If speaking te reo Māori is not required to perform the job, why does proficiency in it attract additional remuneration?
This is not an attack on the Māori language or on those who speak it. It is a question about equal treatment, remuneration policy and value for money for taxpayers.
And this is not some obscure or historical arrangement.
The allowances are real — and substantial
A number of government agencies have negotiated te reo Māori proficiency allowances into collective employment agreements.
The Department of Conservation’s current agreement provides an allowance based on Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori certification: $1,800 at Level 3, $2,500 at Level 4 and $3,500 at Level 5. [1]
A Ministry of Justice position advertised in September 2026 offered a Reo Māori allowance of $1,000 to $3,200, depending on certification including the Māori Language Commission’s Level Finder Examination. [2]
This is happening now.
But what exactly is being paid for?
What does “proficiency” mean?
It appears to be not just knowing tēnā koe or ngā mihi.
Te Taura Whiri uses a five-level proficiency framework, ranging from Level 1 — basic routine language, through basic conversational and moderate proficiency, to Level 5 — complete proficiency. [3]
The higher levels represent substantial capability. The associated curriculum describes increasing ability to sustain conversations, understand spoken language, give talks and write in te reo Māori, with higher levels involving communication across a wider range of contexts and more complex subjects. [3]
That distinction matters.
If an employee is receiving $1,800, $2,500 or $3,500 a year because they have achieved a particular level of language proficiency, taxpayers are entitled to ask:
A number of government agencies have negotiated te reo Māori proficiency allowances into collective employment agreements.
The Department of Conservation’s current agreement provides an allowance based on Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori certification: $1,800 at Level 3, $2,500 at Level 4 and $3,500 at Level 5. [1]
A Ministry of Justice position advertised in September 2026 offered a Reo Māori allowance of $1,000 to $3,200, depending on certification including the Māori Language Commission’s Level Finder Examination. [2]
This is happening now.
But what exactly is being paid for?
What does “proficiency” mean?
It appears to be not just knowing tēnā koe or ngā mihi.
Te Taura Whiri uses a five-level proficiency framework, ranging from Level 1 — basic routine language, through basic conversational and moderate proficiency, to Level 5 — complete proficiency. [3]
The higher levels represent substantial capability. The associated curriculum describes increasing ability to sustain conversations, understand spoken language, give talks and write in te reo Māori, with higher levels involving communication across a wider range of contexts and more complex subjects. [3]
That distinction matters.
If an employee is receiving $1,800, $2,500 or $3,500 a year because they have achieved a particular level of language proficiency, taxpayers are entitled to ask:
Is that capability actually required by the employee’s job?
How often is it used?
What additional work does the employee perform because of it?
And what measurable benefit does the taxpayer receive?
The more valuable the skill is claimed to be, the more reasonable those questions become.
Interestingly, Government is helping create the pool of allowance recipients
Government isn’t simply paying people who arrive in the Public Service already proficient in te reo Māori.
It is actively encouraging and supporting employees to acquire the capability.
The 2025 Public Service Census found that 66% of public servants said their organisation encouraged staff to use te reo Māori, while 64% said they were supported to improve their te reo through on-the-job learning or in-house courses. [4]
And proficiency is increasing.
In 2021, 9.5% of public servants said they could speak te reo Māori at least fairly well. By 2025 that had risen to 11.8%. Those reporting that they could speak it well or very well increased from 2.3% to 3.4%. [4]
So a potentially self-reinforcing cycle exists:
Government encourages employees to learn te reo Māori → Government provides learning and courses → more employees acquire the capability → employees who meet the certification requirements can qualify for an additional allowance.
In other words, Government is helping to expand the pool of employees who can potentially qualify for additional remuneration.
That makes one question particularly important:
What measurable benefit is being obtained for the money being spent?
A skill is not necessarily a job requirement
There is nothing controversial about paying more for a skill that a job genuinely requires.
If a position requires fluency in a particular language, that requirement can properly be reflected in the remuneration attached to the position.
But that is different from:
“You don’t need this skill to perform your job, but because you have developed it, you will receive an additional allowance.”
