The clause, which requires school boards to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, will now be reviewed as part of a broader government workstream.
ACT leader David Seymour said the clause should have been dropped outright and claimed it reflects a political project to reshape New Zealand’s culture. “There is a lot of disquiet,” he said. “People want schools to focus on reading, writing and arithmetic.”
The bill, introduced by Education Minister Erica Stanford, changes Section 127 to establish academic achievement as the paramount objective of school boards.
Treaty obligations are retained as a supporting objective rather than a primary one. Despite this change, Hobson’s Pledge accused Stanford of sneaking in a radical clause and called for its immediate removal.
Stanford dismissed those claims as “complete and utter garbage” but confirmed that she referred the matter to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s wider Treaty clause review.
Elliot Ikilei of Hobson’s Pledge argued that terms like tikanga Māori are vague and vary significantly by region. He said the focus should be on measurable outcomes like literacy and science rather than subjective content tied to identity politics.
NZ First also supports removing the clause immediately but have agreed to address it within the broader Treaty of Waitangi clause review. “If they shouldn’t be there, they won’t be,” said Winston Peters.
The bill, introduced by Education Minister Erica Stanford, changes Section 127 to establish academic achievement as the paramount objective of school boards.
Treaty obligations are retained as a supporting objective rather than a primary one. Despite this change, Hobson’s Pledge accused Stanford of sneaking in a radical clause and called for its immediate removal.
Stanford dismissed those claims as “complete and utter garbage” but confirmed that she referred the matter to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s wider Treaty clause review.
Elliot Ikilei of Hobson’s Pledge argued that terms like tikanga Māori are vague and vary significantly by region. He said the focus should be on measurable outcomes like literacy and science rather than subjective content tied to identity politics.
NZ First also supports removing the clause immediately but have agreed to address it within the broader Treaty of Waitangi clause review. “If they shouldn’t be there, they won’t be,” said Winston Peters.
Read more over at The NZ Herald (paywalled) and RNZ
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
"Garbage"? How can Stanford claim that she's promoting reading and writing when she can't even use the English language herself?
NZF: If they shouldn't be there they won't be". Well, they shouldn't be there NZF. Surely you have studied the bill and understand it? We are not going to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion unless ACT and NZF can actually heal their past differences and work constructively together. As a NZF voter last time I want ACT supported on these issues. Don't take voters for granted, we are not interested in political parties just democratic outcomes.
"Treaty obligations are retained as a supporting objective rather than a primary one" But of note, is that the primary objective cannot be achieved unless the supporting ones are accomplished.
It's backhanded politics when the promise was to entirely focus on academic achievement. So in effect, a lie from Stanford.
My next vote at this stage would have been between NZF or ACT. NZF not working with ACT to remove this at the first chance means my vote will now be ACT. This is just too important.
Last election I voted National. I can't see that ever happening again without a serious change in direction.
Post a Comment