rahui (bans); veto over most resource consents and conservation activities; involvement in coastal planning and policy development; the ability to charge commercial operators; the ability to 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.

You can dress up customary titles however you want, but it is still a type of ownership and other than ‘a promise we won’t’, there is little to stop iwi exercising considerable control.

Like all of the matters we tackle, equality is at the heart of how we view this bill. This is about equal ownership rights, equal access to beaches, equal and fair processes for resource consents and planning. 

New Zealanders who care about the future of our country must speak up now. It is now or never. If this Government doesn't succeed in putting us on a pathway to a future where who one's ancestors were has no relevance to what our political rights are today, there may never be another opportunity to achieve that goal. Submitting on bills like this is a key way you can do your bit to fight for this future. 

Make sure to add your own thoughts to the submission and emphasise that New Zealand is big trouble if we continue along the route Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Māori Caucus charted. We need to course correct and head towards equality of citizenry.

Do pass this email or the link to our submission tool on to any New Zealanders who share our vision of New Zealand where we are all treated equally under the law. The more voices heard the better.

Don't forget that the submission period is woefully short so you only have until the 15th of October to have your say. It only takes a few minutes so why not do your submission now?     

Thank you for your ongoing support and please submit today!

Universities are bad enough these days for pushing a particular set of politics. Well-adjusted, intelligent young people enter university and then emerge a few years later identifying as Marxists and arguing for separatism.

Now the University of Auckland wants to take the indoctrination further.

Whether you want to study engineering, accounting, philosophy, or chemistry, you will be required to complete a mandatory course covering the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand history.

This will also apply to international students who may only be in New Zealand for the duration of their studies. 

It means that of the eight courses/papers that a student enrols in for first year, one will have to be the mandatory Māori course. This gives them one less course to choose for themselves.

I assume that they will still be obliged to pay for the course, despite it being compulsory.

Some people I've spoken to have said "so what? Isn't it good if people understand our history and the Treaty better?" I share with them my main objections:

1. The facts around the Treaty and our history are highly contested. There are polarised views about whether Māori ceded sovereignty, for example. The people who are involved in writing and delivering these courses are likely to be radicals - like many in academia - who will teach their opinions as truth.

2. It is mandatory. If a person wants to study the Treaty, New Zealand history, Māori mythology, and te reo they should enrol in a course to do so. They're entitled to seek that kind of education, but no one should be forced into it.

It is indoctrination. It is propaganda. And I have no doubt it is deliberate.

The long march through the institutions has been very successful for socialist identitarians. Chief among their successes has been capturing the institutions of education. Our children are being educated to think like the braying mob who call everything racist and want us to be separated into race-based categories with different rights.

I detest seeing the bright minds of New Zealand's future being taught that critical thinking is bad and equality is evil. I frequently hear from parents who feel like a wedge is being driven between them and their children by their schools, universities, and the people who teach them.

This issue further highlights the fundamental problem with universities making the Treaty of Waitangi a key part of their vision and claiming to be "Treaty-led". This makes critiques of the Treaty beyond the pale. At universities there should be no 'sacred cows' like this.

Anyway, what do these universities think their role is in the Treaty? The Treaty is between the Crown and iwi. I guess funding models could allow universities to be shoe-horned into the Crown, but it is a bit odd for them to stick their oar into something they have no business being in.

Hobson's Pledge have some serious questions about the course, including:

- Can a student object? Opt out?

- Can a student challenge the narratives being taught (as they would expect to be able to do in other courses)?

- Will students be subjected to disciplinary action or poor grades if they state that Māori did cede sovereignty in 1840?

- Who is writing the course?

- How much will it cost students?

We have written to the University of Auckland seeking answers and expressing our concerns about the mandatory course. Add your signature to our open letter now.

There is always strength in numbers and our hope is that in collecting signatures supporting our letter we can demonstrate to the decision-makers at the University of Auckland that this is a concern for many.

It’s been another busy week as we advocate for a fair and equal New Zealand, and there’s certainly no shortage of challenges ahead! There are a number of topics to discuss, but I thought I would highlight three, including that submissions for the MACA Bill will soon be opening.

