Across New Zealand, schools are declaring that they will “give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
Many parents assume this means teaching New Zealand history or acknowledging Māori culture. In reality, in modern policy language, it means something far more structural.
To “give effect” to Te Tiriti generally means embedding Treaty principles into governance, leadership, and decision-making. It often involves redefining power-sharing arrangements, treating Māori as governance partners, and redesigning institutional systems around Treaty-based frameworks.
This is not merely education.
It is a constitutional and governance shift.
The idea of “partnership” is modern — not original
New Zealand did not operate as a partnership state for most of its history.
The modern concepts of “partnership”, “principles of the Treaty,” and co-governance emerged largely in the 1980s through court decisions and Waitangi Tribunal reports. These ideas are not written into the original 1840 texts.
What is happening now is not preservation of an old system.
It is the adoption of a modern constitutional interpretation that remains highly contested within public debate.
Zoning denies parents real choice
This is the crucial issue.
School ZONING removes parental choice.
Families are legally compelled to send their children to their zoned state school, unless they can afford private or integrated alternatives.
In practice, parents now face only four options:
Accept their ZONED co-governance state school
Pay for private schooling
Accept an integrated faith-based school
Or home schooling.
That is not freedom.
That is coercion through zoning.
If schools are fundamentally diverging in governance model, worldview, and constitutional philosophy, then zoning must not be used to trap families into schools they did not choose.
Parents must be emancipated from zoning where philosophical divergence exists.
Governance and consultation problems
Many Boards of Trustees have not held public meetings since the 4th November 2025 government announcement of law change, yet declarations have already been issued.
This raises serious questions:
Were full board meetings held?
Were votes taken?
Were parent representatives consulted?
Were families asked their views?
There appears to be no evidence of meaningful community consultation before these commitments were made.
Public schools do not belong to administrators.
They belong to families and the public.
Structural failures inside Boards of Trustees
Boards depend almost entirely on unpaid parent volunteers.
Many schools struggle to attract candidates.
Many elections are uncontested.
Some boards cannot fill positions at all.
Where parent governance is weak, real authority naturally shifts to those who are:
Paid
Trained
And present inside the system every day
This means professional education staff increasingly shape governance direction.
This is not a criticism of principals and teachers.
It is a structural design flaw.
Barriers to access and transparency
In many schools there is:
No public phone contact for the Board
No direct public email address
No transparent route to communicate directly with trustees
Parents are forced to funnel concerns through school offices.
There is no assurance concerns reach elected trustees.
That is not democratic governance.
Where real power now sits
The speed with which more than a thousand schools issued these declarations matters.
It suggests decisions were driven administratively, not democratically.
When constitutional-level statements can be issued without visible parental mandate, the governance model no longer matches what parents were told it was.
This is the real issue.
Reform is necessary
If schools are adopting divergent constitutional and governance models, then:
Parents must be clearly informed
Zoning must not be used to trap families
Governance must be transparent
Community consent must be real
Either parent trustees must be paid and professionalised, or the governance model must be redesigned completely.
Public education cannot function long-term without legitimacy.
Parents deserve transparency.
Parents deserve choice.
Parents deserve an education system that does not coerce them through zoning.
Judy Gill BSc, DipTchg, is a parent, former teacher, and a staunch advocate for secular education.
33 comments:
The Left is all about control - in all domains - with privilege reserved for a favoured few. This is what you get when you vote for the Left. Always was that way - always will be.
Strict zoning plus avoidance of streaming creates ghettos as parents flee and avod areas with large low acheiver attendance.
No constitutional shift, no co-governance takeover. School boards aren't handing over control to iwi; they're just consulting locals like any decent community does. Over 1000 schools recommitted voluntarily because it works—boosts engagement, lifts achievement for all kids, Māori included. Your "modern partnership" whine ignores that the Treaty promised protection of taonga and rangatiratanga from day one, which the Crown butchered until now.
NZ wasn't a "partnership state" historically? Yeah, because the Crown ignored the deal and colonized anyway. Today's schools honouring it aren't adopting a "contested interpretation"—they're making good on 1840 promises with practical stuff like local histories and inclusive classrooms that benefit every tamariki. Cry harder; this is equity, not a Māori coup. Facts over fearmongering.
Giving effect to the treaty is necessarily vague as is tikanga. Policies are announced with similar words for universities as for kindies. But these geniuses writing policies think one puts in a comma at a 'pause'--was even a clue in a Listener crossword! That's just grammatically moronic, as are most things Education-wise in NZ.
So glad I do not have children!
