Ele Ludemann: Free speech loss

Stuff refused to publish this advertisement from Hobson’s Pledge:


This is not the only road block Hobson’s Pledge is facing in its campaign for the Treaty Principles Bill.

HP trustee Don Brash wrote in an email:

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.

That is a version of the thugs’ veto where fear of negative repercussions stops landlords and companies from allowing the billboards on their properties.

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. . . .

They provided an explanation for the message they wanted to promote:

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. . .

They got this response:


Click to view

Stuff is a private company and has the right to choose what it does and does not publish.

But refusing to accept any advertisements from lobby groups on this issue is a loss to free speech.

Saying their ban applies to all lobby groups looks like balance but it won’t stop questions about whether they are covering the Bill with independent journalism robustly and reflecting a diverse range of perspectives on the topic.

The email asks who sits in the shadows behind Stuff and continues:

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. . .

Stuff is a private company and has the right to choose what it does and does not publish.

But refusing to accept any advertisements from lobby groups on this issue is a loss to free speech.

Saying their ban applies to all lobby groups looks like balance but it won’t stop questions about whether they really are covering the Bill with independent journalism robustly and reflecting a diverse range of perspectives on the topic.

The Bill won’t proceed past its first reading but that is no reason to shut down discussion on it.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.