MACA Update

On Tuesday, the government introduced its Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. It has successfully passed its first reading and is now with the Justice Select Committee.

We’re pleased to see progress on this key part of the coalition agreement. As many of you know, the courts’ novel approach has led to most of New Zealand’s shoreline being claimed by iwi as customary title.

The amendment bill aims to clarify what Parliament originally intended in 2011—that iwi must clearly demonstrate their consistent and exclusive occupation of the land adjacent to the foreshore being claimed from 1840 onwards.

Importantly, 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 find much to agree with in the Government’s current proposal.

Public submissions will open soon, and it’s crucial to note that the Government is rushing this process, with the committee required to report back by December 5, 2024.

Stay tuned for more information about the bill and how Hobson’s Pledge can assist you with your submissions.

More Newspaper Ads

You may have noticed the ACT Party’s ads appearing in some newspapers today. While the Stuff-aligned papers (The Post, Waikato Times, and The Press) welcomed their ad, the New Zealand Herald chose not to publish it.

It seems the Herald is still recovering from the backlash caused by our front-page ad and hasn’t yet learned its lesson. Advocating for the fair and equal treatment of all New Zealanders should never be censored.

We’re glad to see ACT sharing its rationale for the Treaty Principles Bill. At Hobson’s Pledge, we will continue to express our strong views and support all New Zealanders in having their say.

Real Estate Agent Penalties

Did you hear that another real estate agent has lost their license for failing to complete the Real Estate Institute’s compulsory course on Māori culture and tikanga?

In this case, Michael Wilson—a realtor and contestant on TV’s Married at First Sight—failed to meet the requirements due to time constraints.

The media noted that we at Hobson’s Pledge are still supporting another realtor, Janet Dickson, who has rightly refused to undertake the course, citing its irrelevance to her work. We will continue to stand by her and anyone facing unnecessary cultural indoctrination.

This latest incident underscores that media and others will seize every opportunity to ‘name and shame’ individuals who do not comply with these cultural courses. The message is clear: complete these courses quietly, and you’ll be left alone.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

We had hoped to resolve this issue quietly and amicably, but unfortunately, it has attracted media attention. The media has since approached Don for comment, leaving us with no choice but to confront Matthew Hooton’s defamatory attacks on Don and Hobson’s Pledge head-on.

Earlier this month, Matthew Hooton launched a full frontal attack on Hobson's Pledge and our founder, Don Brash. He stated that our group (and Don in particular) are liars, lacking integrity, and even corrupt!

I won’t sit by while a decent and principled man is slandered and attacked with baseless accusations which appear to be specifically designed to shut down our work advocating for racial equality.

We are taking action to stand up for our right to talk about issues regarding the Treaty, but more specifically to stand up for Don.

We’ve called in the lawyers and they come with a hefty price tag. Will you join us in crowdfunding to defend Don against defamatory lies?

Don Brash has spent decades trying to advance respectful discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi. From his Orewa Speech to his work with Hobson’s Pledge, he has unequivocally called for equality and unity in New Zealand based on a sincere belief that a race-based state would doom our country.  Will you back him against the tactics used in an attempt to shut him up?

As we rally to support Don, it's crucial to recognise that the tactics being used against him today could just as easily be directed at you tomorrow. When voices advocating for equality and unity are silenced through slander and intimidation, we all lose. This isn’t just about defending one man; it’s about safeguarding the rights of every individual who believes in fair and honest discourse.

He has been patient and courteous, maintaining the discussion without vitriol, without vilification of those with genuine concerns on either side. But that has been repaid in ad hominem attacks, in scurrilous accusations of racism. 

This is a fundamental issue of decency.

Let me tell you what happened.

A few weeks ago Matthew Hooton went on a rant about Hobson’s Pledge and Don Brash on a well-watched podcast produced by Mediaworks. It was a tirade intended to drag Don's character through the mud.

So egregious were Mr Hooton’s claims, Hobson’s Pledge’s trustees and long-time friends of Don are urging him to take legal action to show how wrong Hooton was with the nasty comments he made about Don. It is time that race baiters who use such tactics to silence opinions they don’t like were outed. If you agree, you can chip in here.

