As probably the key element in the He Puapua strategy designed to achieve joint Maori-Crown sovereignty by 2040, the proposed curriculum is hugely important. If you are alarmed that your children and grandchildren may be indoctrinated through a heavily biased history curriculum, you should at least send in a submission. Feel free to use anything from my work below. Submissions close May 31.Read more
Fiona Mackenzie: draft curriculum designed to foster ethnic division, to breed resentment and foster guilt
The draft curriculum seems designed to foster ethnic division, to breed resentment and to foster guilt, so it is highly likely to cultivate young activists. It reeks of psychologic abuse of the children in our education system and is inappropriate for teaching professionals to administer. If this is an example of the standard of current curricula, it helps explain the high level of anxiety being reported amongst New Zealand children. Consequently, I consider this draft totally flawed and beyond redemption.Read more
The Ministry of Education is currently surveying the public on its Draft "Aotearoa New Zealand's Histories" curriculum. If you are alarmed that your children and grandchildren may be indoctrinated through a heavily biased history curriculum, you should answer the Ministry's on-line survey or send in a submission.
Feedback to the Ministry is through an online survey which closes on Monday 31st May.
The questions have been framed in a smug attitude of general compliance with the left-wing Treaty based cultural identity ideology underpinning the Education and Training Act 2020. We should be very concerned. As concluded by former teacher Fiona Mackenzie, the "draft ‘history’ curriculum is very clearly a mechanism by which separatist ideology is to be embedded into the brains of every New Zealand child − lowering our education standards, radicalising our youth and dividing communities".
Please refer below for details on the Draft content and specific concerns.
We need parents and teachers to object vociferously against the document which is so hopelessly flawed that it should be scrapped. The survey can be completed in under ten minutes, your negative feedback will be registered.
Full written submissions
The Ministry is also accepting full written submissions. Full written submissions can be mailed to:
Ministry of Education
P O Box 1666
DX Number: SR51201
[insert your name & address]
Submission on" Aotearoa New Zealand’s Histories in the New Zealand Curriculum, Draft for Consultation @ January 2021
The curriculum has been drafted under the provisions of Labour's Education and Training Act 2020, which requires schools to instil in each child the importance of diversity, cultural knowledge, identity, and the different official languages, and, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori.
A flavour of some of the more objectionable material taught in te reo maori can be ascertained from a sample of text from a draft lesson plan [written in te reo Maori, translated into English using Google translate]:
PRINCIPLES (NEW ZEALAND PEOPLE)
More consideration needs to be given to the impact of repression on the sovereignty of individuals and nations. Investigate a member of the tribe who argued against this; the removal of Māori power at that time and discuss their responses and actions at that time
LEARNING STRATEGY: SOCIAL INTEREST. (PKENGA)
Knowledge: to actions, behaviors and conflicts of repression in New Zealand
Clear: in the absence of equal power and effect of this to behavior and outcomes
Comprehension: to compare repressive behaviors in New Zealand to other repressed countries
THOUGHTS/QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION/FOR RESEARCH
What is repression/resistance? What is colonization/resistance/activism-discuss these key concepts
What is autonomy? (of people, of people)
What effect does repression have on autonomy?
What are some similarities/differences in other places/other indigenous communities/peoples? They compare these with theirs ake Compare similarities/differences
Research and gather information from the whānau/hapū/iwi of resistance, repression, and activity and people in those days. What were the reactions of those times?
What were some of the questions of the time?
Research a famous person. Research a well known person involved in these topics. Then capture the voice of the student speaking these talk and write those stories. It also ranks in those comments.
It’s a short, visual art-to-show in stories/collections of information.
An index of information
Have an argument — its different perspectives
Organize a debate/differing perspectives.
Fiona Mackenzie has drafted the following general points which you may wish to consider in your submission:
When it comes to teaching history, primary and early secondary school children are entitled to simple, irrefutable, evidence-based information that is not designed to cause them distress. At this time of their lives, quality teaching of the basics of reading, maths and science are far more vital to the development of the child.
History’s inherent demands for research, substantiation and analysis make it more suitable for the later years of secondary school and/or university.
The best possible outcomes from studying history are to recognise and learn from humankind’s common foibles, and to understand how different environments, government and ideologies support or limit advancement. We can gain confidence in humankind’s ability, if given the right inputs, to achieve great things while overcoming challenges and adversity.
