
ACT Party Tried To Get Treaty Of Waitangi Clause Removed From Education Legislation
ACT leader David Seymour says not removing it entirely has "certainly created some controversy", but it was "simply political".
The prime minister is defending the decision because the government wants clarity around these clauses, and wants to deal with it in a "comprehensive and coordinated way" as part of a wider review.
The Education and Training Amendment Bill tweaks Section 127 of the Act from 2020 - which outlines how schools operate in the country - to update what the "paramount objective", or highest priority objective, is for boards governing schools.
It was part of the ACT and National coalition agreement which sets out to "amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools".
The Education and Training Act currently outlines a board's primary objectives in governing a school was to ensure every student can "attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement"; the school is "physically and emotionally" safe; that it includes and caters for students with differing needs; and "gives effect to Te Tiriti of Waitangi".
It specified it must do that by:
(i) working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and
(ii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori; and
(iii) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students.
The Amendment Bill changes Section 127 so the "paramount objective" is first and foremost to "ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement".
To meet that objective, the board must also meet "supporting objectives" such as those outlined in the original legislation, including the clause to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and other objectives around school attendance and evaluating students' progress and achievement.
The order of the Tiriti o Waitangi clause was also slightly changed, so the "achieving equitable outcomes" came first.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "it might sound odd to have to say this" but it was necessary for boards to have a "number one priority on advancing academic achievement".
"So that's job number one."
Seymour agreed, saying the ACT Party campaigned on putting academic achievement "front and centre." He said these changes will ensure that academic achievement is the paramount objective.
"The Act Party has long felt that we have not had an adequate emphasis on just simply making sure that valuable academic knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next."
He said there had been "a lot of disquiet" the requirement to uphold the Treaty had not been removed.
He claimed parents "frequently complain" their children were spending time on subjects and activities that have no value to them, but "appear to be part of a wider political project to change the culture of New Zealand".
He said that was a source of "enormous anger" and parents wanted their children focused on "reading, writing and arithmetic".
He rejected the notion the removal of that clause was itself a political project, saying "there's no political project in wanting children to learn only things that are valuable to them".
Seymour said he would not reveal any kind of "cabinet or other private discussion", but that people can "probably guess" the ACT Party would want to remove a clause like that. The reason for not removing it was "simply political" he said, "not all political parties agree with the removal".
"Perhaps other parties were less eager to hence, it remains, but will be reviewed as part of the government's wider treaty clauses reviewed."
When asked about the differences between National and ACT, Seymour said the National Party would always explain itself as a "broad church".
Luxon refused to say who pushed back on ACT's proposal, saying it was simply a "series of conversations that happen in cabinet and cabinet committees".
Luxon said there was a set of questions around treaty obligations and the implications within legislation. He explained the government had a broader piece of work to outline specific treaty clauses rather than "general, open ended" ones so "everyone has maximum clarity about how a piece of legislation is to be operationalised".
As a result he said the clause would be considered as part of that review. He said the most important thing was to make sure boards understand the priority was getting kids to school, teaching them maths and teaching them to read.
Education Minister Erica Stanford told RNZ "legitimate questions" were raised regarding the existing Treaty clause in section 127 of the Education Act during the Cabinet process in August last year.
She said Cabinet agreed to include the section 127 treaty clause, along with many other references to the treaty in the Education Act, in the wider review the Justice Minister was undertaking.
"This process of reviewing the whole Education Act at once was seen as a more coherent approach to ensure consistency of decision making rather than considering Treaty clauses on an ad hoc basis."
