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.

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

Hipkins stated:

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

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

FACT CHECK 👇

Article One of the Treaty states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Labour Prime Minister David Lange observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We thought that that was outrageous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> SEND THEM A MESSAGE <<<

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

🔲 Disestablish now, with effect from 2025

🔲 Referendum in 2025, with effect from 2028

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

These councils can choose between:

🔲 Rescind their vote to create Māori ward(s)

🔲 Referendum in 2025, with effect from 2028

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

What can we do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hobson's Pledge is backing the Treaty Principles Bill. 

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

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

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

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

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

Quite extraordinary demands.

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

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

Sanity prevails for once!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For seven years the law of New Zealand stated:

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

13(1)Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NZ Herald reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011:

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

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

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

Hard legal test? Pull the other one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________

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

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

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

Well, that was short-lived!

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

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

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

The Herald told us:

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

Contested facts, political opinion, and differing perspectives.

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

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

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

Tell the Herald what you think!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE ARE SORRY 😔

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you catch this Herald article over the weekend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAVE OUR SHORES - MARINE AND COASTAL AREA ACT

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

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

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

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

Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says:

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

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

These measures include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

JANET DICKSON V REAL ESTATE AUTHORITY UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

We are calling it: SAVE OUR SHORES

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

>>> SIGN THE PETITION <<<

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a lie.

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

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

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

To put it more directly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recap on the case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Tamihere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He Iwi Tahi Tātou (We are now one people) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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