Critics slam Government move to remove ECE cultural obligations
'Initially I was angry,' said Hawke's Bay-based Kaiako Penina Ria (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Pārau). 'Not just for myself, but for my ancestors and whānau that fought for us to be recognised as tangata whenua. From that point of view, it feels like we're starting all over again.'
Ria said the proposed law change reminded her of the stories she had heard from her grandparents and great-grandparents about how they were treated by the education system.
Assimilation enforced by the Native Schools Act in 1867 saw schooling conducted entirely in English, with the curriculum skewed towards instruction in manual and domestic skills. Mātauranga Māori and cultural practices were sidelined, and for decades, Māori were also punished for speaking te reo Māori at school, contributing to the loss of the language and deepening educational inequities.
'Our whānau went through so much so we could have the future that they wanted. I feel like it's important that we carry that on for them, and also for our future generations,' Ria said.
Currently, ECE centres must meet minimum standards set by the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008. The review recommended that only 26 of the current 98 licensing criteria be retained in full with the rest amended, merged, downgraded or removed.
'The Government is addressing ECE regulations to ensure child safety is priority number one, children's education is number two, and parental choice is number three,' Seymour said.
'The ethnic background of the child shouldn't have any bearing on this, and providers shouldn't be forced to worry about the Treaty when their priorities are keeping children safe and educating.'
Academic research has previously highlighted the importance of children feeling secure and supported in their culture.
'There is little doubt that a secure cultural identity is essential for wellbeing and for educational and societal participation and success. It is a key factor in people's sense of self and their relationships with others,' a report commissioned by the Education Review Office (ERO) said.
Ria said for preschool children, acknowledging culture included using waiata, karakia, speaking te reo Māori, and teaching of purākau (traditional Māori stories).
'We value where they come from, we learn about their whakapapa and what's important to them, a lot of recognition of who they are, their uniqueness.
'Working in mainstream and seeing the importance for tamariki Māori, to know where they come from and learn about their heritage. To me, that's important, it's something that I wish I would've had when I was younger.'
While there was a focus on te ao Māori, ECE centres also support other cultures, such as celebrating the start of Chinese Lunar New Year.
Kirikiriroa Hamilton-based kaiako and NZEI Te Riu Roa Early Childhood representative Zane McCarthy said that while his centre will likely opt to keep the bicultural aspects, he worried some centres would drop them altogether.
'There are bad actors. There are bad apples and poor employers who will quash it. It's basically colonisation again.'
McCarthy was particularly concerned about the private centres, which he said made up around 75% of the sector.
'A lot of that 75% have profit-driven motives. When you've got a teacher workforce who are crying out for professional development to learn about te ao Māori, they're needing support in order to uphold te Tiriti and mokopuna Māori. But that comes at a cost, and so when you've got profit-driven motives, they're going to look to scrap that aspect in order to make the bottom line look better.'
He said there have been big benefits of the cultural requirements in the past.
'Whānau have learned, have grown and learnt alongside their tamariki, when they're coming home with new kupu, waiata, purākau, that they're learning from them, and they're becoming even bolder in their own culture and identity as well.'
Green Party MP and spokesperson for ECE Benjamin Doyle said the move prioritised corporate greed and profit over public good and wellbeing.
'There will be some private ECE owners who are looking to make a profit over everything else, and so they'll see that as an unnecessary thing to do anymore, because it's not related to their licensing, they'll just opt not to.'
Doyle said celebrating culture and identity can make Māori learners feel seen.
'When they are nurtured by waiata and purākau, when they are nurtured by those values of manaakitanga and whānaungatanga, it increases their hauora, their wellbeing. And that is not intangible, right? It's tangible.'
By taking the current requirements away, Doyle said, the evidence shows tamariki Māori will not thrive.
'Learning does not occur. It cannot occur when we do not celebrate identity and culture. So it will have a huge impact on our tamariki. And we know that when tamariki thrive, whānau thrive, and if tamariki are suffering, whānau suffer.'
The Early Childhood Council represents childcare centre owners and managers in the ECE sector, speaking for more than 1500 centres across Aotearoa.
Early Childhood Council chief executive Simon Laube said he was not concerned the change would result in a lack of acknowledgement of children's culture, and questioned whether they should have even been a requirement for centres to open in the first place.
'Was it really right to give it to a service provider as a regulation?'
Responding to the argument that private providers will prioritise profit over the wellbeing of children, Laube said that was not the reality he saw day-to-day.
'We spend our time trying to support providers who can't actually pay their current costs of business so they are not profitable and that's a strong kind of trend across the sector. It's quite hard to even really engage with that argument properly, because we're struggling to just keep our centres going with what the current expectations are.'
Removing requirements around cultural aspects would not even necessarily result in cost-savings, Laube said.