The Amendment Bill is currently at select committee stage. Submissions close on 12 June and a report is due back in September.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Here's what was in Winston Peters' letter to UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights
Winston Peters sent the letter in his capacity as Foreign Minister. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Foreign Minister Winston Peters' response to a UN official raising concerns about the government's approach is far milder than the one initially sent by ACT leader David Seymour. Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after writing back to the Geneva-based UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights Dr Albert K Barume, who raised concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill. His letter, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, said Barume's views on the government's agenda were wrong and an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty, and Barume's letter itself was "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced". Peters and Luxon at the time said the Foreign Minister - who the letter was addressed to - was the appropriate person to send New Zealand's official response. While Luxon said he "fully agreed" with the contents of Seymour's message, Peters rejected Seymour's suggestion his official response would "make the same points". That official response , published on Monday night with a handful of redactions by the UN, said New Zealand "deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate the opportunity to put the record straight". It said the Regulatory Standards Bill was "a result of a Coalition Agreement between two of the three political parties that currently comprise the New Zealand Government", and was "intended to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality legislation". David Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The letter also pointed out the bill was being considered by a select committee. "As a mature democracy, New Zealand has well established systems for developing legislation in a way that takes account of a wide range of interests." It said New Zealand "honours the undertakings that the Crown has made through past Treaty of Waitangi settlements and continues to address historical Treaty grievance claims", pointing to 101 such claims having been signed by iwi, hapū and the Crown. An appendix to the letter also provided further information about "relevant constitutional provisions", pointing out that "all legislative proposals that are submitted to the New Zealand Cabinet must consider the human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications of the proposal". A second appendix on the Regulatory Standards Bill set out the bill's purpose, and how it aimed to achieve that - providing a straightforward explanation of how the bill would work, with links to public consultation and other publicly available information, noting it would not constrain Parliament's ability to make laws. It also noted "nothing in the bill will prevent any additional principles from being considered in the process of lawmaking, or in the review of existing law", and stated the absence of the Treaty of Waitangi from the bill "reflects a decision to focus on a discrete set of goals, including promoting the accountability of the Executive to Parliament". RNZ has sought comment from David Seymour.


NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government kicks can down the road on Palestinian statehood
But will it happen? When asked at his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday what the Cabinet had actually decided to do, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said there was now a 'process' the Government would work through in order to come to a final decision. When asked what this process actually was, he couldn't say. 'We had a conversation today, we'll make a Cabinet decision in September and we'll communicate that in September … but again, I'm not wanting to get ahead of the process. I don't want to presuppose an outcome,' he said. Pressed again, Luxon said there will be 'ongoing conversations with Cabinet to get to a position'. The oral item Peters said he took to the Cabinet on Monday could have thrashed the issue out there and then. Instead, the parties have resolved to work through the issue over the next month. That means the most important thing heading into September is how the various parties feel. National seems the most likely to back recognition of Palestine. National's MPs are feeling the heat from their constituents, but it has some strong backers of Israel around the Cabinet table. Act, meanwhile, is more clearly unlikely to shift from New Zealand's current position. Its view is best summed up by MP Simon Court's contribution to a parliamentary debate last month, saying that recognising a Palestinian state would be viewed as 'a reward for acts of terrorism' committed by Hamas against Israel. NZ First's position is less clear. Peters has for a long time been a staunch supporter of Israel, but the fast-changing international position could see him change his mind. Peters is the conduit for MFAT's advice to the Cabinet, and that advice is likely to reflect the fast-changing international political situation, which has rendered New Zealand's 'when' not 'if' approach to Palestinian recognition untenable. Recognition, if it happens, has been a long time coming. Of the 193 United Nations states, 147 recognise a Palestinian state. Of those countries, most made some form of recognition in the 1980s. It might have happened in 2023, when Labour took a policy to the election