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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rotorua Lakes Council's Co-Governance Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Te Arawa 2050 Vision Committee: A Structural Power Shift

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

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

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

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

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

University Pushing Racial Segregation in Higher Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Janet Dickson's Judicial Review was not successful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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