The Government’s own 2024 Workforce Policy Statement says skills required for an employee’s role should generally be recognised through the base salary. It says allowances may be appropriate in limited circumstances, including where skills or duties are occasional rather than core to the role. [5]
That seems a sensible principle:
Pay for what the job requires. Pay extra when an employee performs additional duties.
But why pay an ongoing proficiency allowance for a skill that the job does not actually require?
DOC’s own words are revealing
When DOC introduced its allowance, it stated that no roles strictly required te reo Māori fluency, although many had expectations of competency. [6]
That distinction is crucial.
Competence in a skill and the requirement to use that skill in a particular job are not the same thing.
The 2025 Public Service Census recorded 121 different languages spoken by public servants. Te reo Māori was the second most common, at 7.1%, followed by French, Samoan, Hindi and Spanish. [7]
Yet there is no general Public Service policy saying:
“Become proficient in French and receive an annual allowance.”
So what is actually being remunerated?
The language?
Cultural capability?
Additional duties?
Or simply the achievement of a particular level of proficiency in a language given special status under government policy?
The Government should be able to explain the principle.
Corrections shows how big this can become
Corrections provides the clearest warning about scale.
The Auditor-General’s 2026 investigation found that almost half of Corrections’ frontline staff were receiving a te reo Māori allowance in 2025. [8]
This is no longer a marginal arrangement.
Yet the Auditor-General also found that Corrections had not assessed the specific capabilities its workforce needs, despite frontline employees frequently interacting with Māori.
It also lacked centralised national information about workforce cultural capability, while investment in capability initiatives varied between regions and sites. [8]
The Auditor-General’s conclusion is hard to ignore: assessing the capabilities actually required by particular roles would help Corrections target its investment where it is most likely to make a difference.
So shouldn’t an organisation establish what capability a job actually requires before paying an allowance for possessing it?
But aren’t there already Māori specialists?
There is another question of possible duplication.
The Public Service already employs people specifically because they possess Māori language, cultural and engagement expertise.
Corrections, for example, has a Deputy Chief Executive Tumu Herenga Māori, Lead Advisors Māori Partnerships and a national Māori partnerships team. The Auditor-General also noted that specialised roles had been filled because of their capability to engage with Māori. [8]
That makes sense.
If specialist expertise is required, employ specialists and remunerate them appropriately.
But if ordinary employees whose positions do not require that expertise can also receive additional remuneration simply because they have acquired a particular level of te reo proficiency, Government should explain why both systems are necessary.
Where is the evidence of value?
This is perhaps the most important question.
Government is encouraging employees to learn te reo, providing workplace learning, and in some agencies paying additional remuneration when employees achieve specified proficiency levels.
Yet the Auditor-General found significant weaknesses in measuring the impact of Māori capability investment.
Corrections acknowledged that its monitoring was relatively crude and that it lacked a good way of measuring what difference its investment in staff capability actually makes. [8]
That is not an argument against cultural capability.
It is an argument for accountability.
Before taxpayers fund a permanent remuneration stream, Government should be able to demonstrate what it achieves.
What about equality?
There is also a legitimate equality question.
The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment on specified grounds, including race and ethnic or national origins.
But it would be wrong to claim that te reo allowances are automatically unlawful discrimination. The Act contains provisions permitting measures designed in good faith to assist groups that need assistance to achieve an equal place.
So the stronger question is not:
“Is this illegal?”
It is:
“Why should proficiency in one language attract an additional remuneration payment when proficiency in other languages does not — unless there is a demonstrable job-related reason?”
That is a legitimate policy question.
Three questions for Government
The Government should answer three straightforward questions:
1. How many public servants currently receive a te reo Māori proficiency allowance across all agencies?
2. What is the total annual cost to taxpayers, including associated employer costs?
3. For each agency paying the allowance, what evidence demonstrates that the capability is actually required or materially contributes to the employee’s duties and organisational outcomes?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are basic questions of responsible public-sector management.
Equality should mean equality
Nobody should be penalised for speaking te reo Māori.