This draft curriculum fails these requisites on so many levels. It is not satisfactory for Years 1-10 as it reads like a political indoctrination designed to foster ethnic division, breed resentment and foster guilt. It is therefore inappropriate for teaching professionals to administer, requiring them to manipulate and abuse the mental wellbeing of children. If this is an example of the standard of current curricula, it helps explain the high level of anxiety being reported amongst our young.
Language is for Communication
The mix of Te Reo with no translations or definitions even in the “in English” version of this draft seems designed to confuse or hide information from the majority of New Zealanders (including the many Maori) who do not speak Te Reo.
The Draft Employs No “World Context” for Children
Appreciating our history must start with at least a general understanding of −
- Human Migration being continuous and widespread for the entire provable history of humankind on this planet; and
- Our Country’s Geological Formation explaining our remoteness and why there was no human habitation here for thousands of years after other regions were well occupied.
Evolution of Our Country along with Its Name
The evolution of names for these islands is integral to understanding the history and formation of our sovereign country, i.e. Nieuw Zeeland or Nova Zeelandia, New Zealand, the transliteration to “Niu Tirani” used in the Treaty, and then much later, “Aotearoa” when it was selected and popularised as a romantic Maori name for our islands by Pakeha writers.
Note: The separate tribes occupying these islands did not have a common ethnic name, no governing body, or even a name for the combined islands until post-Treaty 1840.
Fact vs. Stories, Myths & legends
It’s essential that children are taught the differences and credibility of different types of information. It’s fact that archaeological/scientific findings date the earliest Polynesian settlement in these islands as 1320-1350. Why these people left where they came from and how they got here is supposition based on genetic commonality within the Pacific, the use of canoes, and verbal stories, myths and legends.
The Three (not so) Big Ideas of this Draft
“Maori History is the foundational and continuous history of Aotearoa New Zealand.”
This “Idea” suggests that Maori history is one united experience, while this Draft omits any information on the inter-tribal colonisation of these islands, the inter-tribal competition for resources and power, the warfare (with the associated capture of slaves, deaths and cannibalism), the living conditions, nor the environmental impact of bush clearing and the hunting to extinction of several unique birds found nowhere else in the world, e.g. the moa and Haast eagle.
This discriminatory “Idea” fails to acknowledge that once the early European explorers had returned to their homes and confirmed the existence of these islands, they were followed between 1790 and 1840 by sealers, whalers, traders, missionaries, ex-convicts and assorted adventurers with whom the majority of tribes/native peoples voluntarily integrated for work, family and protection.
It also fails to acknowledge that after most chiefs ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria in the most enlightened agreement of its era − “the Treaty of Waitangi”, our country’s development has resulted in a unique and still evolving New Zealand culture based on our sharing of bloodlines, learnings, experiences and values. Consequently, we have produced talented individuals/groups capable of great achievements in so many fields (science, music, sport, business, entertainment, exploration, politics, IT, etc), way more than expected from such a small population.
To suggest that New Zealand’s history all centres on our Polynesian heritage is an absurd claim.
“Colonisation and its consequences have been central to our history for the past 200 years and continue to influence all aspects of New Zealand society.”
This ‘Idea fails to acknowledge migration and colonisation as facts of human existence worldwide, throughout time – not just the last 200 years. For example, Polynesian tribes (Maori) colonised these islands and then each other continuously between the 1300s and 1800s. New Zealand’s culture is naturally evolving with time, inputs from all its people, and worldwide developments. We do not live in a vacuum − as evidenced by the world famous opera singer Dame Kiri Te Kanawa or film director Taika Waititi.
Appallingly, all of the explanations of what is actually to be promoted by this ‘Idea’ are completely confused or untrue. They are blatant propaganda, seemingly designed to promote racial disharmony and resentment and would qualify under the current government’s proposed ‘hate speech” laws.
“The course of Aotearoa New Zealand’s history has been shaped by the exercise and effects of power.”
This claim is rather myopic as the exercise of power has influenced all living creatures since time immemorial. As Darwin pointed out, it’s always been the survival of the fittest on Earth (for all lifeforms) – at least until stable, economic and enlightened power enabled welfare and science to help the weak to survive and live on.
