Jose Aquino against Stuff

Stuff published a story on November 17, 2024, headlined David Seymour has been here ‘many times before’ as ACT pursues Treaty Principles Bill.

It reported ACT leader David Seymour saying he had been politically isolated before. The story referred to the Bill as “a contentious piece of legislation which seeks to reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi and legislation which upholds Māori rights.”

Jose Aquino took issue with this saying the Bill did not “reinterpret” the treaty or legislation upholding Māori rights. 

“The ones reinterpreting the Treaty are the activist Judges and politicians who came up with "Treaty principles' out of thin air, without any mandate. The bill seeks a public vote on what treaty principles should be. As for "Māori rights', Maoris have the same rights as everyone else, no more, no less. Which is something provided for in the Treaty,” said Mr Aquino.

Stuff quoted the Bill to justify using the word “reinterpret”.  It also cited a press release from Mr Seymour saying: “It will be used to assist with the interpretation of legislation where treaty principles would normally be considered relevant in addition to legislation that refers to treaty principles directly.” 

Stuff said discussion around the Bill was reflected in the story, as were the multiple ways the Treaty had been interpreted and reinterpreted. This was why this legislation was contentious.

The Media Council notes the purpose of the Bill is to provide what Mr Seymour described as a definition of the principles of the Treaty and to provide a new interpretation of those principles. 

The Council does not believe it was wrong or inaccurate to say the legislation aimed to reinterpret the Treaty. As Mr Seymour’s Bill seeks to push back against what he considers to be the prevailing interpretation, it was not wrong to use the word “reinterpret”. 

While Mr Aquino is free to express his views on the Treaty’s interpretation, political arguments are not matters the Council has any mandate to rule on. It’s the Media Council’s job to consider complaints relating to journalistic ethics, and it does not believe a case has been made to show how the Stuff article breached either Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance or (4) Comment and Fact. 

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.