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!