A New Zealand “history/political study” of power should surely start with how tribal chiefs came to their positions and how they maintained them, and the resulting inter-tribal warfare in this country. Then while nothing is ever 100% perfect, it would be appropriate to acknowledge that since 1840, our evolving government has divested power to the people through private property rights, law and order, free speech and democracy. This “power” is certainly preferable to that of inter-tribal warfare or Labour’s secretive goal of “Maori co-sovereignty with veto over everyone else” by 2040.
The “Three National Contexts”
- I have commented on the sub-text provided under the Te Reo statements driving this part of the proposed curriculum:
“This context focuses on how the past shapes who we are today – our familial links and bonds, our networks and connections, our sense of obligation, and the stories woven into our collective and diverse identities.”
Our interpretation of “the past” can contribute to who we are today but children need to know that it need not predetermine or restrict it. And “stories” not based on factual evidence must be treated as subjective. New Zealanders share experiences, families and all the advantages of living in a first world country. This is well worth celebrating and we have a combined obligation to maintain and enhance it.
“This context focuses on the relationships of individuals, groups, and communities with the land, water, and resources, and on the history of contests over their control, use, and protection.”
This is a massive, complicated subject involving economics, science, environmentalism, international trade, government and political ideology so is usually best approached at tertiary level. It is totally inappropriate to be imposing this on children who are yet to learn the basics of reading/comprehension, maths and science.
“This context focuses on the history of contests over authority and control, at the heart of which are the authorities guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi and The Treaty of Waitangi. It also considers the history of the relationships between the state and the people who lived here and in the Pacific.”
This is blatant political activism and ignores how the Treaty was written. Over a period of 180 years, the Treaty has been embellished, distorted, twisted and mangled into a fantastic, mythical document completely out of context for the times. The curriculum ignores how New Zealand has led the charge in social justice, equality, education (until recently) and our largely peaceful multi-cultural society.
- “This context focuses on how the past shapes who we are today – our familial links and bonds, our networks and connections, our sense of obligation, and the stories woven into our collective and diverse identities.”
Rohe and Local Contexts
“Rohe contexts as defined by iwi and hapū and guided by the question What stories do local iwi and hapū tell about their history in this rohe?”
Why is this limited to Maori only? Do you not think that many New Zealanders have strong associations with the land and relevant “stories” to tell?
“Historical contexts relevant to local communities and guided by the question - What stories are told about the people, events, and changes that have been important in this area?”
Great care and critical thinking are required to check the historical facts to validate the “stories” being told and to ensure that they are appropriate for the age group concerned. History lessons should avoid one-sided, politically-inspired messages being instilled in children.
“Contexts chosen by students when inquiring into the history of the rohe and local area.”
This is open to abuse and manipulation by the Ministry, teachers or radical locals, as it would be rather difficult for school aged children to validate sources and information.
“Three Inquiry Practices” are Inappropriate for Targeted Age Groups
Identifying and using sequence. “The construction of narratives about the past is based on the ability to sequence events and changes, to identify relationships between them, and to make connections with the present. Depending on the frame of reference used in sequencing, the same story will be told in different ways.”
This narrative approach has been well criticised by acclaimed historians. For example, in 1931 Regius Professorof History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Herbert Butterfield criticised oversimplified narratives (or "abridgements") which interpreted past events in terms of the present for the purposes of achieving "drama and apparent moral clarity". Butterfield especially noted: "If history can do anything it is to remind us that all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance."
History taught in “story-form” to children is the very definition of “abridged” and superficial. Without fact and context, it serves no other purpose other than to force its authors’ views on young minds.
Identifying and critiquing sources and perspectives. This sounds good in itself, but when we read that children will be required to pay “deliberate attention to Matauranga Maori sources and approaches”, the curriculum appears open to supplanting historical fact with “myths and legends” and political ideology. This is obvious in the way unsubstantiated statements/claims are presented as indisputable facts and many of the propositions are totally absurd and/or inappropriate for the targeted 5−15 year age range (some would be challenging enough for university students to research, validate and analyse).
Interpreting past decisions and actions……”making ethical judgements concerning right and wrong”.