'If you really do think about it in terms of business costs, what could they save money on there? You still need to have resources for learning, would they not have language in them? Would they not have people in them? Would that not include culture? It's very hard to cut out culture from a people-based industry.'
Cabinet has accepted the recommendations, and Seymour will introduce the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill in July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US – but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed today that New Zealand exports would have a 15% tariff applied, up from 10% announced earlier. Australia remains at 10%. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." ADVERTISEMENT There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly. "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the Government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15% tariffs rate is consequential – Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." ADVERTISEMENT US President signs an executive order for new tariffs on a wide swath of US trading partners to go into effect in seven days. (Source: 1News) He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10% baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." 'Quite myopic' ADVERTISEMENT Cranes and shipping containers are seen at a port in Busan, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. ADVERTISEMENT "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time."
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Luxon to tell National faithful country is 'turning the corner'
Luxon to tell National faithful "we're turning the corner" National leader Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro National Party members are gathering in Christchurch to cap off a week in which MPs attempted to steer public minds back towards the government's cost of living policies. Members will also farewell a party stalwart, with former president Peter Goodfellow retiring from National's board of directors. While leader Christopher Luxon will be speaking to the converted, he will be acutely aware the cost of living has become front of mind . Earlier this week, he was asked what his message to the party faithful would be. "Look, they know it's been a tough time, they know that we're turning the corner," Luxon said. "But really ... this country's got great potential and a great future ahead of it, and we've just got to keep working at it." National's deputy leader, Nicola Willis, said the conference would be focused on the steps the government was taking to make the country "an easier, better place to do business, to hire people, to create well paying jobs". "It is our job as a government not to moan about the things we can't control, but to focus on how we can make things better here in New Zealand, and we're very proud of the efforts we're making," she said. It is a stark contrast to this time last year, where Luxon's message ahead of the first conference since National returned to government was its focus on action and delivery . It shows just how much the cost of living crisis is lingering, and National has spent the week attempting to convince the public it has got it under control. With no announcement to make at this week's post-Cabinet press conference (bar the card surcharge ban, which had already been announced), Luxon and Willis gave a more than 10-minute address about the economy and cost of living, and actions the government had taken. "The most important thing we can do to make you better off is to double-down on our long-term economic plan," Luxon said. Willis used her speech to remind people of National's tax changes, FamilyBoost policy and a falling Official Cash Rate. It prompted Labour to accuse the government of "more spin than a front-load washing machine" . The latest Ipsos Issues Monitor has Labour in front of National as the party New Zealanders consider most able to handle the cost of living, despite releasing no substantive policy since the election. In 2023, National won 38.06 percent of the party vote, but since then has failed to poll above that. Recent polls have had National in the low thirties, with some showing the left bloc would have enough numbers to form a government. Other polls give the coalition the numbers to form a government, but only just. National party ministers will hold panels on health, education, law and order, agriculture, and the economy and cost of living. Members will also elect board positions. Long-serving board member and former party president Peter Goodfellow will be retiring from the board. Goodfellow was president from 2009 to 2022 before stepping down but remaining on the board. ANZCO Foods founder Sir Graeme Harrison, who joined the National board in 2021, has also decided to retire. Current board member Rachel Bird is up for re-election. Under National's constitution and rules, board members serve three years and then retire. They can then be eligible for re-election. Craig Carr, Andrew von Dadelszen and Edgar Wilson have also put their names forward for the vacancies. Party president Sylvia Wood and board members Jannita Pilisi, Stefan Sunde and David Ryan are not up for re-election, and so will remain on the board. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The Government says it's fixing the cost of living, so what happens if voters don't believe it?
