First made public in 2023 and taking effect from thestart 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”.
The changes would require a compulsory law course on tikanga Māori under the legal education curriculum. Photo / 123rf
Judd had also criticised speeches from members of the judiciary, saying they were activists. He said the changes could trespass on students’ 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 said “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.
- RNZ
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