Children can certainly learn what’s right and wrong in simple situations relevant to them, but a curriculum requiring children to make ethical judgements about historical events based on abridged (factual or otherwise) lessons is totally inappropriate and has the potential to be an unfair burden on developing minds. Children cannot make such decisions in a vacuum. Many situations involve a huge number of issues and involve a depth of contextual and philosophical understanding not always achievable by children.
- Identifying and using sequence. “The construction of narratives about the past is based on the ability to sequence events and changes, to identify relationships between them, and to make connections with the present. Depending on the frame of reference used in sequencing, the same story will be told in different ways.”
This draft ‘history’ curriculum is very clearly a mechanism by which separatist ideology is to be embedded into the brains of every New Zealand child − lowering our education standards, radicalising our youth and dividing communities. Authoritarian nations throughout history have manipulated children in this way, and I’m ashamed to see New Zealand following in the footsteps of Hitler Youth, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Soviet Russia and North Korea in abusing the minds of children as young as five.
Prime Minister Ardern frequently refers to our “team of 5 million”, yet her Government seems determined to divide and separate us into distinct and warring factions. People who promote victimhood or foster disunity for political gain deserve no respect and certainly no place in the government of our nation.
To conclude, this draft History Curriculum is totally flawed and an embarrassment. It is not fit for purpose, and deserves no place in our schools.
National Party leader Simon Bridges’ apparent intention to ally with the Maori Party undermines his weak concessions to “one law for all” voters announced during the week.Read more
A massive "Education and Training Bill" is currently before Parliament. This radical Bill requires State indoctrination of children and young people in Marxist identity ideology and Maori cultural propaganda, and grants Maori elites undue influence over the education of our children and young people. The new rules seek to impose Maori cultural values on our predominantly non-maori population and transfer power, jobs and funding to Maori academics and iwi elites. In a particularly sinister move, the Bill will allow Chris Hipkins and Kelvin Davis (Minister of Maori-Crown relations) in consultation with Maori to issue a "Statement of Expressions" outlining what education providers (schools, pre-schools, training institutes etc) will be required to do to meet their obligations under Treaty legislation. The creation of these rules by the Minister and the Minister of Crown-Maori relations in consultation with "Maori" (presumably representing the bogus Crown-Maori "Treaty partnership") represents a novel form of "Treaty negotiations", and with the Bill expressly removing Parliamentary powers of oversight: a gross corruption of democratic principles.
Please read further to help us defeat the Bill where it seeks to indoctrinate our children with identity politics and Maori cultural propaganda and to hand undue influence and powers to unelected, unaccountable Maori elites.
The indoctrination plan is outlined in Section 9: Te Tiriti o Waitangi:
Section 9 states that a purpose of our education system is to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and support Maori-Crown relationships. Section 9 will require teachers to teach the lie that the Treaty created a partnership between the Crown and Maori.
Section 5(4)(c) schools must instil in each child the importance of:
(ii) diversity, cultural knowledge, identity, and the different official languages, and
(iii) Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori.
Section 5 will require teachers to promote Marxian identity ideology and elevate the significance of Maori language beyond its modern day relevance and, in particular, relevance to non-Maori children. Ironically, the drafters of the Bill don't appear to realise that New Zealand has only two official languages: te reo Maori and New Zealand Sign Language, so the Bill requires teachers to instil in children the importance of te reo Maori and NZ sign language while ignoring English, the world's most widely spoken language and the gateway to jobs in a modern economy.
This provision in effect creating backroom "Treaty negotiations" between the government (Chris Hipkins) and Maori (Kelvin Davis and iwi elites) as to what education providers will be required to do to meet their Treaty obligations appears to be part of a movement towards constitutional change by stealth, a sinister corruption of democracy likely to result in a massive transfer of broad powers to "Maori" within the education section.
It is unknown as to what a "Statement of expectations" might stipulate, soft indoctrination: the adoption and elevation of maori culture and maori religious practices (karakia etc), is already widespread throughout the education sector on a voluntary basis. It is possible that the Statement might set out compulsory curriculum material to be taught in primary and secondary schools including maori language and tikanga, as well as compulsory Maori staffing quotas, perhaps even the separate tuition of Maori children. This is quite possible, as section 122(1)(d) requires School Boards to ensure that school policies and lessons are aimed towards achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students.
