Conrad Petersen against The Post
Case Number: 3711
Council Meeting: 3 February 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: The Post
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories: Headlines and Captions
Overview
1. On 16 December 2024, the Post published an article Two polls, differing views on Treaty Principles Bill backing. Mr Conrad Petersen complained the article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
2. The article reported on the differing outcomes of two polls taken on the Treaty Principles Bill. In the print version (which stimulated Mr Petersen’s complaint), the article had a sidebar headed “What are the Treaty Principles?” followed by a subheading “The Government’s current 1989 Treaty principles are”. This was followed by a bulleted list of five principles, then the bulleted list continued with “ACT’s bill would change this to three principles” (presumably this should have been a subheading) followed by the three principles from the bill.
3. The online version had the same information but as a section within the article under the subheading “What are the Treaty principles?”.
The Complaint
4. Mr Petersen complained that the nine Treaty principles set out in the article were “incorrect and misleading because no New Zealand Government has enshrined any Treaty of Waitangi principles in legislation or regulation”. He said The Post appeared to be spreading misinformation about the Treaty Principles Bill ahead of the Select Committee process.
The Response
5. The Post said the article was a “straight piece of reporting that refers to the results of a poll, basic facts about the Treaty Principles Bill including that a referendum would be held, and the proposed principles.” It said the five principles referred to in the article were taken directly from an official Government website, but did not say which website. It said:
“Mr Peterson (sic) appears to suggest that the story implies the 1989 principles are legislated. This isn’t the case and nowhere in the story does this say this is the case – the very story is about the fact no principles are codified in law.”
6. The Post said the principles in the sidebar gave “context to how the Government and courts have previously upheld Treaty matters and the
difference in the proposed principles to the current ones.”
The Discussion
7. Principle (1) requires publications to be “bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance…” Mr Petersen’s complaint is essentially that the subheading of the sidebar in the article (The Government’s current 1989 Treaty principles) misled readers by suggesting there were official principles endorsed in some form by the government.
8. It is common ground between the parties that no Treaty principles are codified in law. However, the Courts, Parliament, and the Waitangi Tribunal have, over time, expressed varying statements of principles of the Treaty when applying the Treaty to current issues.
9. In 1989, the then Labour Government adopted at set of five principles it said would guide its actions on matters relating to the Treaty. These are the five principles The Post set out in its sidebar and referenced in the subheading.
10. By using the words “the Government’s current 1989 Treaty principles”, a reader could reasonably believe these were the official principles that would be replaced by those in the bill. While it is correct to say that the 1989 principles would be replaced by those in the bill, the 1989 principles are not the only statement of principles that would be replaced. The principles in the bill would also replace the principles set out in Court judgments, in Waitangi Tribunal decisions, and referenced in legislation.
11. At a time of intense focus on the issues raised by the Treaty Principles Bill, it is vitally important that media articles on the bill are accurate and as clear as possible. The Post’s article in general provided useful background for readers on the issues, explaining that the bill is intended to
“codify new principles in law that replace the current understanding of the Government and courts of Treaty principles which has developed over decades of effort to translate the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi into the modern setting.”
12. The above statement is a helpful summary of the intention of the bill. However, the sub-heading in the sidebar lost the nuance contained
in the article by appearing to limit the to-be-replaced principles to only one set.
Mr Petersen’s complaint was under Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance. However, the Council believes the subheading for the sidebar does not meet the standard required for Principle (6) Headlines, Subheadings and Captions of accurately and fairly conveying the substance or a key element of the information following the subheading. Although Mr Petersen did not cite Principle (6) in his complaint, his complaint was essentially about the description of the five principles (noting the format of the bulleted list meant Mr Petersen refers to nine principles).
13. The complaint is upheld on Principle (6).