Being labelled a “racist” is barely worth acknowledging these days. Everything and anything is apparently racist and as such the word has lost its meaning. Don is quite able to shrug that kind of nonsense off knowing that he is not a racist at all.

However, Mr Hooton and the like have found that with that word so devalued, they have to crank their venom lever another turn, and make accusations of corruption, lying, bad moral character.

This isn’t just an insult to Don. It is an insult to all of us who share his moderate views on the Treaty and equality before the law. In standing up for Don, we are standing up for us all. Join the fight here.

Matthew Hooton’s attack on Don’s integrity and character, calling him a liar, and accusing him of deliberately peddling false information, was unacceptable. Now he has accepted with an acknowledgement that he was “not justified in making accusations of dishonesty” about Don but refused to apologise in the way Don requested. Always wanting it his way.

Why should we pick this fight?

For a start, we have to fight this because it is about damn time. Like you, we are fed up with the behaviour of our opponents going unaddressed. We don’t have to sit back and take the abuse.

The distortions about what we believe and what we advocate for are wrong. Quite simply, we stand for the words Governor William Hobson spoke at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi: He iwi tahi tatou / We are now one people.

Don Brash advocates for equality, unity, and moving forward as one. If you agree with him and want to hold those who say otherwise accountable, chip in to Don’s Defamation Fund.

Matthew Hooton has a history of playing fast and loose and this is not his first defamation rodeo.

In 2020, the National Business Review was sued by former National Minister Steven Joyce after it published a column by Matthew Hooton in which he accused Steven Joyce of “blackmail”.

That case forced Hooton to issue a public apology to Mr Joyce as part of a settlement.

NBR ceased running Mr Hooton’s columns after this. Radio NZ also no longer has him on as a guest after it came to light that he had not been transparent about his involvement in the campaign to make Todd Muller leader of the National Party despite commenting in the media about the party leadership.

From Mediawatch, 9:08 am on 24 May 2020

Of course, the tragic short-lived leadership of Mr Muller was a catastrophe from start to finish and did immense damage to the National Party at the time. Mr Hooton acted as Mr Muller’s right-hand man, bailing not long after his mate did.

It is unclear how he has been able to continue to position himself as an ‘inside man’ on ‘the right’ when he has fallen out with every right-wing man and his dog, including former Prime Minister John Key.

Is Matthew Hooton really welcome for a cup of tea with any of the centre-right parties? Or is his ‘inside man’ styling a façade used to get media gigs?

The Treaty is a matter on which friends and family can fall out. There are many good and honest reasons for differing views. But unfortunately, some are determined to use any means including bullying and slander to silence their opponents.  

Recently even Sir Apirana Ngata has been ‘cancelled’ by activists and he’s the guy on our $50 bill!

Anyone threatening the official lines is demonised by woke elites, academics, lawyers, media, and bureaucrats. These people from the professional/managerial class despise ordinary people and aggressively oppose equality before the law. In their view, Māori should have more power than they get from one person one vote. 

Join us in showing the cancel mob that we won’t back down.

And of course, all of this has played into the hands of those who’ve cashed in on the race privilege grift and the resuscitation of inherited political power. The paid mouthpieces and self-styled experts who get away with saying almost anything because it aligns with the approved rhetoric.

It is not surprising that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel and using gutter tactics.

Given his extraordinary outburst about Don on the podcast, it makes us wonder who is paying Matthew Hooton’s wages currently. Is this attack on Don and Hobson's Pledge another paid 'hit job' perhaps on behalf of a client...one of his previously known iwi clients maybe?

And if he is acting on behalf of a client to slander Don and discredit his work, why is the New Zealand Herald continuing to publish him without being transparent about his financial interests?

How dare he defame Don, in any case. Among other things, Don Brash is a former leader of the Opposition and a widely respected Reserve Bank Governor.

And, importantly, Don has proven that he is more than capable of working across the aisle and delivering non-partisan analysis. In recent years, he has collaborated with former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark on several foreign affairs articles, for example.

