New Zealand’s commitment to secular education is grounded in the principle that the state should not privilege one religion over another. Under current practice, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and other faith traditions are clearly defined as “religion” and therefore excluded from classroom teaching, except in contexts where students are provided choice and parents’ rights are respected. In contrast, Māori spiritual worldviews are reframed as “culture” and integrated directly into the curriculum. This inconsistency raises significant legal and human rights concerns.
Māori Spiritual Frameworks in the Curriculum
Māori spiritual practices are deeply embedded in concepts such as wairua (spirit), mauri (life-force), and the role of tohunga (spiritual guides). They also include a pantheon of gods tied to natural elements, such as Tāne (forests) and Tangaroa (sea). When these beliefs are taught to children in the form of classroom activities, songs, or rituals, they are presented as cultural heritage rather than acknowledged as a religious framework. This classification avoids the restrictions normally applied to faith-based practices in schools.
The difficulty is not in acknowledging Māori heritage, which is an essential part of national identity, but in rebranding spiritual practices as culture. When children are led in practices that reference gods, spirits, or supernatural forces, the content is inherently religious, even if delivered under the label of “culture.”
Rights of Parents and Children
Section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affirms that every person has the right to manifest their religion or belief in worship, teaching, and practice. Section 19 provides for freedom from discrimination. These rights extend to families and children in educational settings. Where Christian prayer is excluded on the grounds of secular neutrality, but Māori spiritual practices are permitted, the state risks discriminatory application of its own policies.
Parents also have internationally recognised rights under instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18(4)), which requires states to respect the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their convictions. Current practice often denies parents meaningful information or an opt-out mechanism when Māori spiritual practices are included in lessons.
Risks in Early Childhood Education
This concern is most acute in early learning centres. Young children do not possess the cognitive ability to distinguish between cultural teaching and spiritual truth. When a teacher leads a waiata invoking atua (gods) or explains the presence of spirits in nature, children may accept this as authoritative truth. The risk of inadvertent religious instruction under the guise of cultural education is high.
Cultural Favouritism and Institutional Bias
By allowing one spiritual worldview to be taught while restricting others, the state demonstrates cultural favouritism. Such an approach undermines the principle of secular neutrality and may amount to institutional bias. The question is not whether Māori culture should be taught but whether religious elements of that culture are being misclassified in a way that grants them privileges denied to other faiths.
Recommendations
1. Independent Legal Review: The Human Rights Commission or Ministry of Justice should conduct an inquiry into whether current practices breach the Bill of Rights Act, particularly Sections 15 and 19.
2. Formal Opt-Out Policy: All state-funded schools and early learning centres should be required to notify parents of spiritual content and provide a clear opt-out mechanism.
3. Equal Application of Secularism: If secular standards remove Christian prayers from classrooms, those same standards must be applied to Māori religious practices.
Conclusion
Consistency in the application of secular policy is essential to protect freedom of belief for all New Zealand families. Recognising Māori spirituality as religion, rather than disguising it as culture, is not a rejection of heritage but a necessary step to uphold fairness, parental rights, and the rule of law.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
5 comments:
Well said. Get this mumbo jumbo out of the classroom.
Was this Maori spirituality cohesive across all tribes before Europeans arrived ?
I bet it wasn't.
I also bet my house on all this current mumbo jumbo being made up on the spot as needed to bluff their way into control of everything NZ.
A case of the children suffering either way.
Being subject to indocrination starting at preschool and on.
Being taken out of the system by parents opting to take their children out to avoid the Maori "world view".
Either way the children lose, particularly interaction with children at the same stage in life.
As mentioned by others, the Maori "world view" ads little or nothing to childrens education and preparation for the real world.
It's the old story, "teach them young, you got them for life"
The longer this BS continues, the harder it will be to moderate or stop the insidious creep of Maorification of everything not Maori centric.
I do not support having an opt-out clause - it is very uncomfortable for the child in question to be withdrawn when all his or her mates go and do some activity.
These activities should be banned from State schools under the secularism clause, full stop.
This does create a problem for faith-based schools. OK to have Christian (or Muslim) prayer but not prayers to Maori gods?
Solution: allow State-run Maori immersion schools to do the karakias and all that stuff as part of their 'special character'.
One important indicator is coming very soon... will Minister Stanford heed the many submissions to remove Section 127 (2) e) from the Education and Training Amendment Bill ? This would ensure that NZ education is secular - not dominated by the Te Ao vision of the world. Decision due in September.
Post a Comment