In brief:

• A letter from 42 KCs argues the Treaty Principles Bill should be abandoned.

• Only 38 of 141 active KCs signed the letter, meaning almost three-quarters did not.

• Yet, state media coverage amplifies the minority’s views, creating an impression of broad consensus.

The majority of KCs have not weighed in on the letter

Much has been made of a group of 42 senior lawyers, all King’s Counsel (KCs), who have called on the government to abandon the proposed Treaty Principles Bill, but is that the whole story?

In their letter, the KCs argue the Bill would unilaterally redefine te Tiriti o Waitangi without Māori agreement, undermining principles like “partnership” and limiting Māori rights.

The state media’s portrayal of the Bill reflects a bias in prioritising the opinions of this group of KCs as authoritative voices on a deeply political matter.

However, out of 141 practising KCs, only 38 added their names, while four retired KCs also supported the letter. In fact, this is very much a minority position within the wider legal elite. 103 active KCs are silent on the matter, which amounts to 73% of active KCs in New Zealand having not signed the open letter. This is alongside an estimated 63 currently retired KCs who also refrained from signing.

In total, at least 166 active and retired KCs are estimated not to have signed the letter.

Amplification of minority views

This is not mentioned in any media coverage we have come across. This omission gives the impression there is a broad consensus amongst KCs, both active and retired, that they do not support the Bill.

We do not know why the majority have not signed the letter, and the media has not sought to find out. By presenting the letter as authoritative, the media is amplifying the views of a vocal minority, creating a false narrative.

Further evidence of state media bias

Additionally, state media’s framing of the KCs’ opposition as “grave concerns from New Zealand’s most senior legal minds” lends undue gravitas to their critique while sidelining the Bill’s proponents. Opposition narratives are highlighted, priming readers to view the Bill as inherently reckless or radical. But aren’t these KCs really just expressing a political opinion from a group who have one vote each, like the rest of us?

There is little discussion of how these interpretations could be contested or reformed through democratic processes. David Seymour’s arguments about democratising Treaty discussions, for instance, are only briefly mentioned in RNZ’s coverage.

Coverage frames the KCs’ claim that the Bill’s introduction is “wholly inappropriate as a way of addressing such an important and complex constitutional issue,” further creating the impression that legal and judicial interpretations of the Treaty are sacrosanct and beyond public debate.

On this point, Wellington barrister John Maassen argues that Parliament is sovereign and the KCs have “sought to prevent access to the select committee for all New Zealanders on a topic that the coalition agreement determines is appropriate. The commitments in the coalition agreement were, of course, hard-won fairly through the democratic process.”