Don is deserving of the utmost respect. He is a decent and honest man with sincere beliefs. To be labelled dishonest and corrupt on one of New Zealand's most watched political podcast is utterly wrong.

He has contributed a great deal to New Zealand in his many roles and we are determined to stand with him as he faces down Matthew Hooton’s slander. Are you backing Don?

This is a legal fight we didn’t anticipate having, but it is important. That’s why we are calling for supporters to join us. Don can’t fight this alone. But with our support we can ensure he has the lawyers in his corner.

It used to be accepted knowledge. The man who features on our $50 bills Sir Apirana Ngata, was clear about it in 1922.

Now, however, to say Māori ceded sovereignty is regarded as almost blasphemous by the professional, political, and managerial classes. That is to say, our decision-makers in the public service, media, academia, and in much of the corporate sphere have created a new taboo.

As we have got farther away from the events of 1840 it seems these people are more confident that those reporting on the matter much closer to the time were wholly incorrect. 

I stumbled across a discussion I had with Dr Michael Bassett about the matter of sovereignty back in 2017 and thought I would share his wisdom with you. A noted historian, Dr Bassett was a Cabinet Minister in the fourth Labour Government and a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for ten years.

Q1. Did Māori chiefs cede sovereignty to the British Crown when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi or, as is now contended by some, did they not?

Michael Bassett: There has been some debate over the years about what, exactly, Māori believed they were signing in 1840 as Claudia Orange shows in her big book published in 1987 called "The Treaty of Waitangi".  Historians have chosen to work from a translation of the Māori version of the Treaty believing that to be the only fair basis for assessing the degree of Māori understanding.  Sir Apirana Ngata prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had “cede(d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands”.  By the time I chaired the 1990 Commission and then served for a decade on the Waitangi Tribunal (1994-2004), the standard translation we used throughout our deliberations had been made by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu.  Here is his full translation of the Treaty:

“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.  But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”

Sir Hugh and the Tribunal in my time were in no doubt that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Queen. A few inventive minds have more recently tried to dispute this, but after 170 plus years of acceptance there would seem to me as an historian to be a degree of futility, not to say deliberate trouble-making, in trying after all these years to upset what has been accepted by both Māori and Pakeha for so long.

Q2. Does the Treaty of Waitangi imply some kind of “partnership” between those New Zealanders with a Māori ancestor and the Crown (now represented by Her Majesty’s New Zealand Government), implying a qualitatively different relationship between those who chance to have a Māori ancestor and the rest of us? 

MB: If ever there was a declaration that we are one people and that Māori have the same rights and duties of citizenship, surely it is Sir Hugh’s translation of the Treaty’s third clause?  

It needs to be remembered that right from the beginning there was a problem defining who was a Māori. Intermarriage and co-habitation had started before the Treaty. Governments determined from early times, and this was defined in law, that a Māori was someone who was a half caste or more. That was important in defining whether someone was eligible to enrol on the Māori Roll for electoral purposes, or was obliged to enrol on the General roll. The problem was that fewer and fewer people had sufficient Māori blood to be eligible to enrol on the Māori rolls, and the rolls had a total of many fewer names on them than the rolls for general seats. The turnouts of Māori voters became conspicuously smaller than in general seats. No one checked as to whether anyone possessed sufficient Māori blood to satisfy the legal definition, and it would have been impossible to do so. 

In the Māori Purposes Act 1974, the definition of a Māori was altered. “Māori means a person of the Māori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person”.  This was a controversial decision by the Kirk Labour Government and over the years it has enabled many people who are almost entirely of Pakeha ancestry to claim to be Māori if they wish to.  One suspects that neither the Crown nor the Māori signatories of the Treaty in 1840 would have anticipated or accepted such an extension of the Treaty’s provisions.  But then, as many historians will attest, few treaties last 177 years, and there is only one between some tribes somewhere in Afghanistan, I’m told, that lasted through a war. 

Some efforts have been made to argue that some kind of “partnership" exists between the Crown and Māori, but no one has tried so far as I know to determine whether either of the signatories had in mind a “partnership" between the Crown and someone who is, say, one sixty- fourth Māori, as many New Zealanders are today.

