GEOFF PARKER AGAINST THE NZ HERALD & NORTHERN ADVOCATE
Case Number: 3563
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication:
New Zealand Herald
Northern Advocate
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Politics
Disinformation, Misinformation
- The NZ Herald published an article on the 16th September 2024, headlined Blowing the dust off NZ’s “founding documents” reveals the hold they still have on today's Treaty debate - Paul Moon.
- It was also published in the Northern Advocate. It had previously appeared in The Conversation which is not a NZ Media Council member.
- The article by Auckland University of Technology Professor of History, Paul Moon was an opinion piece in which he wrote about the power of historical documents to “sculpt opinions and provoke actions.” He referred to two documents which offered insight into how we might understand the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and how that relates to ACT’s planned Treaty Principles Bill.
- The first document was Lord Normanby’s instructions to Captain (later Governor) William Hobson to recognise New Zealand as a “sovereign and independent state.”
- Geoff Parker complained this phrase quoted only part of Lord Normanby’s instructions which stated: “...a sovereign and independent state, so far at least as it is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even deliberate in concert.”
- Mr Parker said that giving only part of the quote left the public with a misconception and displayed bias by the media. He complained this was a breach of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
- In response Professor Moon said Lord Normanby’s instructions acknowledged Māori sovereignty which was a necessary for a treaty to be signed with Māori. His instructions acknowledged the form of sovereignty that Māori exercised differed from most European models which meant there was a need for individual chiefs to sign the proposed treaty rather than one single chief.
- This qualification diminished neither the sovereign capacity of Māori to conclude a treaty, nor the fact that British regarded Māori as sovereign and independent.
- “The complainant does not provide an alternative reading of this segment of the instruction, and neither is it clear how adding the following part of the text in any way alters Britain’s recognition of Māori sovereignty in 1839.”
- Professor Moon listed other British Government documents from 1839 that supported this recognition of Māori sovereignty.
- The NZ Media Council understands there has been a long history of debate surrounding the Treaty and now, more particularly, political argument over the concept of Treaty principles.
- However, on the narrow point raised in Mr Parker’s complaint, the NZ Media Council does not believe a case has been made to show how an article quoting a key phrase from British Colonial Office instructions, which foreshadowed the drafting and signing of the Treaty, was misleading or evidence of bias.
- Professor Moon is a highly regarded historian, and his careful use of a partial quote was fair. It was a key phrase which stood alone for the point he wanted to make.
- It is common practice for writers to lift key words or a phrase from other documents or speeches. There is nothing wrong with that provided they are not used misleadingly or taken them out of context to alter their true meaning. There was no evidence of this happening in this article or that it breached any NZ Media Council Principles.
- There were no grounds to proceed.