logo
Rights Aotearoa: Minister's Ban On Te Reo Māori In Year-1 Readers Breaches New Zealand's Human Rights Obligations

Rights Aotearoa: Minister's Ban On Te Reo Māori In Year-1 Readers Breaches New Zealand's Human Rights Obligations

Scoopa day ago
Rights Aotearoa condemns the Education Minister Erica Stanford's decision to exclude Māori words from new Ready to Read Phonics Plus books for five-year-olds (except for character names). This directive, confirmed in Ministry documents and ministerial comments, represents a retrogressive step that undermines children's cultural rights and New Zealand's international and domestic legal commitments.
On a prima facie view, the policy conflicts with at least five UN instruments New Zealand has ratified. First, ICCPR Article 27 protects linguistic minorities' right to use their own language and, per the Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 23, requires positive measures by the State to safeguard that right. A blanket removal of te reo Māori from foundational readers sits squarely at odds with that obligation.
Second, ICESCR Articles 13 and 15, read with the Committee's General Comment No. 21, require States to make cultural life accessible and to refrain from measures that restrict participation—especially for minorities and indigenous peoples. Stripping Māori vocabulary from early-years materials narrows access to culture in the very context where language attitudes are formed.
Third, the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges that education foster respect for a child's own cultural identity, language, and values (Article 29(1)(c)) and protects indigenous and minority children's right to use their language (Article 30). The directive is difficult to reconcile with those aims.
Fourth, CERD (and General Recommendation No. 23) calls for active measures to preserve and promote indigenous languages. A rule that singles out Māori words for exclusion from standard resources risks indirect discrimination and runs counter to that guidance.
Fifth, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education prohibits distinctions based on language that impair equality of treatment in education and recognises minorities' right to use and teach their own language.
Domestically, the directive cuts against NZBORA s 20 (rights of linguistic minorities) and the Māori Language Act 2016, which affirms te reo Māori as a taonga and an official language and requires a Crown strategy (Maihi Karauna) to revitalise and normalise its use across public life. Schools are also required to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi under the Education and Training Act 2020.
Paul Thistoll, Chief Executive of Rights Aotearoa, said:
'Language visibility in a child's first readers is not a matter of taste; it is a matter of rights. Removing te reo Māori from Year-1 books is a legally retrogressive measure that marginalises indigenous language in mainstream schooling and undermines New Zealand's binding commitments at home and abroad. The minister is engaging in cultural suppression.'
Rights Aotearoa calls for the following immediate actions:
1. Rescind the directive and confirm that Māori words will continue to appear in all new early-literacy readers as appropriate to context and pedagogy;
2. Release the relevant Ministry papers in full and consult with Māori education stakeholders, literacy experts, and the Māori Language Commission;
3. Align early-literacy resources with obligations under ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, CERD, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, NZBORA, the Māori Language Act, and the Education and Training Act.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tonga King's Move To Control Foreign Affairs 'A Step Backwards'
Tonga King's Move To Control Foreign Affairs 'A Step Backwards'

Scoop

time10 hours ago

  • Scoop

Tonga King's Move To Control Foreign Affairs 'A Step Backwards'

