ROBIN GRIEVE AGAINST THE NZ HERALD

The NZ Herald published an article on February 28, 2024, headlined Te ao Māori demise: Dark Week in New Zealand politics - Willie Jackson. The story reported comments from three Maori figures on the disestablishment of the Maori Health Authority, and the repeal of Smokefree legislation on top of the Government kickback on public servants learning and speaking te reo, the reversion to English names for Government agencies and Act’s push for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi.

It reported the views of Poutaki Matauranga Maori adviser at Waipapa Taumata (Auckland University) Bernie O’Donnell, Labour MP Wilie Jackson and Tukoroirangi Morgan, a former MP who now chairs Tainui.

Robin Grieve complained that the article breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. “For any statement that claims Māori agree with Jackson’s comment to be accurate, it must apply to all Māori people, and it most certainly does not. The reporter refers to Māori as if it is some sort of homogenous entity. There is however no such thing as Māori, there are just Māori people. There are 891600 Māori people living in New Zealand according to Stats NZ and each of them is an individual.... Racially stereotyping people as the reporter does with his statement is akin to racial profiling and is a step to racism and is just wrong to do. Portraying the views of Māori people based on the reporters stereotyping and racial profiling is demeaning and offensive to Māori people who deserve to be respected for the unique individual they are as well as being inaccurate.”

Mr Grieve also said the purpose of the article was to show Māori people were opposed to what the Government was doing. This was not true and the four Government policies contributing to the “darkest week for te ao Māori” were all being implemented by Māori Ministers.

The NZ Herald said the article canvassed several recent political decisions and three prominent Māori commentators’ opinions on what these Government policies mean for the Māori community.

It was standard practice for its reporting of political matters to seek reaction to Government policy and assessments of what impact these decisions would mean for the public. It was a news article and the opinions contained in it were clearly attributed to the people making them.  This included Mr Jackson’s belief that the previous week’s announcements by the Government represented a “dark week” in New Zealand politics. This viewpoint was highlighted in the headline which had to be read in context with the article it summarised.

The Herald said it could not agree with Mr Grieve’s statement that “There is no such thing as Māori” and cited Media Council ruling 3508 which stated the use of  the term Māori to refer to Māori people in general was commonly found in Parliament, political discourse and the courts.  That decision also dismissed Mr Grieve’s claims of racism, stating they were made “without evidence” as was also the case with this complaint.

The Media Council notes that its previous ruling also made the point “that ascribing certain views to Māori and Indigenous Australian in this episode of Mata does not mean every Māori would be in favour of a particular point of view, in the same way that not every supporter of a political party would support every policy promoted by their party.”

This NZ Herald story reported the opinion by three prominent Maori figures who believe the policies were detrimental to their community. They are free to express that view even if other Maori disagree.  It is analogous to a union leader claiming workers oppose a policy or for a church leader saying something is anti-Christian. No doubt there will be workers or church goers who disagree but that does not mean the leaders are not fairly representing their communities.  It was clear that the story did not indicate that all Māori hold the views expressed, any more than saying that the French hate cricket means that every French person holds that view. Further, it was clear from the article that not all Māori agreed, as it referred to the two National Maori Cabinet ministers Shane Reti and Tama Potaka who supported the Bill other Maori were criticising.

Decision: There are no grounds to proceed.