Nobody should be prevented from learning it.
Nobody should be prevented from using it.
But equal treatment does not mean treating one language as inherently more valuable than another when determining remuneration — unless there is a demonstrable job-related reason for doing so.
If a job requires specialist Māori language or cultural expertise, pay appropriately for the job.
If an employee performs additional duties because of that expertise, compensate them for those duties.
If an organisation needs more te reo capability, train its employees and measure the results.
But if speaking te reo Māori is not actually required to perform the job, the case for an automatic proficiency allowance becomes much harder to justify.
The taxpayer deserves remuneration policies based on the requirements of the job, the skills actually used and measurable value delivered — not simply the possession of a particular language skill.
IF TE REO MĀORI ISN’T REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE JOB, WHY SHOULD SPEAKING IT EARN AN ALLOWANCE?
References:
[1] Department of Conservation — 2025 PSA/DOC Collective Agreement
Te Reo Māori allowance and certification levels.
https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/about-doc/jobs-at-doc/psa-collective-agreements-2025/hr-psa-doc-collective-agreement-10.pdf
[2] Ministry of Justice — September 2026 vacancy
Current advertisement specifying a Reo Māori allowance of $1,000–$3,200.
https://jobs.govt.nz/jobs/MOJ-1943977
[3] Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori — Level Finder Examination
Proficiency framework and Level Finder information.
https://en.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/faq
[4] Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission — 2025 Public Service Census
Te reo proficiency, workplace encouragement and support for learning.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/data/public-service-census/capability-mobility/maori-crown
[5] Government Workforce Policy Statement 2024
Government policy concerning remuneration, skills and allowances.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/DirectoryFile/2024-0020-REPORT-Government-Workforce-Policy-Statement-on-Public-Sector-Employment-Relations.pdf
[6] Department of Conservation — “Rewarding capability in te reo Māori”, July 2023
DOC’s explanation of the original allowance and statement concerning role requirements.
https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2023-media-releases/rewarding-capability-in-te-reo-maori/
[7] Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission — 2025 Public Service Census: Skills and qualifications
Public Service language data.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/data/public-service-census/capability-mobility/skills-and-qualifications
[8] Office of the Auditor-General — Improving the Public Service’s capability to engage with Māori, 2026
Corrections allowance numbers, capability assessment and measurement issues.
https://ao.parliament.nz/2026/engagement-with-maori/part3.htm
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
15 comments:
Interesting article Geoff. But you yourself have swallowed the coolaid. You keep on calling it the maori definition of its so called language, it is maori, not "the maori language" or "the language." When you refer to the English language, you say English, not "the English language" or the "language."
Maori isn't "the language " never has been,never will be.
Anonymous 7:14am, I think you’re making a distinction that doesn’t actually affect the argument of the article.
In Māori, te reo Māori means “the Māori language” — te reo means “the language” and Māori identifies it. So referring to it in English as the Māori language is neither swallowing “coolaid” nor adopting some political definition. It is simply translating the name of the language.
We routinely use both forms in English. We say “English” and “the English language”; “French” and “the French language”; “Samoan” and “the Samoan language.” There is nothing linguistically unusual about saying “Māori language.”
And I actually used the more precise term te reo Māori throughout the article where it mattered.
More importantly, my article isn't arguing about what Māori is or isn't. It asks a very simple question about public-sector remuneration:
If proficiency in te reo Māori is not required to perform a particular job, why should achieving proficiency attract an additional taxpayer-funded allowance?
That question remains exactly the same regardless of whether you call it Māori, te reo Māori, or the Māori language.
I consider that I am proficient in the English language, so where is my additional remuneration for that? Given that fact, I am retired so my job is simply living my remaining life as best I can. Do those of us proficient in a language warrant extra remuneration for our language skills? No, if speaking that language is actually required to perform the job such a translator, then that is the base job and is remunerated accordingly!