Anonymous at 6.47, do read Judy's text - this time carefully. Clearly parents could not have been consulted, given the time-frame. Judy has spelled out the current situation concerning teacher unions - and some - but please God not all - teachers ( of whom I was once one)I am so grateful for the intelligence and clear thinking of Erica Stanford, but , my word, she has her work cut out, as I know you are by no means alone in your shallow irrational attitude.
moi aussi....
I think you might have just helped prove the point about Te Tiriti v actual Treaty of Waitangi. What, about anything, could a post industrialised, advanced society consult a stoneage society on (the iron age was ~12,000yrs ago)? There was no partnership, just one rule for all and property rights and voting, including for Maori. Equity never works until everyone is equally impoverished. Everyone has the same opportunity to make the best of their situation including that they had no choice in being born and whatever physiological attributes came with it. Facts indeed.
Anon@6.47 where have you been for the last two or more decades? If they (you) spent more time concentrating on the appalling decline in educational outcomes than signalling virtue based on myths, maybe we wouldn't have a generation (or more) that are poorly equipped to handle the world today. We live in the 21st century where all children of all ethnic backgrounds should have an equal opportunity to excel. Wasting valuable time expounding a very dubious interpretation of a nearly 200-year-old document that has little real relevance to their educational needs is simply that - a waste of time. They (you) need to spend more time on educational basics, and much less time on fanciful ideology over an arrangement between parties that have since changed at least as much as the land and society they occupy. Your woke, bi-cultural 'Sneetch' outlook is not the future. If it is, then it won't last, and some very bleak times lie ahead.
Interpretation once again.
No partnership was ever entered into in 1840. The Treaty consists of 3 articles.
The first being the ceding of sovereignty .
It is a CONTRACT.
Maori asked for PROTECTION.
The only way England was prepared to give this was if sovereignty was ceded.
These are ALL Historical FACTS
An English monarch would no more enter into a partnership with native people than they would change their underwear in public !.
Do read the HISTORY of this country before spouting the indoctrination kool aid fed to the masses these days.
It is clear to any parent who has done their duty on a Board of Trustees that the brainwashed idiots who populate and infest our schools that their BS is no longer on the agenda.They can whine pout and posture they can't change Historical FACT .
Get over it and educate yourself!
Even in post colonial countries like sth africa the kids all learn the english cambridge system, with a world curriculum all in english. In china they learn shakespeare. IT is not racist to give kids a proper education.
Ellen, you’re deflecting instead of engaging with what was actually said. Judy’s opinion isn’t the final word on this, and repeating her talking points doesn’t erase the reality that schools have signed up to partnership models voluntarily because they work. Engagement and achievement data back that up.
Blaming teacher unions or implying brainwashing just dodges the core issue — that honouring Treaty principles in education is about inclusion, not control. The “time-frame” argument doesn’t hold water when schools have been building relationships with iwi for years.
Calling people “shallow” for backing evidence-based practice isn’t intelligent debate; it’s lazy dismissal. The facts remain: partnership boosts outcomes for students, Māori and non-Māori alike. That’s what good education looks like — not fearmongering dressed up as rationality.
Word will get out tp overseas employers and nz will lose it's reputation on the world stsge. When I lived in england the employers LOVED kiwis because we were hard working and clever and did not go to the pub evrey lunchtime. This may end if kiwis aren't educated to world standards. I see on te partly's website that classes will need to be in te reo 50% of the day or they won't get funding. Can you imagine.
replying to anon 6:47 - when you say... "Treaty promised protection of taonga and rangatiratanga from day one," you are WRONG. The Treaty did NOT promise this.
Read the words. The Treaty promised the full, exclusive and undisturbed ownership of the Māori over their lands.
Slight correction to what Doug said: Article 2 actually states "The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property." The significant point being it says "ALL THE PEOPLE OF NZ" not just Maori.
Anonymous said "No constitutional shift, no co-governance takeover. School boards aren't handing over control to iwi; they're just consulting locals like any decent community does." No, they didn't ask the parents if they wanted this, no "referendum" was held, a typical example of the loud minority's idea of democracy.
I am not sure what is going on, but my reply to 'anon.@6.47 was not published first time around and any attempt to reply now has been blocked. All I can say is that Anon@6.47 is ignorant of history and prefers to believe there is no bias in the way schools are run these days. There is a steady creep away from democratic principles and to pretend or pronounce otherwise is deliberate ostrich behaviour.
Anon @ 12.39pm, who I assume is the same person as Anon @ 6.47am - education is not a partnership and neither is the Treaty of Waitangi. Simple, really.
Anon @ 6.47
Anonymous, you keep returning to the same talking points — voluntary uptake, improved outcomes, “honouring the Treaty,” “inclusion not control” — but none of these claims stand up once you look past the rhetoric currently fashionable among Dame Anne Salmond, Claire Charters, Lady Moxon and others advancing the partnership doctrine. That doctrine is a belief system, not a constitutional requirement.