While we cannot know what the Statement will contain, the point to note is that unless the Bill is amended, all education providers will be be required to give effect to measures outlined in the Statement without reference to Parliament or the wishes and needs of the wider public: taxpayers, teachers, parents or the students themselves.
Section 122(1)(d) states that a primary objective of School Boards is to ensure that school plans, policies and lessons reflect:
- local tikanga Maori, matauranga Maori and te Ao Maori; and
- that schools take all reasonable steps to make lessons available in tikanga Maori and Maori language; and
- achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students
As such, the Bill requires teachers to indoctrinate children with sanatised Maori lore, Maori religious beliefs (animism) and the so-called "Maori world view". Presumably the stipulation of local tikanga will require school boards, prinicpals and teachers to consult with local Maori elites in matters of school governance and the preparation of lesson plans.
The Bill does not define who is a "Maori" student, or what "equitable outcomes" means, or any way of measuring "equitable outcomes". Presumably, schools will be required to jump through the numerous hoops stipulated in the Statement of Expectations and allocate funding to meet the additional perceived needs of a child due to that child's ancestry rather than treating the child as an individual with individual needs. And while we would all want all children and young people to achieve to the best of their abilities, it is not at all clear why the entire burden for achieving "equitable outcomes" (however interpreted) should be placed at feet of schools, rather than parents. Nor is it clear why "Maori students" are relegated to belonging to a generic minority "identity", stigmatised and patronised as requiring special attention regardless of their individual skills and unique personality. A better approach might be to encourage Maori (all) parents to instil in their children a love of reading and learning, an appetite for study and encouragement to eschew drugs and alcohol.
Part 3 Subpart 6 of the Bill provides for the continuing segregation of Maori children and young people from mainstream education though the provision of separate schooling (Kura Kaupapa Maori) at all levels catering almost exclusively to Maori.
It is unclear whether independent research has been conducted to see whether Kura Kaupapa Maori serve the best interests of these children and young people.
Transfer of rights and powers to "Maori"
Section 10(1) the definition of "school community" is broadened beyond the parents and families of school students to include "the Maori community associated with the school". This might be interpreted as a requirement by schools to consult beyond the immediate family of pupils and consult with local iwi.
Under these provisions, all "Maori" are regarded as belonging to a generic minority "identity".
Probably the best way that we can have the Bill changed is by contacting New Zealand First MPs (and ACT's David Seymour) about how the Training and Education Bill will confer undue rights on Maori to influence the eduction of our children and young people.
Email or write (Freepost Parliament) to NZ First MPs
urging them to propose amendments to the Bill that would remove all references to the Treaty, as outlined within section 9 of the Training and Education Bill.
David Seymour (ACT)
Submissions on the Bill closed 14 February 2020.
tell our MPs:
- that our children and young people should be treated as individuals, rather than as a sub-set of a politically constructed identity
- that we do not want future generations indoctrinated with Treaty propaganda
- that is is wrong to foist largely irrelevant, sanitised cultural propaganda: tikanga Maori and the so called te Ao Maori (Maori world view), in essence religious teachings, upon a largely non-Maori population
- that you do not support the granting of powers to unelected, unaccountable iwi elites
- that school staff should be employed solely on the basis of competence
which is why the Education and Training Bill must be amended to remove all race based preference as outlined within section 9 of the Bill
Other provisions in the Education and Training Bill that transfer powers to Maori and create de facto Maori quotas, as outlined in section 9(2):
- section 307(1)(c) power of Maori Advisory Committee to elect 1 member of the NZIST Board
- section 312(1) requires the NZIST to establish a Maori Advisory Committee
- section 312(3)(a) NZIST Council must consult with the Maori Advisory Committee
- education Councils acknowledge the principles of the Treaty in the exercise of their functions and powers
- the NZ Institute of Science and Technology collaborate with Maori and iwi partners to improve outcomes for Maori learners and Maori communities
- New Zealand Institute of Science and Technology: Schedule 13 requires that the Institute's governance, management and operations give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi etc; recognise that Maori are key actors in regional social, environmental, and economic development
De facto Maori quotas in employment rules
- section 258(2)(a) NZIST Council must include at least 1 "Maori"
- section 344(3)(b) Workforce Development Council must include representation by Maori employers
- section 128 a school Board's policies and practices must reflect cultural diversity. Presumably this governs Board's roles in the appointment of Principals, which may favour an applicant's ancestry over competence.
