Complaints about a Hobson’s Pledge advertisement published in the New Zealand Herald have been partly upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The lobby group’s two-page advert, published on August 7 on the front page and second page of the newspaper, called to restore “the foreshore and seabed to public ownership”. It included a map of New Zealand, an image of a beachball on sand next to a sign saying “beach closed”, and commentary on customary marine titles.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received more than 672 complaints about the ad and a decision released today partly upheld some of those complaints.
The ASA complaints board said the identity and position of the advertiser, Hobson’s Pledge, was clear. A majority of the board’s members said the advocacy advertisement did not reach the threshold to breach the “Decency and Offensiveness” or the “Fear and Distress” rules.
However, the board said: “Some claims in the advertisement were materially misleading as to the effect of customary marine title and therefore the advertising was not socially responsible.”
NZME chief executive Michael Boggs said the company welcomed the ASA’s decision.
“We received feedback from our own team, our subscribers and clients and we’ve taken that feedback seriously. Our Advertising Acceptability Policy includes a requirement that factual information is able to be substantiated by the advertiser and today’s ASA decision confirms the advertiser did not meet this requirement,” Boggs said.
“We’ve undertaken a thorough review of our Advocacy Advertising Policy and processes, including a focus on how we can ensure claims made in advocacy ads are substantiated by the advertiser. Our revised policy will be finalised in the coming weeks.”
The ASA grouped together six different issues when considering the complaints and made the following decisions:
1) A majority of the ASA’s board said the ad’s statement “Restore the foreshore and seabed to public ownership - Sign the petition” did not reach the threshold to be misleading.
“The majority of the board acknowledged the wording was provocative to many of the complainants, but in the context of advocacy advertising and freedom of expression, the reference to ownership in the advertisement did not reach the threshold to breach the [ASA’s] Code,” the decision said.
2) The ASA said the use of the map on the advert was not misleading and accepted “the factual claim that almost the entire coastline is under application for customary marine title”.
3) On the “implied factual claim” that customary marine title was being used by iwi to prevent other New Zealanders from accessing beaches, the ASA found the ad was misleading. There was not sufficient evidence to support the claim and it had “not been adequately substantiated”, the board said.
4) The ad’s claim that “a simple declaration that an area is sacred (wāhi tapu) or imposing a rāhui means no access for the public” was misleading.
“The complaints board said rāhui are only temporary exclusion zones, in response to something that has occurred, such as a death in an area. They are not legally enforceable against members of the public and not always respected. This claim was therefore misleading. The complaints board said when the advertisement was considered as whole it implied that the public’s right to access the beaches was not real because it was being easily circumvented by iwi with customary marine title declaring wāhi tapu and by imposing rāhui. This had not been substantiated and was misleading,” the decision said.
5) The ASA decided the “implied claim” customary marine title could enable iwi to exclude the public from almost the entire coastline was misleading.
“The statements are materially misleading as to the effect of customary marine title...while the board acknowledged this is a topic of political and public interest, it is important that advocacy advertising about these issues proceeds from a factually accurate basis,” it said.
6) The ASA said the fact the ad made no reference to riparian rights/blue water rights was not misleading.
Because complaints in the ad were upheld in part, the ASA said it was not to be published again.
The first page of the ad (which did not contain any of the information which the ASA found was misleading) was also published in other NZME newspapers, including Hawke’s Bay Today, Horowhenua Chronicle, and the Bush Telegraph. Complaints involving those publications were not upheld.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said the ad’s “divisive and racist rhetoric” had no place in Aotearoa.
“Hobson’s Pledge is playing on misinformation to sow fear and division. This campaign feeds into the age-old tactic of pitting Pākehā against Māori in an attempt to undermine Māori rights that are legally recognised, culturally significant, and protected under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said: “NZME must now apologise to all tangata whenua across its platforms. It must apologise to all staff, their standards must be reviewed and there must be a commitment to the protection of tangata whenua.”
Hobson’s Pledge, whose trustees include Don Brash, said it was “pleased to see that the majority of complaints about the advertisement we placed on the front cover of the New Zealand Herald were not upheld”.
It said “the one small part that was upheld appears to tie itself in knots in its attempt to make something misleading out of the advertisement”.
“Hobson’s Pledge is considering whether to appeal the decision regarding that section. The Complaints Board needs to understand that their trust that the law and the Government will protect the public’s access, doesn’t mean much when we know from experience (Ihumātao) what happens in practice when claimants sense that the Government is not willing to stand up to them. Their trust that claimants won’t use their entitlements doesn’t make our concerns false.”
