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.