In any event, Sir Hugh’s translation of Article 3 surely rules out any special relationship/privilege for Māori or for their modern descendants over non-Māori.  And since there was no such thing as a properly functioning democracy either in England or in New Zealand in 1840, the question of “political rights” wasn’t an issue at the time. Are some people just trying to re-write the Treaty to suit their current agendas?

Q3. Does the Treaty of Waitangi, Article 3 of which (in every version of the Treaty) guaranteed the “rights and privileges of British subjects” to all New Zealanders, imply that those with a Māori ancestor should have different political rights to those enjoyed by other New Zealanders?

MB: From Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation of the Treaty above, there most certainly was no implication of special rights, “political” or otherwise for Māori.  Their land was protected, but so was the right of Māori to sell that land on agreed terms.  And Māori had the same “rights and duties of citizenship” as non-Māori.

Q4. In a society with many scores of ethnicities, is it conducive to social harmony to accord special political status to those with a Māori ancestor?

MB: The desirability of racial harmony is the biggest issue for [critics of Hobson's Pledge] – indeed for all New Zealanders – to think about.  For me, having lived in the southern states (the ex-slave states) of the US, and having visited and taught South African history over the years, I know of no examples of the concept of nationhood or unity being enhanced in any society by a government allowing one set of privileges denied to others on racial grounds. Apart from which, with Māori rapidly losing their original visual distinction, how can the rest of society work out who is entitled to any special treatment?  Special privileges for some will inevitably encourage the less scrupulous in society to join them. Where does that lead us?  And who benefits from the fraud?

Dr Bassett makes some excellent points. But despite being one of the New Zealanders most qualified to speak on the matter, he is just as likely as any of us to be shouted down and hounded for expressing such moderate and inoffensive views.

The reality is that no matter how politely expressed nor how expert the speaker, holding the view that Māori ceded sovereignty is unacceptable to the media, academia, and public sector.  

This week in Parliament, Te Pāti Māori MP Takuta Ferris gave a speech in which he made some frankly outrageous claims. They were laughable, in fact. I believe there is a term for what he was doing: 'gaslighting' (manipulate someone using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning). He said:

"When you mention "constitution" in this House, everyone runs for cover. This House seems allergic to constitutional discussion or debate—unless, of course, they are defining the terms of engagement themselves with no regard to the history or evidence...

...Well, we're not going anywhere and neither is the debate. And when you're ready to have it with te iwi Māori—an open debate—the invitation is here, and we'll be waiting."   

Mr Ferris, there are plenty of New Zealanders who are willing to have the discussion. Many New Zealanders think the discussion should be had urgently. However, in our experience those who would agree with Te Pāti Māori are the ones 'running for cover' and being 'allergic' to debating the issues.

To have a discussion does not mean that Mr Ferris and Te Pāti Māori tell the rest of us how it is going to be while we remain silent. That is the opposite of a discussion. A discussion requires Mr Ferris and co to actually listen to those they disagree withand then he can expect to be listened to in return. 

There can be no mature discussion about our future as a country until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for the government to have final authority, with all citizens - no matter their ancestry - having equal rights.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

A few weeks ago I wrote to you urging that, if you lived in one of the 45 towns and districts which have created Māori wards, or have decided to create Māori wards as from the next local body elections in 2025, you should write to your local councillors urging them to think again.

Recap: the Helen Clark Labour Government gave local councils the right to establish Māori wards but, because creating racially-based wards was a major constitutional issue, also gave ratepayers the right to demand a referendum if they objected to such wards.

In every district where councils sought to create Māori wards ratepayers demanded a referendum on the issue, and in every district except Wairoa ratepayers made it abundantly clear – with overwhelming majorities – that they did not want racially-based wards.

Then along came another Labour Government but, unlike Helen Clark, Jacinda Ardern wasn't such a fan of accepting clear messages from the public. In 2021, Ardern's Government removed the right of ratepayers to demand a referendum. 

Following this, thirty-two councils promptly created Māori wards in time for the 2022 local body elections, and 13 more councils voted to establish Māori wards as from the 2025 elections.