of inviting the General Delegation of Palestine in Canberra to present credentials in Wellington, effectively recognising Palestine's statehood. This has remained Labour policy in opposition, with the party loudly calling on the Government to recognise a Palestinian state since 2024. This seemed most unlikely nearly two years ago, when Hamas' October 7 2023 attacks on Israel, killing 1200, made the recognition of a Palestinian state seem further away than ever (whatever Labour, soon to go into opposition, might have said). But Israel's bloody war in Gaza changed all that. Since October 2023, more than 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza as a result of Israeli military operations, according to the BBC. That, plus Israel's inability to stop widespread starvation in the strip, has led the Greens and Te Pāti Māori to describe the situation as 'genocide'. The Government's position, as articulated by Peters, has been that New Zealand's longstanding support for a two-state solution means recognition of a Palestinian state is a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'. That position was a convenient one. It gives the Government something to say to the majority of states that do recognise Palestine, without doing the deed itself and risking the ire of Israel and its main backer, the United States. The United States isn't idle in its threats. Last month, when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Canada would recognise a Palestinian state, President Donald Trump took to social media to say it would 'make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them'. New Zealand's holding pattern has become untenable, both internationally and domestically. Since French President Emmanuel Macron announced in July that France will recognise Palestine, there has been a cascade of what our Government often calls 'like-minded' nations following suit, or threatening to. This made the Government's position challenging. It was happy being among several countries waiting for certain conditions to be met to recognise a Palestinian state, but being one of the last countries to recognise a Palestinian state is about as good as not recognising one at all. The decision of Australia, New Zealand's closest partner, on Monday to join them, was possibly the cherry on top. In the past, countries like New Zealand and Australia had been able to kick the can down the road, pointing to the lack of proper infrastructure in Palestine for recognition to take place. But that position has been replaced by one articulated by Australia's Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, that if recognition did not happen now, there's a risk 'there will be no Palestine left to recognise'. The position is becoming domestically untenable too. Daily, New Zealanders read, watch and listen to the latest from Gaza, where Israel zealously prosecutes a bloody war, whilst doing little to lift the famine taking hold in the strip. National holds most of the country's electorate seats. Those electorate MPs' inboxes groan under the weight of outrage expressed by New Zealanders over what they see. As the polls start to take a tumble, those MPs are becoming increasingly sensitive to what they're hearing from their constituents. With polls on Monday showing the Government in trouble - including one poll showing a hung Parliament - it's possible that this selfish sentiment, as much as anything more altruistic, is driving some of this change, with anxiety in National's caucus room driving change at the Cabinet table.


NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
New political poll: Christopher Luxon's popularity drops to lowest in two years, Labour sees party vote rise
For the party vote, National is on 34%, only a point ahead of the opposition. Labour gained 4% in the latest poll, sitting at 33%. The Green Party is down 2% to 10% while NZ First continues its upward trajectory, gaining 1% in the party vote to 9%. No movement for Act and Te Pāti Māori who both sit on 8% and 4%, respectively. It comes after the Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll this morning showed the race between the centre-left and centre-right were neck-and-neck. On those results, Labour had the most support on 33.6% (up 2 points), National was on 31.8% (down 2.1) and the Greens were up 0.4 to 9.8%. Act dropped 0.5 to 8.6%, New Zealand First was down 2 points to 7.8% and Te Pāti Māori fell 0.3 to 3.2%. Just over 6% were undecided. Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. Photo / Mark Mitchell Converting those results into seats in the House, Labour would have 43, National would have 40, the Greens would have 12, Act would have 11, New Zealand First would have 10 and Te Pāti Māori would get six (presuming they kept their electorate seats). This would put both the centre-left and the centre-right on 61 seats, meaning no side would have a majority to govern. Looking at the Preferred Prime Minister stakes, National's Christopher Luxon was up 0.5 to 20.2%, matched by Labour's Chris Hipkins (who was up 0.6). NZ First leader Winston Peters was down 1.1 points to 8.2%, the Greens' Chlöe Swarbrick was up 1 point to 8%, and Act leader David Seymour was up 0.5 to 6.2%. Lara Greaves, associate professor in politics at Victoria University of Wellington, told Herald Now this morning that a first-term government would be expected to be polling better, but Labour also had work to do, with it yet to release any policies. The latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll was taken between August 3-5. The poll, conducted by phone and online, had a margin of error of +/- 3.1%. Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.