Early explorers considered maori the most artful of the world's primitive peoples. If they observed how maori have succeeded in magnifying and inflicting their stone age language onto a civilised population their regard would be increased many fold.. Robert Arthur (Kent, Devon, Scotland, Norfolk)
What is happening with te teo being given made the working language of our Defense forces - soldiers being issued orders in te reo ?
Judith Collins "paused" it - didn't stop it , which i expect means that it is continuing unrestrained.
Can anyone update us ?
Interesting discussion Geoff. Am I right in understanding this alliance is ongoing?
I cannot understand why we are having so many Maori language words being forced into the common language of New Zealand (English that is, or as I sometimes refer to it as NZE).
A few examples:
Mahi = Work.
Rangatahi = Youth, Young People, Children
Nga Mihi = Thank You
These words and a widening selection of others are being used over and over by many of our precious media types and pseudo intellectuals. The point is that English has millions of its own foundational words and expressions which have been baked in over the past 1000 years. Words and expressions which do not require any kind of replacing.
I am old enough to recall times where many English/British writers were habitually incorporating French language phrases in order to impress their readers. Thankfully the practice died out. We live in hope that New Zealand will eventually purge itself of its current obsession with Maori language.
Other points about the movement of words and expressions. The traffic is basically all one way. We are expected to transport directly, and unchanged, Maori language into English. And at the same time fake a Maori accent.
While Maori language itself will take English words amended to a manufactured Maori spelling.
A few random examples from my English/Maori dictionary.
Minute = Meneti
Television = Tiwi
Empire = Emepaea
Acre = Eka
Will the word traffic reverse itself? That is demand that Maori language spellings should replace the English language spellings. God forbid such a practice.
Re 1.35pm. The especially irksome factor is that the maori terms introduce confusion into what was plain. Does rangatahi infer maori, maori and pacifica, or all races? Does it extend beyond adolescents? We have magnificent English with well known words for a myriad shades of meaning and many more in reservedf for further subtle variations.We trade it all for stone age imprecision. Is mahi real work or work maori style with as much larking about, skiving and loafing as can possibly be accomodated? It staggers me that there is not vastly more opposition published. Maori have absolutely mastered the art of subversion by thinly veiled threat.
Eamon, one of the in your face absurdities was the replacing of all the signs outside schools with KURA / SCHOOL at the estimated cost of $5 million.
Outright indoctrination at primary school level.
Sadly, our woke compliant administrators have no idea what damage they are doing to what was once a fine little nation.
I fully agree Eamon Sloan, maybe this will make you feel better? More utility than any maori effusions.
purgamentum init, exit purgamentum
And please explain why we need so many Māori language speakers in our public service if only 4% (max) people actually speak it beyond sprinkling it through the English language.
Why we insist on modernising a literal Stone Age language is beyond me
Now this is getting serious. 3 months ago in our capital city and having business near the ‘Centre’, I trialed the new Henderson to Britomart (city cental) rail link , even arriving early to allow for delays
The AI ticket machine first failed to give me any idea whatsoever as to just where any of the listed destinations would take me - but I was very fortunate that the attendant (one of our people) a friendly type, was on hand to explain and translate from the first language destinations given, for those of us unfortunate 96% of New Zealanders who are not only first language illiterate, but those who for any number of reasons have never felt the need,
Instead preferring to maintain focus on the maintenance of plain common sense.
Imagine my delight tonight, realising that I might be the only person in 1000s to millions to have noticed that after spending zillions of public money - very few users will know where they are bound! For those of us unfortunate 96% of New Zealanders, who are first language illiterate.
had a laugh watching our Politicians and the Mayor talking up what a great achievement it has all been. Well yes it obviously has been, but try explaining that to the thousands of lost and lonely souls, not to mention tourists, who just wanted to pay their money to get lost and not even able to return to city central.
The first Maaori dictionary contained less than 1000 words.
Maaori today is quite simply almost all transliterations of English words, or in more simple terms "Pidgin".
Outrageous that we're paying people extra if they can speak a specific language! Would it be the same if they learned French, German etc? Of course not; just a taxpayer rort by the once-upon-a-time "Civil Servants" who have lost all respect for the taxpayers who fund them....
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.