Thanks to the current Government's coalition agreements, the three governing parties passed legislation this year under which councils which failed to allow referenda before the creation of Māori wards were allowed to rescind those decisions before 6 September 2024 or would be obliged to hold a referendum on the matter at the local body elections next year.

My previous email urged you to write to your local councillors asking them rescind their decision to create a Māori ward (or wards) in order to avoid the cost of a referendum next year given the very high probability based on past experience that, when allowed to vote on the issue, the great majority of ratepayers will reject racially based representation.

A very large number of our supporters used our online tool and many thousands of emails were sent to councillors of the 45 councils affected.

The result? Alas, only two councils – Kaipara and Upper Hutt – voted to reverse their previous decision.

The other councils decided – either from the arrogance of “we know best” or from fear of intimidation (and there were many angry scenes) – to stick with their earlier decision, and to hell with the extra cost. 

I personally witnessed some brave councillors who argued strongly against race-based political representation but sadly they were in a minority.

This is not the end of the matter of course. There will now need to be 45 referenda around the country where ratepayers will be able to tell their councils, from the privacy of the voting booth, what they think of race-based political representation. Hobson’s Pledge will be campaigning next year to ensure that all New Zealanders get voted into office on merit, not on the basis of who their ancestors were.

Of course the same principle applies to Parliament. The logic of having separate Māori electorates has long since gone. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986, almost 40 years ago, argued that Māori electorates should be scrapped if we adopted the MMP electoral system because, they argued, that system would enable many Māori to be elected.  And so it has proved to be: the proportion of Māori MPs in Parliament now well exceeds the proportion of Māori in the population, and 35% of the current Cabinet are Māori.

Three successive National Party leaders have pledged to scrap Māori electorates – Bill English, John Key and I – but nothing has changed (in my own case, I was never in a position to do so). But it is beyond time for this issue to be dealt with, especially when those elected in Māori electorates increasingly seem to reject the basic rules of Parliamentary democracy.

Choosing our political representatives on the basis of merit not on the basis of race will continue to be a major focus for Hobson’s Pledge in the years ahead.

The Government put out a press release this week about the Treaty Principles Bill and it included something we weren't expecting... trust me when I say we are going to need everyone to pitch in if we are to secure a victory now.

The Cabinet has agreed in advance to three principles being added to the Bill as it now heads off to the drafters. It has been clear to all that National are deeply uncomfortable at having to deliver on their coalition promise and it appears they have attempted to neuter the Bill before it is even written. Here are Cabinet's additional principles:

1. Civil Government: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
2. Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.
3. 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.

Number two would entrench the race-based rights that we were hoping that this Bill would do away with!

The Cabinet's position is that it will be perfectly ok for two levels of rights; that it is perfectly acceptable that different groups get different rights. That so long as Parliament legislates race-based discrimination, then that's ok.

This is madness! It is the very opposite of what the Treaty Principles Bill is meant to do.

We must do two things in order to get a workable Treaty Principles Bill over the line:

1. We need to get as many submissions on the Bill as possible. More than we have ever had before.

2. We need those submitters to support the Bill but oppose the inclusion of number two of the Cabinet's principles as currently worded.

Are you with us? Join us in this most crucial of fights.

The media is going to be no help to us whatsoever. They have decided that the Treaty Principles Bill must be defeated and they will publish open letters on the front page to ensure that outcome. Meanwhile, they refuse to print our ads.

We must find ways to communicate with New Zealanders that don't involve the partisan and patronising media. If you're as frustrated as we are, join the fight.

We will need a dedicated website to facilitate submissions and provide information. Then we've got to send New Zealanders to it.

You will have seen us run campaigns on Facebook and Instagram before and that is one tactic we want to use again. But running ads on social media comes at a cost. Fortunately, our ads always have an incredibly low 'cost per click' because people eagerly engage with them and this means we can get good bang for our buck. Click here to chip in to fund social media ads.

We also need to find friends who have websites, large social media platforms, billboards, signage space and similar because experience tells us the mainstream companies will be too afraid. We will hear "we just want to stay out of it" over and over.