, RNZ Pacific senior journalist There are growing concerns in Tonga about the King's plan to remove oversight of a critical ministry from democratic control and place it under the Palace Office. King Tupou VI has never made any secret of his desire to maintain authority over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His son, Crown Prince Tupouto'a 'Ulukalala, is the current Foreign Affairs Minister. Last week, the Tongan Legislative Assembly passed laws to transfer the Ministry, now known as His Majesty's Diplomatic Service, to the administration of the Palace Office. However, on Thursday, Tonga's Democratic Party presented a petition to the Palace Office calling on the King to reconsider his decision. Teisa Pohiva Cokanasiga, the youngest daughter of the Tongan democracy campaigner and late Prime Minister Akilisi Pohiva, is now leader of the Friendly Islands Democratic Party (PTOA). (This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.) Teisa Pohiva Cokanasiga: First of all, the change was made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the bill was submitted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is His Royal Highness Crown Prince Tupouto'a 'Ulukalala, both from Cabinet to the Legislative Assembly to parliament, and it was passed through parliament. So what I understand, is that it is now on its way to the Privy Council, which is chaired by His Majesty, of course, for the completion of the process, which is to obtain his royal assent. Now in terms of the position of the pro-democracy Friendly Islands Democracy Party, we are completely against it. This is a major step backwards from the democratic reform that we have started in the 2000 to 2010 constitutional amendments. In my opinion, we are already well on our way towards a fully democratic government for Tonga, but this bill is a step backwards. Simply put, for our democracy, it is a fundamental change to the structure of this ministry and the structure of government. We are going back to how it was before the change in 2010. Don Wiseman: How do you operate a government when a key ministry, and Foreign Affairs is one of the most important ministries, how do you operate that from a different location, different management, all of that? TPC: That is a good question, and I think this act is not effective yet, so the current position is still maintained. There is a Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the leadership of a Minister appointed by the people and nobles elected PM. Now there's also a secretary for foreign affairs, appointed by the King. The legal basis for that, I am not sure of. Now we have two masters, if I may say, there is the secretary playing the role of a CEO appointed by the King, and there is a minister appointed by the Prime Minister. So there is a tug of war going on within this ministry. For me, the step forward would have been for the Ministry to be governed the same as other ministries in government - to have a minister and a CEO appointed through the Public Service Commission Act. Instead of letting the ministry operate fully under the control of the Minister and the Prime Minister in Cabinet. We are going backwards, taking everything back to the King instead of Cabinet. DW: The King, of course, has made it very clear from back when your dad was prime minister, he wanted more control over Foreign Affairs. He did it again with the last government, and then this government just rolled over, and the legislation's now there. So what do you think is going to happen following the election later this year. TPC: If we just take it one step at a time, we are hopeful that this petition would have some sort of effect. We are hoping that the King would reconsider giving his royal assent to this Act, and for government to restart the process on this get public consultation on this, because the fear on the ground is that there is a lot of people who are not happy with this act. We are also not happy with our representatives in parliament. So there may be some impact of this on how people see our current representatives in parliament and how they perform. I am hoping that this would send a clear message to the voters of Tonga on the need for voting for people who can oppose bad acts, in my opinion, such as this.

Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders
Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders

Scoop

time15 hours ago

  • Scoop

Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders

The Supreme Court has found riverbeds can be included in Māori customary marine title orders, if other legal tests are met. That comes from the second part of the Court's judgement on claims to customary rights in the harbours, river mouths, beaches and seascape of the eastern Bay of Plenty. The first judgement released in December 2024 addressed the meaning of section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA), which sets out the test Māori groups must meet to have their customary rights recognised. It also overturned a previous Court of Appeal decision in 2023 which made it easier to gain customary title. This second judgement resolves the remaining seven issues on the seven separate appeals which were heard together. All this as the government forges ahead with plans to amend the law in question over fears that the 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori iwi, hapū and whānau to have their customary rights over parts of the coastline recognised. Navigable rivers In this case one of the orders for customary title included the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers near Opōtiki. "Navigable river" in this case means a river of sufficient width and depth (whether at all times so or not) to be used for the purpose of navigation by boats, barges, punts, or rafts. The court accepted that the relevant portion of the rivers in question is navigable. The definition of "marine and coastal area" in MACA includes the beds of rivers that are part of the coastal marine area as that term is defined in the Resource Management Act 1991. The Attorney-General submitted that previous Acts of Parliament were intended to "vest the full beneficial ownership - akin to freehold title - in navigable riverbeds in the Crown." The court found that previous Acts were not sufficiently clear to extinguish customary rights or title to the beds of navigable rivers. The court concluded that "the beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them". The court found the impact of these findings on the CMT claims in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, particularly in relation to the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers, can be dealt with by the High Court. Timeline October 2023, just days after the 2023 General Election, a Court of Appeal decision made granting customary marine title easier In November 2023, the coalition agreement between National and NZ First includes a commitment to overturn the Court of Appeal decision September 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal recommends the Crown halt its efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act That same month the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is introduced to Parliament December 2024, the first Supreme Court judgement overturns the Court of Appeal decision. The government hits pause on the amendment bill August 2025, the government presses ahead with the law change.

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

NZ Herald

time17 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store