The debate about the Treaty Principles Bill is one of the most important public conversations of our lifetimes.
Hobson’s Pledge has done our best to facilitate debate and put forward the perspective that all New Zealanders should have equal rights.
We planned a campaign with billboards, print ads, and a social media advertising. Alas, we have only been able to book ONE billboard as landlords and companies said that while they support our message they are terrified of the backlash from activists. Vandalism, harassment, and attempts to ruin reputations would be expected.
We want to know who is pulling the strings behind the big media and advertising companies. Who is deciding that a bill before our parliament is too contentious for New Zealanders to discuss?
After all the drama with NZME over our front page ad on the Marine and Coastal Areas Amendment Bill, we took our print ads to the Stuff group of newspapers.
We attempted to book the Sunday Star Times, the Post, the Christchurch Press, and the Southland Times. It would have been a tidy sum of money for the financially beleaguered media outlet...
Our ad was very simple. Just words on a page communicating what is at the heart of the debate – equal rights. Vote for the bill for equal rights. Say no to the bill, say no to equal rights. Take a look at the offending ad:
We provided an explanation and evidential sources to Stuff to back up our (very straightforward) claim and to speed up the process of approval. We told them:
The purpose of these ads is to advocate for support for the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and to encourage New Zealanders to make a submission on it. This is a Bill currently before the Justice Select Committee.
It has been commonplace for advocacy groups and charities to engage in public debates about legislation that is being considered by Parliament on contentious topics such as abortion rights, euthanasia, legalisation of cannabis, and same-sex marriage. Placing ads in newspapers has been a staple part of this campaigning.
It is clear that the matter of ‘equal rights’ is central to the debate on the Treaty Principles Bill with both sides addressing their side of the argument repeatedly. Seymour and the ACT Party contend that all New Zealanders should be equal under the law with the same human rights. Te Pāti Māori take the position that Māori do, and should, have special or additional rights.
Therefore it can fairly be concluded that to oppose the Bill is to oppose the concept of equal rights for all New Zealanders.
References:
David Seymour, the minister in charge of the Treaty Principles Bill has frequently stated that its intent is to ensure equal rights for all New Zealanders. For example: HISTORIC: David Seymour lays down the Treaty Principles Bill in Parliament
In the proposed legislation, the Summary of Key Features states:
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.
In interviews, Te Pāti Māori, the main opponents of the bill who organised the hīkoi to parliament, have stated that Māori have more rights or special rights under the Treaty. For example: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why she’s so strongly against Treaty Principles Bill | Q+A 2024
In polling (Curia Market Research, December 2024), respondents were asked if they agreed with the statement:
I want New Zealand to honour the Treaty of Waitangi, but only if it can do so in a way that doesn’t undermine fundamental human rights such as equality of suffrage where all votes have roughly equal power.
Sixty-two per cent agreed, 12 per cent disagreed, 11 per cent were neutral, and 15 per cent were unsure.
However, after a legal and editorial review we received this response:
Why is Stuff refusing advertisements on THIS issue? And only from “lobby groups”?
This also raises the persistent, but never answered, questions about who it is that sits in the shadows behind the Stuff empire.
Remember that Sinead Boucher purchased the company for just one dollar despite other (allegedly large) sums being offered. Of course, the symbolic dollar says nothing of the immense amount of existing debt owed to a parent company that someone had to have taken on.
There have been many rumours about who might be the true ‘owner’ of the company, but the most often repeated one is that a large iwi took on the debt and is the real power behind the scenes. I must emphasise that this is a rumour and not substantiated, but it is certainly intriguing. Such rumours can run only because of secrecy.
To whom is Sinead Boucher beholden? Who is calling the shots at Stuff?
Who has an interest in discussions on the Treaty Principles Bill being shut down? Who wants to control the narrative?
If Stuff's commercial managers are being told to reject advertising money because editors have determined the topic is out of bounds, what confidence can New Zealanders have in Stuff’s editorial balance and independence?
In most Western countries, though unfortunately not our own, media ownership laws would prevent the kind of underhanded and beyond-murky ownership set up Stuff has. Transparency expectations are much higher and people are able to access information on who owns media companies and who carries debt.
New Zealanders should not have discussions about the Treaty and its so-called principles squashed, but we also should be able to see who is doing the squashing.
On the matter of our campaign: we will be focusing our energy online as we can use social media advertisements to spread the word. It is really disappointing not to have billboards up and down the country and advertisements in the newspaper as we have done in the past. But we adapt!
This article was originally published by Hobson’s Pledge.
