In brief:

• Māori activist voices are important, but The Conversation, like many media publications, lack balance with opposing or neutral views.

• Experts quoted by The Conversation may have vested interests or other biases in maintaining Treaty-based rights, raising impartiality concerns.

• More balanced coverage presenting multiple perspectives is needed to promote an informed public debate.

Impartiality in reporting 

In recent debates over David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, many media outlets, including The Conversation, have quoted experts and commentators who seem to approach the issue from a single perspective. 

Of course, it’s crucial to hear from Māori voices on Treaty matters. Yet, balance is equally important, especially in discussions about the Treaty principles, which shape the future of all New Zealanders. 

Yet, much of the media coverage on the Treaty Principles Bill relies heavily on the opinions of Māori scholars, political leaders, and advocates, many of whom stand to benefit from the continuation or expansion of Treaty-based rights. 

For instance, The Conversation’s recent article by Jane Kelsey, an Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, examines the history of the Treaty principles, but the article’s framing appears one-sided. 

The small print discloses Kelsey, as an expert (pūkenga) for Ngā Toki Whakarururanga, a Māori claimant group, is involved in the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry. She is advocating or providing evidence on Treaty principles, and has a stake in how these principles are applied. 

While she brings knowledge and expertise to the table, it’s important to recognise she is an advocate and should not be seen as impartial in her analysis and advocacy. Admittedly, nearly everyone in NZ has a stake in the outcome, so this issue is not easily avoided, but it is nonetheless still relevant.

Lack of diverse perspectives

In our view, it’s striking how rarely alternative viewpoints are included in discussions of the Treaty principles. 

In another example from The Conversation, Charles Sturt University professor of political science Professor Dominic O’Sullivan discloses no special interests, but his argument is that each act of parliament should be interpreted to prioritise Māori sovereignty, in a sense, setting up a dual system of governance.

We cannot find any recent examples of The Conversation giving a platform to perspectives questioning the practicality, fairness, or broader social implications of ideas emphasising rangatiratanga and Māori rights. 

Yet, the perspective that The Conversation pushes may not resonate with all segments of New Zealand society, particularly those concerned about equal treatment for all citizens under one legal framework.

Wouldn’t a more balanced discussion, featuring voices from those who challenge the principles or have neutral stances, provide the public with a fuller understanding of the issue?

Multiple viewpoints are needed to get around media bias

However, perhaps The Conversation show their bias on their ‘Who We Are’ page where they state: 

“We pay our respects to the Traditional Owners of lands where our contributors and editors work, including acknowledging Māori as tangata whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia.”

Media bias on the Treaty principles skews the debate, preventing people from hearing the full spectrum of arguments and making informed decisions. Voters need to actively seek out and consider multiple viewpoints.