You say schools “voluntarily” adopted partnership models because they “work.” But that conclusion assumes what it needs to prove. Schools operate inside a system where the Ministry, ERO, unions, PLD providers and training institutions have all treated the partnership framework as orthodoxy for years. When every lever of the system points in one direction, the distinction between voluntary and expected becomes purely cosmetic. Schools weren’t choosing among competing models — they were signing the only one offered.
Your appeal to “engagement and achievement data” glosses over the awkward reality that overall achievement has declined, not risen, during the same period the partnership framework embedded itself. If partnership were the magic ingredient you suggest, we would see clear system-wide gains. We don’t.
You also lean heavily on the idea that “honouring Treaty principles” requires this framework. That is precisely the point of contention. The Treaty promised protection of property and equality before the law. It did not promise co-management of state institutions, shared sovereignty, or ideological entrenchment in schools. Those are modern constructions — often sincere, but still ideological. Repeating them often doesn’t make them historically true.
And dismissing concerns as “fearmongering” is simply a way to avoid the central issue: these models import a contested political worldview into school governance. That deserves open debate, not moral dismissal. True inclusion doesn’t require mythology. It requires clarity, honesty, and respect for the difference between 1840 agreements and 21st-century ideology.
All this treaty stuff was about an agreement between the Crown and
Maori not Maori and Schools
As Katherine Burbalsinghe the exceptional, educator says current education is not just a contributing factor towards destroying Western Culture it is the main destructive factor.
Injecting Maori culture , language and even, heaven help us. religion into schools is a determination to destroy all the values, freedoms and beliefs
of Western Culture. It is CRT from Marxism.
Our education system has had a romance with Marxism for decades and this explains our appalling low standards. Marxism does not care about Maori welfare but just promoting its ideology of oppressor and oppressed. as a means of destroying all we hold dear in Western Culture.
Gaynor
I suppose it it qualifies for a state house for life, maori academic non achievement can be regarded as a taonga although not clearly recognised as such in 1840. Acceptance of British inspired law included Truancy rules, but maori are spared serious application. Much of the seeming cooperation with maori nowadays is hugely shaped by the threat of cancellation at all levels. The sheer tedium of trying to work with single miinded irrational maori (like TPM) causes very many industrious and able non maori to not get involved, enabling maori domination.
Anon, what you've called a 'loud minority' is actually a broad coalition of Māori leaders, educators, and communities standing for justice and partnership that reflects New Zealand’s unique bicultural foundation. School boards still consult with communities, but this is more than just ‘consulting locals’—it’s about upholding Māori identity, culture, and equitable education outcomes which are essential for an inclusive society, not a ‘takeover.’
Your idea of democracy ignores that the real goal is partnership and ensuring all voices are heard, especially those historically marginalised . Removing the legal Tiriti clause didn’t end this effort; it simply shifted it from law to active commitment by schools. Small-minded dismissals of this fail to understand Te Tiriti’s role as a living, guiding agreement, not a political weapon.
Agree with Hugh, the partnership lie must be put out to pasture. It is manure after all.
Robert, your comment perpetuates outdated and inaccurate stereotypes about Māori people that simply do not hold up to scrutiny. Far from "non-achievement," Māori students in kura kaupapa Māori and similar settings are achieving NCEA Level 2 at rates exceeding 72% in recent data, often surpassing national benchmarks despite systemic challenges that have persisted for generations.
Your kind of dismissive rhetoric ignores the resilience and real progress within Māori communities, from education to leadership roles across New Zealand society.
As for taonga, reducing a profound cultural concept—enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi as a treasured possession—to sarcasm about state housing only exposes a profound ignorance of history and partnership in Aotearoa. If anything qualifies as a non-achievement here, it is clinging to such prejudiced views in 2025.
Anon @ 8.14pm is leaning on one flattering statistic as though it settles the argument.
It doesn’t. Kura kaupapa Māori do post strong NCEA Level 2 rates — but that’s a niche, self-selecting subset of motivated families.
Using their results to describe Māori education as a whole is the statistical equivalent of holding up the All Blacks and declaring New Zealand obesity solved.
If “partnership” were the miracle catalyst Anne Salmond, Claire Charters, Lady Moxon and their high table colleagues insist it is, the national numbers would show it. They don’t. Attendance is lowest for Māori. Literacy and numeracy remain stubbornly weak across the system. Those aren’t “stereotypes”; they’re the Ministry of Education’s own spreadsheets.
And notice what you’ve avoided: the actual argument. Today’s “partnership” model isn’t some neutral act of goodwill — it’s the product of a tight academic priesthood who’ve spent years stretching “taonga” and “rangatiratanga” into constitutional Swiss-army knives. You’re simply repeating their vocabulary and calling it evidence.
