Chris Hipkins may call the Government’s decision to remove the Treaty clause from school boards a “victory for Hobson’s Pledge,” but it’s really a victory for democracy and for restoring common sense to education. Parents and volunteers join school boards to help kids learn, not to interpret 1840 documents or preach ideology. Education Minister Erica Stanford is right: the Crown, not local school committees, is accountable for the Treaty.
This change draws a clear line between education and politics. For too long, ideology has crept into classrooms under the banner of “Treaty principles.” What started as cultural inclusion quietly turned into cultural enforcement every board suddenly expected to act as a mini-Treaty tribunal. Instead of focusing on reading, writing, and arithmetic, schools were being nudged into “decolonising” their thinking and rewriting their charters to prove ideological compliance.
It’s worth recalling how we got here. The previous Labour Government inserted Treaty clauses into education law, forcing schools to “give effect” to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That might sound noble, but it made volunteer boards legally responsible for the Crown’s Treaty duties. Somehow, the Crown’s constitutional obligations were handed to parents trying to manage fundraising and field trips.
The Treaty of Waitangi is an important founding document, but it’s between Māori chiefs and the Crown not between Māori and every PTA in New Zealand. There is nothing in its three short articles about co-governance, partnership, or shared sovereignty. The Treaty guarantees equality under one law, not a permanent political hierarchy based on ancestry.
But give an inch, and ideology will take a mile. By stealth, classrooms across the country became testbeds for cultural re-engineering. What began as “acknowledging the Treaty” has turned into daily karakia, Māori blessings over school events, and even stories of Māori gods taught as moral truths. Some schools now open assemblies with ritual incantations more fitting for a marae or a chapel than a secular public school.
Labour called it “inclusion.” Parents call it indoctrination.
New Zealand’s education system is supposed to be secular that’s the law. Children are there to learn critical thinking, not to be taught whose gods deserve morning devotion. Teaching Māori language and history is valuable; pretending myth is science, or that spirituality is a civic duty, is not.
Erica Stanford’s decision restores a measure of sanity. By removing the Treaty clause, the Government is refocusing schools on education, not ideology. It doesn’t erase Māori culture or heritage it just stops the classroom from becoming a political pulpit. The Crown keeps its Treaty responsibilities, and teachers can get back to teaching.
Democracy works best when public institutions serve everyone equally. That includes schools, which should unite children through knowledge, not divide them through cultural litmus tests. Respecting culture is one thing; rewriting the curriculum around it is another.
So yes, it’s a victory not just for Hobson’s Pledge, but for every Kiwi who believes classrooms are for learning, not lecturing. When education becomes a sermon, it’s time to change the tune. Thankfully, this Government just did.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
14 comments:
I can't see that even the Treaty obligated schools to teach lies about NZ history or science,. It is just an excuse for the radicals in the Education Department to brainwash children. There needs to be a purge in the Department.
Your comment :- "The Treaty of Waitangi is an important founding document" is not actually true.
The Treaty WAS a "founding document" back in the late 1800's.
But it has achieved it's purpose and is now simply a historical relic.
Agree with most of the article but have concerns about > “Teaching Māori language and history is valuable;”
Maori language is a valuable tool in the Maori Sovereigntists agenda, but to forward thinking Nzers it is a waste of time and money.
The wording infers “Maori history” - Since 1840, IMHO it is New Zealand History.
We either have all gods or none in our schools.
Maori gods, fine, but that means we have to set aside time for Christian, Muslim, Hindu and more gods as well.
Now I personally have no problem with introducing school kids to the world of religion. I am an advocate of religious education as in "education about religion" as a social institution. I did a string of university courses in Comparative Religion myself and continue to enjoy following trends in religion.
None of this is to say that all religions are equal (whatever THAT means). Rather, that religion is a human cultural adaptation and psychosocial phenomenon that we need to understand if we are to have empathy with our fellow creatures.
I always find it so telling when it is believers who resist the notion of informing young people about religions other than their own. It shows how insecure they are.
I also find it telling - and infuriating - when the same believers accuse people like me of indoctrinating young people through academic Comparative Reli courses. Look who's talking..........
The Act may have been 'corrected' but I'll bet the indoctrination in schools perpetuates regardless and without any form of corrective action by the Educ Minister or the Educ Ministry. If I am correct, the Minister had to be dragged kicking and screaming to amend the stupidity in Sect 127.
For most radical types, Maori history begins in 1840 (or 1769, a smaller number). One could survey how Maori history, c. 1200s-1769, is taught at all school levels.