- section 380 the Tertiary Education Commission appoint members only after consultation with the Minister of Maori Development
- section 449(4)(b)(v) require the Minister to consider the collective understanding of partnership principles when considering appointments to the Teaching Council
- section 564(2)(d) general principles: schools and training providers to recognise the aims and aspirations of Maori, the employment requirements of Maori and the greater need of Maori in the education service
Under these provisions, all "Maori" are relegated to belonging to a generic minority "identity", stigmatised and patronised as requiring special attention regardless of their individual skills and unique personality.
Since the row over Don Brash being banned then un-banned from speaking at Massey University, race-based issues have appeared to have been sidelined. The issues remain, prompting Don to write in his regular column for South Auckland newspaper Elocal that “enough is enough”. Here is the article:Read more
A new School Journal comic book aimed at 10- to 12-year-olds with a Year 6 reading level shows indoctrination about the Treaty of Waitangi in action.Read more
If we were in any doubt that the education system is a powerful force in national politics and cultural values, the Education Council is obliterating that. New Zealanders (when given the chance) have repeatedly expressed no appetite for constitutional reform, co-goverance, compulsory te reo, or a new flag, so now the activists are taking matters into their own hands to entrench their power over our minds.Read more
Indoctrination is the process of instilling ideas and attitudes by persistent instruction. The New Zealand government systematically fosters politically correct ideas and attitudes on the Treaty of Waitangi, our history, and the position of Maori people in society.
Once upon a time, New Zealand culture was heavily dominated by British culture and traditions. Older New Zealanders would remember going to the movies and being required to stand for a rendition of the British national anthem ‘God Save the Queen’, singing Anglican hymns and reading the Bible at school prize-givings, and listening to a speech by some dignitary on the opening of anything official.
All that has changed. Now, the use of Maori-culture welcoming ceremonies and choreographed war dances at official functions, school prize-givings, graduations, at the opening of government buildings, and at funerals, has created a Maori-cultural frame for day-to-day existence.
Official occasions in New Zealand in the 1950s appeared exclusively British. Today, despite the fact that we are now a multi-ethnic multi-cultural society, they appear Maori.
New Zealand government departments take politically correct thought very seriously. In this policy area, those expressing ideas counter to the official narrative are condemned or shamed with accusations of racism.
Nurses must be trained in “cultural safety”. This home-grown concept emerged here in the late 1980s as a framework for the delivery of “more appropriate” health services for Maori people.
Culturally safe practices, according to the Nursing Council of New Zealand, include actions “which recognize and respect the cultural identities of others, and safely meet their needs, expectations and rights”. Such behaviour is contrasted with culturally unsafe practices which are “those that diminish, demean or disempower the cultural identity and well-being of an individual”. (1)
An early casualty of cultural safety in the 1990s was student Anna Penn, who said she had been “bounced out” of her nursing course for being branded culturally unsafe by the polytechnic’s Maori elder (kaumatua) after she questioned the denial of her right as a woman to speak on a marae.
Penn completed her training in Australia but has since returned to work in New Zealand.
There is a version of cultural safety for student teachers. At the application interview, prospective students must state their relationship with the Treaty of Waitangi and affirm loyalty to treaty principles.
During induction, Maori songs are learned and sung, Maori ceremonial greetings (mihis) are learned, and a trip to a Maori meeting house (marae) is customary.
Treaty principles form the moral code of the New Zealand curriculum. Woe betide any student who points out that the word “partnership” does not appear in the treaty.
The NZ Graduating Teacher standards say that “graduating teachers are required to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Maori to work effectively within the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand – no recognition of the fact that New Zealand is no longer a bicultural country, but rather one where many cultures mingle. (2)
Every teacher has his or her own story about cultural indoctrination in our schools and teacher training institutes.
In universities too, getting approval to undertake a new research project often requires the researcher to show how the research relates to the Treaty, and would benefit Maori.
Most people won’t say a word against treaty orthodoxy for fear of being called racist. Such name calling is merely a bid to shut down debate and public scrutiny.
1. Nursing Council of New Zealand 2002, p.9
2. Preparing the parrots