It was clearly designed to assuage fears, fanned by the Opposition, that the Government had put the entire Crown infrastructure build on ice, leading to the mass exodus of construction labour to Australia. The tactic isn't an unfair one. All Governments indulge in the vice of reannouncing things to focus attention on them. A billion or so dollars spent on a road earns the Government a few hundred bites of the PR cherry, or so the political arithmetic goes. So no, the tactic wasn't unfair or even ridiculous - but nor was Labour's criticism that a fair whack of the projects were funded by the last Government. (Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop's riposte that Labour might have funded some of the projects, but it certainly didn't do a good job of delivering them, was equally true.) This early success evaporated on Monday, when Luxon held one of the most bizarre press conferences since taking office. Alongside Finance Minister Nicola Willis, he spoke for more than 10 minutes to mark the first anniversary of the Government's tax package coming into effect. He listed every other cost-of-living policy the Government had implemented since taking office. Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Trade Minister Todd McClay spoke about US tariffs yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with reannouncing something old. Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern liked to mark anniversaries too. Some years, she'd put out a press release celebrating the fact that superannuation payments were increasing in line with wages - despite the fact that this annual increase is written into primary legislation. But Monday's announcement, coming as voters' economic sentiment bounces along the bottom and the country seems on the verge of rioting over the butter price, seemed vacuous. There was something ever so faintly Soviet about a Government thinking that, simply by telling voters it had a policy to fix their problems, they'd believe those problems were being fixed. There are two obvious pathways for how the next few months might pan out. The Government is clinging to several good forward economic indicators: business confidence surveys report okay-ish vibes from firms and suggest something of a recovery next year; the primary sector, far from being the villain of the butter crisis, is driving an export-led recovery in the regions; the Reserve Bank is likely to continue cutting interest rates, spurring investment and growth in 2026, giving Luxon an economic tailwind of good vibes and rising house prices in election year. The snow will soon melt, the ground will thaw, and New Zealanders may spend their summer holidays contemplating having endured the worst of it. Luxon and his colleagues may return to work in January, set the election date and wonder what on earth they were so worried about in winter. That's one scenario, sure. There's another. For every positive data point, there is an equally negative one. The Reserve Bank's GDP tracker suggests what every New Zealander feels in their bones: the economy has been shrinking, and could shrink further. A small recession, measured by the glib but powerful two-negative-quarters definition, could be on the cards. The most recent ANZ business confidence survey showed residential construction intentions tanking, to use the words of the bank's economists. If things continue to follow that negative trajectory, another scenario opens up: one of panic, as the once-distant prospect of a first-term defeat becomes more plausible. If the economy continues to worsen, and National's polling materialises into gloomy party vote numbers, don't entirely rule out a leadership change. A change is not 'on' - you'd be a fool to put money on it — but you'd also be a fool to bet against it. There's no real affection for Luxon in the caucus room, and National has little patience for underperformance, particularly from its leaders. Luxon's intense self-belief could count against him. He does not seem to observe that, of all his frontbenchers, he is the one who is struggling the most. Despite the whole Cabinet fighting fires on every front, National's ministers do a decent job of rebuffing their Labour opposite numbers during Question Time. Health Minister Simeon Brown has come under the most pressure, but has so far survived in the House. Chris Bishop seems unbothered by Kieran McAnulty and seemed to be enjoying himself on Thursday when he answered finance questions on behalf of Willis, who was away (the caucus enjoyed it too). Willis herself never breaks a sweat debating her opposite number, Barbara Edmonds. FBI director Kash Patel visited Wellington to open a new office. Photo / Ola Thorsen Luxon is the most challenged of the lot and was devoured, degustation-style, by Chris Hipkins in the debating chamber this week. Hipkins, who can excel in the House when he wants to, wasn't even trying a particularly sophisticated line of questioning. He resorted to a past Luxon tactic of using each supplementary question to list another case of something going terribly wrong in the economy - migration to Australia, construction jobs, board director remuneration - and then asking the Prime Minister what he thinks about it. Luxon should be able to answer questions like that easily, but could not. His belief in the power of political marketing is so fundamental that he undervalues the importance of backing up that marketing with substance; even more than most prime ministers, he's too quick to answer every question with a canned line and not quick enough to respond by substantively dismantling the question and defending himself. He seems to think this doesn't matter. He's disdainful of Question Time, or of anything that happens in Wellington. But it does matter - and you could tell from the ashen faces behind Luxon as he answered Hipkins' questions that the backbench is worried. If the economy doesn't turn around meaningfully, there's a chance the Government could be in serious trouble, however scary they think a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori Government might be. Slumps such as this one are difficult for centre-right governments. They're instinctively anti-intervention. When the public demands 'something must be done', centre-left governments have no shortage of ideas for that 'something'. The National benches regularly look despondent during Question Time - as pictured here in March. Photo / Mark Mitchell For the right, recovery comes from automatic stabilisers like benefits doing their job, before the fiscal part of the Government gets out of the way of the monetary side, allowing the reduction of interest rates to encourage firms to borrow and invest. It's a less politically attractive recovery because it involves substantially less ribbon-cutting, but that doesn't make it any less sensible a strategy. Ultimately, however much a government tries to pump-prime an economy back to life with fiscal policy, eventually private firms will need to pick up some slack too - and that means low interest rates. Luxon, to his credit, has been explicitly articulating this as his vision for the economic recovery. Last month, he successfully rebuffed one of Hipkins' questions, noting that the construction sector was 'hit hard because of high interest rates. High interest rates happened because Government spending was out of control, and you let inflation get out of control'. Not bad. Grim economic times will always be tough for a government, but they needn't be as tough as these. Back in 2012, net migration to Australia was even higher than it is now and the unemployment rate, in September of that year, was higher than at any point in the past 25 years. Yet that economic malaise failed to find its way into politics. National's party vote polling peaked at 48.8% in October 2012, rising - strangely - in tandem with the unemployment rate. Prime Minister John Key's popularity was unassailable. A government can be popular when an economy is under strain. But that appears to require the public to have faith that the government has a plan to make things better. Voters don't have that faith currently and, after this week, who could blame them?
