The submission, which supports a complaint by prominent legal expert Gary Judd KC, contends that the requirement unduly infringes on the personal rights and freedoms of law students, while also questioning the relevance of tikanga to modern legal practice. Newman argues that forcing law students to study tikanga as a core subject represents an overreach of regulatory power and calls for the Regulation to be disallowed by Parliament.
The core of Newman’s submission focuses on how the inclusion of tikanga burdens students’ freedom of thought, conscience, and belief, as protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Drawing on “captive audience” jurisprudence, a body of case law that protects unwilling listeners from being subjected to unwanted speech, Newman claims that students are being forced into a position where they cannot avoid being exposed to ideas that may conflict with their deeply held personal or religious beliefs.
“It is a violation of a person’s rights to be made to hear a message or give an audience to ideas against their will,” Newman asserts.
He also questions the practical relevance of tikanga to legal practice, stating that it is more of a cultural or quasi-religious value system than a legal framework applicable to most areas of New Zealand law. In his view, compulsory teaching of tikanga is disproportionate to its actual necessity in legal practice. Citing examples of core statutes and legal rules that do not reference tikanga, Newman argues that the regulation is excessive.
While acknowledging that tikanga is relevant in specific legal contexts, such as Treaty-related matters or Māori customary law cases, Newman suggests that these topics should be offered as elective courses rather than mandatory components of legal education.
Newman also raises concerns that the push to make tikanga compulsory is part of a broader political agenda to advance the role of tikanga within New Zealand’s legal framework.
He refers to the recent Supreme Court decision in Ellis v R, where tikanga was declared as New Zealand’s “first law,” and argues that this declaration lacks the necessary legal or statutory grounding. Newman argues that Parliament has not defined tikanga as law and that such a radical shift in legal education should be subject to parliamentary debate rather than imposed by regulatory bodies.
Opposition to the compulsory inclusion of tikanga is not limited to personal rights.
Newman’s submission highlights concerns about academic freedom, asserting that the academic environment could become hostile to dissent or criticism of tikanga if the regulation is enforced. He notes recent incidents where free speech on university campuses has been stifled, further raising the risk that students will feel pressured to conform to a particular narrative on tikanga.
The submission concludes by urging the Regulation Review Committee to refer the regulation to Parliament for rejection the matter should be debated in the House, where broader public input and scrutiny can be applied. He advocates for less burdensome options, such as offering tikanga as an elective subject for interested students, ensuring that law education respects the rights of students while catering to those who wish to study Māori customary law.
The challenge comes amid growing national discussions about the role of tikanga in New Zealand’s legal and political framework.
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
“It is a violation of a person’s rights to be made to hear a message or give an audience to ideas against their will,” Newman asserts.
He also questions the practical relevance of tikanga to legal practice, stating that it is more of a cultural or quasi-religious value system than a legal framework applicable to most areas of New Zealand law. In his view, compulsory teaching of tikanga is disproportionate to its actual necessity in legal practice. Citing examples of core statutes and legal rules that do not reference tikanga, Newman argues that the regulation is excessive.
While acknowledging that tikanga is relevant in specific legal contexts, such as Treaty-related matters or Māori customary law cases, Newman suggests that these topics should be offered as elective courses rather than mandatory components of legal education.
Newman also raises concerns that the push to make tikanga compulsory is part of a broader political agenda to advance the role of tikanga within New Zealand’s legal framework.
He refers to the recent Supreme Court decision in Ellis v R, where tikanga was declared as New Zealand’s “first law,” and argues that this declaration lacks the necessary legal or statutory grounding. Newman argues that Parliament has not defined tikanga as law and that such a radical shift in legal education should be subject to parliamentary debate rather than imposed by regulatory bodies.
Opposition to the compulsory inclusion of tikanga is not limited to personal rights.
Newman’s submission highlights concerns about academic freedom, asserting that the academic environment could become hostile to dissent or criticism of tikanga if the regulation is enforced. He notes recent incidents where free speech on university campuses has been stifled, further raising the risk that students will feel pressured to conform to a particular narrative on tikanga.
The submission concludes by urging the Regulation Review Committee to refer the regulation to Parliament for rejection the matter should be debated in the House, where broader public input and scrutiny can be applied. He advocates for less burdensome options, such as offering tikanga as an elective subject for interested students, ensuring that law education respects the rights of students while catering to those who wish to study Māori customary law.
The challenge comes amid growing national discussions about the role of tikanga in New Zealand’s legal and political framework.
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
My guess is there is zero chance of this challenge going anywhere. I talked to a high court judge friend about Ms Quince's outburst at Gary Judd and also Gary Judd's objection to tikanga being added. He wasn't dismissive of Judd as such but he was very clear that learning about tikanga was an important part of law now. Earlier in the year he and 4 other high court judges had been down to rotovegas to stay on a marae for 3 days to learn about tikanga.
But hey, we're all about Maori wonderfulness nowadays.
Never mind most of these people probably barely met a Maori before they left university.
I can't even be bothered trying to find out exactly what tikanga means, but you can bet it will fit well with Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty assertion that a word: "...means what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less", a common factor in anything that maori assert. Slippery as the eels they so relish, and just as secretive when it comes to hiding their true purpose.
"had been down to rotovegas to stay on a marae for 3 days to learn about tikanga" - There is a massive difference between learning and indoctrination, one would think that learned judges ought to be immune to the latter just as we boomers are immune to advertising. Maybe there is an "open to being manipulated" gene?
Good luck to Newman. but a sure test for matters legal to be adopted is the scope for additonal or continued employment for the lucrative leagl profession. So potential money spinning tikanga with associated legal complications is very likley to stay.
Post a Comment