The moral scolding — “ignorant”, “prejudiced”, etc.
If the model is as sound as you claim, you should be able to defend it with more than a cherry-picked success story and a sermon.
—PB
Original Treaty that we all knew for 180 years - just fine.
A version fabricated by a bunch of radical Maori in recent years - absolutely not.
Luxon show that you have the gonads to sort this, or step aside and let someone else fulfill your mandate.
The "partnership" model isn't an academic invention—it's straight from 1987's landmark Lands case and Waitangi Tribunal rulings, interpreting Article 2's [tino rangatiratanga] and [taonga] as requiring good-faith reciprocity between Crown and Māori, not vague "Swiss-army knives". Courts mandated consultation and active protection as duties, echoed in dozens of reports and statutes over 40 years, long before any "priesthood" narrative.
The 2024 Principles Bill tried stripping this for "equality only," got voted down in 2025 after massive pushback, proving the model's endurance in law and public scrutiny.
Dodge your ad hominems: if the original Treaty held for 180 years, defend ignoring its Māori text's plain guarantees. Real debate engages precedents, not conspiracy theories.
Touche PB!
As for anon@6.46, since you appear to have been supping on the Kool-Aid, please explain what is "an equitable outcome for a Maori student"; what is it to be benchmarked against and who does the judging; and doesn't it presuppose all Maori students will or should end up at the same level? And while you're thinking about that, why should Maori students only have equitable outcomes and not all students? And isn't it really just aspirational, virtue signalling tosh that in the real world is unattainable given we all have different strengths and weaknesses; we are not all born with the same IQ; nor do we have the same inclinations, access to the same resources, nor the same level of parental support, role models and guidance?
And, where is 'partnership' mentioned in the treaty and what about all the other voices of other ethnicities that make up our society and where are they "heard"? So much for your purported "inclusive society" - it seems it's just about Maori, and then everyone else. There's nothing 'equitable' about that.
1. The TP Bill process was rigged. e.g. 1000 submissions were counted as just 1. A stain on Luxon's integrity forever ( and James Meager who chaired the process.)
2. 1987 Lands case: Justice Cooke's " akin to a partnership" remark was an obiter dictum ( a side comment) and not in the final decision.
Anon@9.58 is presenting selective legal interpretations as universal mandates — stretching narrow duties into a generalised constitutional “partnership” is a policy invention, not law. Yes, the 1987 Lands case required the Crown to act in good faith regarding land transfers, and the Waitangi Tribunal makes recommendations. The Tribunal cannot create law. Its sole role is to investigate claims and issue recommendations to the Crown. Nothing it pronounces is legally binding. Any assertion that Tribunal reports “mandate” a partnership model or co-governance is simply incorrect. Neither created a sweeping co-governance model for schools, councils, or public institutions. Statutory duties are narrowly defined, and the courts have never imposed multi-sector obligations. Good-faith consultation exists in specific contexts, but turning it into a catch-all framework for institutional management is your extrapolation, not a judicial command.
Political bills, like the 2024 treaty Principles Bill, are politics, not constitutional proof. And while the Māori text guarantees tino rangatiratanga over lands and treasures, it says nothing about schools, councils, or contemporary policy orthodoxy.
Clearly, you don’t debate but are mimicking an operating system, by reciting thirty years of academic and tribunal propaganda.
“Broad coalition… justice… bicultural foundation…” — Dame Anne Salmond’s greatest hits.
“Historically marginalised voices… partnership model…” — Joe Williams and Tribunal group-rights doctrine.
“Living Treaty… guiding agreement…” — word-for-word university Treaty Studies script.
Tone? Moral sniff, sermonette, pure public-sector DEI.
The word “partnership” doesn’t appear in the Treaty, wasn’t asserted in 1840, and wasn’t part of NZ constitutional practice until academics reverse-engineered it in the 1980s — repeating it doesn’t make it law.
And the idea that schools defend a “living Treaty” out of love rather than institutional capture? Please.
That’s compliance pressure mistaken for moral courage.
None of this is grassroots.
It’s high table mandarins and their minions peddling dogma, like tinkers hawking gaudy trinkets, as a fait accompli.
PB
Our Country is New Zealand
The TOW is not, like any document, is not a "living" document. It can only relate to the time it was signed. There can be official amendments added (like the American Constitution) if the original intent needs to be changed. There have been no amendments. only numerous interpretations, which are not legally binding! The meaning of the word "taonga" meant only physical treasures (including those taken by force). Just like many English words the meaning of taonga today is totally different to what was acknowledged and signed for in 1840. Thus all these new things that are considered as taonga today, are not guaranteed by the Treaty. Simple really
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.