In terms of the Treaty (nevermind Chief Justice Prendergast's 1877 finding), it should all-but be now considered a nullity, being essentially defunct or deceased - just as the parties that signed it. The 'Crown' through the passage of time, legislation and events, now being all of us (including those citizens identifying as 'Maori') and, the Maori Chiefs - similarly through time, genetics and hereditary inactivity, having also morphed to the point that they no longer exist. So why, in our everyday lives today, should there be any fixation whatsoever upon it, ever moreso in the case of our children?
As for Minister Stanford - before congratulating her too much, let's not forget her reaction to those that challenged her original proposed amendment, and her continuing obsession with the divisive "our Treaty partners" ideology and with "equitable outcomes for Maori (only) students." In terms of the former, yes, she should be thanked for eventually coming to her senses but, on the latter, I think she still has quite some way to go.
Secular education became a space for cultural marxist indoctrination. Winston Peters by all accounts has given the boot to the last Government's sex and gender education. From what we read 12 year old boys were being taught how to insert their beep into another boy's beep. Peters rightly identified this as a form of grooming rather than education. It scares me that this madness could be back next year.
Secular education (in practice, that means non-sectarian education) bears no relation to the gender-bender agenda. Nota bene that Soviet schooling was very conservative when it came to sex and gender roles, while the PRC and North Korea are among the toughest places to be for homosexuals.
Not all Christians are antagonistic to exposure to academic comparative religious studies. i was raised in a Christian home with the Quran and Hindu texts and also attended University religion courses. It certainly shows insecurity to feel threatened by these alternatives. However this is more adult studies than school children.
I cannot agree , Barend , in your secular materialistic,and naturalistic definition of religion as a complete description. I enjoy reading Christian apologetics which is another academic study. That we have a spiritual dimension - consciousness is a tenet of most religions.
There is cultural Christianity which traditional education promoted in developing attributes like patience, tolerance , free speech , forgiveness, conscientiousness , a work ethic , unselfishness and absolute truth , responsibility for your own actions, modesty. humility etc. This included sexual modesty.
I appreciate some other values of other religions like respect for
the elderly and work ethic in Confuscianism ( mostly a philosophy) but not utu from Maori . Maori used to have a rather delightful sense of humour and could laugh at themselves but now with Marxism there is more bitterness and victimhood dominating.
It is Marxist CRT , that derides traditional values many of which are selectively Christian and reading the articles of the left -leaning 'decolonisation ' dominates . Introducing Matauranga Maori materials including religion into schools is I think revenge ( utu) for having had Western Values forced on Maori in the distant past, apparently.
The irony is that with traditional values we had one of the most egalitarian countries in the world , according to G. B Shaw when he visited in the 1930s to establish Fabianism ( anti traditional values) into NZ. But when education aligned with Fabianism in 1950, we gradually became less and less egalitarian. Egalitarianism is what the current aim is in education. Marxism is quite the wrong way of going about it.
That is why I advocate the return to traditional liberal education and its values as a counter to the current Marxism. Schools being secular but not anti -religion.
I recall when in Primary School there was a period that was set aside for "religious instruction".
I can't recall now the exact frequency maybe once a month for an hour.
It involved an elderly couple telling stories mostly from the Old Testament and an occasional sing along accompanied by the husband on a piano accordion. Which I think it had been handed down by God to Moses about the same time as the commandments.
Anyway - I am not against the idea of people learning about world religions and pagan beliefs but that is where it should end.
Indoctrination into mythology and superstition is best left out of government and education systems.
I recall those 'lessons' from the 1960s too, Anon 909. They exemplify the worst of all worlds when it comes to religious education. Untrained and unqualified 'teachers' with little or zero formal subject knowledge trying to ram their bullshit down the gullets of a captive audience of kids in a State school. This is the kind of religious instruction Christopher Hitchens was highly supportive of as it is guaranteed to produce a constant flow of budding atheists.
If the class I was in was anything to go by, the exact opposite of indoctrination was achieved. We used to play cards and other games and totally ignored invocations to sing or play along with some infantile pantomime.
Religious education? In a general sense - an awareness of aspects of different religions, usually mixed in with culture. Secondary school onwards. Fine. That is not indoctrination
In 1967-68 when i was in Form 1 and 2 at Highlands Intermediate in New Plymouth there was half an hour or so of religion. Once a month I recall , always early Wednesday . An Anglican or Presbyterian. Catholics were exempt and went to the school library. Wishy washy drivel from a bloke who never had a proper job. The big majority of Catholics went to the large number of partly state-funded RC schools in Taranaki which has a high Catholic population.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.