Please reply to this email if you can help in this regard.

This is a 'now or never' situation. It isn't the first time Parliament has attempted to define the principles, but one gets the feeling the door will slam shut if this Bill fails too. Will you take this rare opportunity to change the course of our country for the better? Chip in to the Treaty Principles Fund.

The Prime Minister says the Bill will be introduced in November. That leaves us a matter of weeks to build our website and prepare our strategy. But without the involvement of supporters like you, we won't be able to do it. Are you in?

Elliot and I will stand on the side of the road waving a sign if it comes to it, but if we want to succeed we have to go big!

So what do you think? Will you answer the call?

As always, on behalf of Hobson's Pledge, I thank you for your continued support.

I was unimpressed with the front page of the NZ Herald today.

The lead story was basically free advertising for a small group of church leaders opposing the Treaty Principles Bill. Just imagine if we tried to pay for an advertisement to support it! We are still in the naughty corner for our factual Marine and Coastal Area Act ad!

In their open letter, the church leaders misrepresent the proposed Treaty Principles Bill in a brazen attempt to influence their followers with nonsense regarding a matter of democratic importance to all New Zealanders.

They kick things off with a creative re-interpretation of Psalm 15 which actually highlights the very dynamics about the Treaty of Waitangi that we are concerned about – reinterpreting historical texts to suit certain agendas.

Church leaders should hold and speak their views, but their open letter isn't about discourse. It is about shutting down debate, discussion, and dialogue. 

I am worried that they are joining with the elitists to advocate against democratic parliamentary processes. They use the same manipulative language of those who seek to cancel and deplatform. They talk of social cohesion and potential harm from people talking about ideas.

This group appear to have little faith in New Zealanders' ability to think, discuss, and debate issues of importance to them. 

For Christians like myself, there is further reason for alarm because the leaders appear to be elevating the Treaty of Waitangi with sacred covenants between God and humanity in the Old Testament. 

To refer to the relationship between any church and any treaty as being a "sacred covenant" borders on the heretical.

Hobson’s Pledge rejects the many inaccuracies within the church leaders’ statement. We think it is poor of them to make such a public declaration about a Bill they haven't read yet. It is only going to Cabinet today!

The focus on "collective rights" rather than individual rights indicates that these church leaders misunderstand the treaty. A quick look through their organisational websites shows a lot of hard left politics, and that context is totally missing from the front page article.

With all due respect to these church leaders, keep to historical and literal truth.

He iwi tahi tātou / We are now one people.

The taxpayer-funded Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975, primarily to deal with historical wrong doings regarding the loss of confiscated land.

The Tribunal's only power was always to make recommendations to Government on such issues. 

Lately, however, it’s begun to delve into a whole heap of other matters. In fact, its members seem determined to try their luck at expanding their role at any opportunity.

The Waitangi Tribunal thinks, for example, it has the power to compel the Children’s Minister to appear before them and explain her audacity in keeping election promises to put the interests and safety of the child ahead of cultural considerations.

Perhaps most concerning is that the Tribunal thinks it has the power to re-write our constitution, forgetting that power is reserved for the voter, and no-one but the voter.

Since the new Coalition Government was elected with a strong mandate to remove race-based policies and law, the Tribunal has been hearing claims denouncing many of the Government’s election promises as violations of the Treaty.

And now, it has just produced a taxpayer-funded, 200-page report screaming for the Treaty Principles Bill to be axed on the basis that the Bill is trying to re-write the Treaty.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

In any case, the Bill will not alter the Treaty. It will merely define the so-called “principles” which were created but, foolishly, never spelt out in legislation.

It will put to bed the constant reinterpretations of what the Treaty promised. It will confirm that all New Zealanders have the same political rights. And it will give us the chance to have a mature national conversation about it all.

It is not leadership to say we cannot have a debate because the conversation is too difficult or divisive. It is divisive to allow the issue to continue to fester.

This latest attempt to thwart the democratic process begs the question once again, why is the New Zealand taxpayer still funding them?

Rather than axing the Treaty Principles Bill, let’s axe the Waitangi Tribunal instead.

Please sign the petition, if you agree.