Russell
Palmer, Political Reporter
A select
committee has largely rejected a complaint over regulations
requiring law schools to teach students about tikanga
(tradition), but recommended changes based on a related
concern.
First made public in 2023 and taking effect
from the start of 2025, the regulatory changes would require
a compulsory law course on tikanga Māori under the legal
education curriculum, as well as the inclusion of relevant
content on tikanga Māori in existing compulsory
courses.
The committee said requiring tikanga be
taught as a mandatory part of other subjects – rather than
only as a separate compulsory course – was unusual and
unexpected, and should be changed.
Labour said there
was no need to change it, the Greens said the complaint
process was flawed and ACT said the complaint should be
upheld in full.
Supported by another lawyer Thomas
Newman, lawyer Gary Judd lodged his complaint last April,
arguing before the Regulations Review Committee in October
that the requirement would
mean law students being co-opted into a political agenda
of decolonisation.
Deputy Prime Minister Winston
Peters supported Judd’s complaint and said teaching tikanga
was “cultural indoctrination”.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
Judd had also
criticised speeches from members of the judiciary, saying
they were activists. He said the changes could trespass on
students’ personal rights and liberties, make unusual or
unexpected use of powers granted through secondary
legislation, and could need further
explanation.
However, the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education (NZCLE) pointed out the curriculum already
included aspects of the law that were political, and
students were not required to subscribe to the ideas and
were often invited to challenge them.
The committee of
MPs has the power to investigate complaints about
regulations and recommend changes to Parliament.
Its
report out on Friday noted “that requiring law students
to learn about tikanga Māori does not mean that they must
then practise tikanga in their personal lives or agree” with
the concepts.
The committee found that “given the
public interest in lawyers competently providing legal
services, requiring prospective lawyers to pass courses in
core legal topics is a justifiable limit” on the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, religion and
belief.
Judd also argued that tikanga Māori was not
related to the provision of legal work or services, so
requiring it to be taught would be unusual or unexpected in
the context of the law that allows the regulations to be
made.
NZCLE pointed to tikanga as increasingly
relevant to the legal sector, and noted there was no
requirement for law students to only be taught about legal
work or services.
The committee found Judd’s complaint
was not relevant, but raised another concern.
“Most of
us consider that to legislate the requirement that all
mandatory legal courses include an element of tikanga,
rather than solely requiring a standalone course on tikanga,
is unprecedented. Because of this, a majority of the
committee considers that the amendment regulations are an
unusual or unexpected use of powers.”
The committee
also rejected Newman’s argument that the regulations
“advance a political agenda”, saying he had not linked his
concerns to the language in the law and had failed to argue
there was a low threshold for raising regulations like this
with Parliament.
In its minority view, Labour said it
disagreed that requiring tikanga to be taught in compulsory
subjects where relevant was an unusual or unexpected use of
regulation.
The Green Party’s minority view also did
not support the decision. It said the concerns raised were
valid, but most of the committee had gone against the
evidence presented and made a decision “solely based on a
subjective interpretation” of standing orders, and that the
conclusions were “a stretch”.
“Extraordinarily, the
only unusual or unexpected use of power in this case is the
committee’s decision to partially uphold the complaint,
rather than acknowledging the broader support for these
regulations by the sector.”
They said the committee
was being politicised, “where decisions are made not based
on advice and evidence, but political ideology”, and that
this was dangerous and irresponsible.
ACT’s minority
view recommended the complaint be upheld, urging the
committee to recommend that all the regulations be
revoked.
New Zealand’s public broadcaster, providing comprehensive NZ news and current affairs, specialist audio features and documentaries.
Radio New Zealand is a Crown entity established under the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. Radio New Zealand News are vital elements in our programming, providing impartial news and information to New Zealanders every day. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) provides listeners with exciting and independent radio programmes in accordance with the Radio New Zealand Charter.
