A racist pamphlet describing Māori as "stone age" and "half caste" has resurfaced in Auckland, despite the Advertising Standards Authority ordering it to be removed from circulation in 2019. 

The Authority's complaints board has this month upheld complaints from the public that the content of the pamphlets, which landed in Auckland letterboxes for a second time last year, was offensive and misleading. 

In 2019 the Authority partly upheld similar complaint that the 1Law4All pamphlet was derogatory toward Māori and that it must be removed from circulation. 

The organisation's 34-page booklet delivered to letterboxes in Auckland inferred the country was being "conned" by the Treaty industry, and asked readers to consider the "list of 24 common myths of the Treaty industry". 

It suggested a "growing number of New Zealanders are upset with this wealth and power grab by the newly created tribal elite". 

Complainants in the recent redistribution of the pamphlet were offended by the content they considered contained statements designed to enforce harmful stereotypes and which were of a racist nature. 

One said the pamphlet made claims of ritual human sacrifice and described Māori as "stone age" people while inferring colonisation was "good for Māori" while reinforcing the white supremacist idea that "Western ways of life are better". 

Another complained that the material was delivered unsolicited, despite an earlier decision by the authority that the advertising was to have been removed from circulation. 

A third complainant described it as "deeply offensive and dismissive of the immense harm caused by colonisation", while a fourth said the author's "hateful recommendations are definitely not welcome in my mailbox". 

The authority's chief executive Hilary Souter told Open Justice that the lack of media platform in this instance made it harder to enforce the ruling to have it removed from circulation. 

Advertising Standards Authority Chief Executive, Hilary Souter. Photo / Advertising Standards Authority 

Normally, a media organisation would comply with a request not to run an advertisement found to have breached advertising standards. 

"In this particular instance we have an advertiser – an organisation, and a letterbox dispersion using volunteers. 

"Our request in this instance goes to the advertiser only – there's no media platform to assist us with enforcement. If the advertiser chooses not to comply then we don't have a pathway to enforce the decision." 

The ASA is an industry organisation without statutory powers. Souter said those who failed to comply were small in number. She said mainstream media outlets and newsletter distribution companies supported the system but now and again, some did not. 

"There have been three or four instances over the last two years we've had a challenge with enforcement and 1Law4All is an example of that." 

Souter said so far, the board had not received confirmation from the advertiser that they would not comply with the decision, and not distribute the material. 

The organisation has so far failed to respond to questions from Open Justice. 

The complaints board agreed that although the booklet was 34 pages long it was still an advertisement and the Advertising Standards Code applied. 

Issues raised by the complaint included social responsibility, offensiveness, truthful presentation and advocacy advertising which must clearly state the identity and position of the advertiser. Opinion in support of the advertiser's position must be clearly distinguishable from factual information, which must be able to be substantiated. 

The complaints board said in its decision that content in the booklet was offensive and misleading. It said it had applied a more liberal interpretation of the (standards) code when assessing it as advocacy advertising, but that did not save the advertisement it considered called for changes to New Zealand legislation, and was not to be distributed. 

The advertiser told the Authority after receiving the complaints that any errors would be amended, if "satisfactory evidence" was provided the material was incorrect, and that they did not intend to enter into any further correspondence. 

The advertiser did not respond to the remaining complaints forwarded by the board. 

Hilary Souter said 98 per cent of decisions upheld were helped by publication of the decision and the removal of an advertisement. She said aspects of what 1Law4All promoted, including that it was asking for donations, potentially opened it to other forms of complaint. 

A search of the Companies Office site did not show that the organisation was registered as a charity. 

Statutory jurisdictions such as the Human Rights Commission or the Chief Censor under the Films, Videos and Publications Act could be avenues, but whether the organisation's material met the threshold of breaching their legislation were questions best left to them, Souter said. 

Open Justice has invited a response from Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon. 

- by Tracy Neal, Open Justice