Wednesday's Herald with the front page ad for Hobson's Pledge. Photo: supplied
The New Zealand Herald continues to face public backlash following last week's front page advertisement from right-wing lobby group Hobson's Pledge.
The Herald's 7 August newspaper edition featured a wraparound ad that urged readers to sign a petition to return the seabed and foreshore to "public ownership".
After days of being scrutinised by readers and groups such as Kawea Te Rongo, The Māori Journalists Association, Te Pāti Māori and Waatea News, the media company issued a statement which said it will review its policies and processes around advocacy advertising.
It also said the Herald would not publish an additional ad from Hobson's Pledge which was intended to be in Wednesday's newspaper.
Despite this decision, a nationwide debate continues in Aotearoa with opposition parties slamming the Herald's decision to publish the ad in the first instance.
Labour Party media spokesperson and former Minister of Broadcasting and Media, Willie Jackson, said while it was a good decision by NZME - which owns the Herald - to review its policies, this was not enough and it should issue an apology.
It was a "disgraceful" decision by the Herald, Jackson said,
"I don't accept and Māori do not accept this type of decision that is trampling on Māori people and the mana of the Māori nation."
He said the Herald took money from Hobson's Pledge without considering where the money was coming from.
"I suppose the question is what's next? Are they going to take money from the Ku Kulx Klan, from the White Supremacist movement?"
Jackson said the coalition government was enabling racist rhetoric, and said while he understood it did not have to step in when it came to business decisions, it should be making some public statements addressing the issues.
It was not about freedom of speech, he said.
"This is about taking money from people who are actively poisoning the country with their negative and hateful rhetoric about Māori."
Willie Jackson is calling for an apology from the NZ Herald. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Jackson said Hobson's Pledge was "piggybacking" on the back of a government that was "attacking Māori".
"Whether it's in te reo, whether it's in Māori health, whether it's in Māori education, whether it's the Treaty, it's just a constant attack on Māori initiatives.
"We haven't had a government like this in many, many years. I can't recall the last government that went just going down this track. In fact, in my lifetime."
Minister Paul Goldsmith said businesses were entitled to run advertisements that abide by industry standards, and people were entitled to criticise them.
Meanwhile, Te Pāti Māori said NZME publishing a front page advertisement from Hobson's Pledge had escalated anti-Māori sentiment.
Te Tai Tonga MP Takuta Ferris said it should not have taken such an outcry to trigger action considering the impact media can have on the public.
"Its a pity it took an incident to trigger a review or to trigger the idea that maybe they do have some sort of moral responsibility to maintain a very neutral and factual ground. For the media this year it should just be their starting point, but this year in particular"
Ferris said Te Pāti Māori had approached NZME expressing its disappointment.
Barrister for Wellington firm Thordon Chambers, Max Harris, is one of 175 members of the legal community who have penned an open letter calling out what they say is a "misleading" advertisement.
"It was inaccurate, it spoke of the need to restore public ownership of the foreshore and seabed when the law very clearly says that the foreshore and seabed cannot be owned and is not capable of being owned by Crown or others. It also mischaracterized a recent court decision and suggested that this was a threat when it isn't.
"It's trying to create a divide between Māori and non-Māori when we're moving forward as a country and beyond that kind of racist talk."
Harris was glad the Herald was reviewing its advertising policy and hoped that it went further to acknowledge what it did was wrong.
"Everyone is entitled to express themselves, to express political positions, but it's important, especially in outlets with a very big audience and a very big reach, that any expression does not mislead or deceive or actively divide our community.
"I'm not advocating here for any kind of censorship, I'm just saying that when a big outlet like the Herald receives an approach to publish something like this, it should reflect on whether this is going to contribute to healthy discussion, whether there is inaccuracy and to make responsible decisions."
Hobson's Pledge spokesperson Don Brash criticised NZME's decision to not publish its next ad.
He said despite that, it would find other ways to spread the message.
"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."
The Free Speech union also issued a statement which said: "NZME is a publicly-listed private company. They ultimately have the right to reject this advertising. But they deserve strong criticism for this decision, and it's not surprising that shareholders raise questions as to why good money is being rejected on ideological grounds".
