Activist organisations have an important place in democracy. Politicians must negotiate public opinion, media narratives and coalition agreements. Activists, at their best, passionately argue for principled positions, unencumbered by political considerations. 

It is important, though, for activists to be accurate and honest. Playing fast and loose with facts might garner short-term popularity, but it undermines credibility in the long run.  

Last week, Hobson’s Pledge emailed its supporters accusing Education Minister Erica Stanford of slipping a “radical section” into the Education and Training Amendment Bill #2 (ETAB2). They called her “National’s wokest Minister” and a “sneaky sellout.” Strong words. 

The offending section relates to school board objectives. It requires boards to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi by achieving “equitable outcomes for Māori students.” Boards must also make sure that tikanga, mātauranga Māori, and a Māori worldview are reflected in schools’ policies and teaching. 

Hobson’s Pledge oppose this clause for good reasons. Poverty, not lack of tikanga in schools, is the main driver of educational inequality for Māori. And schools frequently include karakia in classes in the name of tikanga, arguably undermining the secular nature of public schools. 

The problem is not their objection to the clause, but their claim that Minister Stanford ’slipped it in.’  She did not. It was in the original Act passed by the Ardern government in 2020.   

Speaking on The Platform, Hobson’s Pledge leader Don Brash acknowledged that Stanford did not insert the clause. Yet his organisation told its supporters she did – and it has not published a correction. 

Brash also claimed that ETAB2 elevates the treaty clause “to a matter of prominence, importance and priority.” The opposite is true. 

In the existing Act, all board objectives have equal status. ETAB2 elevates educational achievement to be the paramount objective, relegating the others, including the treaty clause, to the status of supporting objectives. 

Brash said it was beyond his understanding that Stanford did not simply remove the clause. As a former politician, it ought not be.  

Speaking on Newstalk ZB, Stanford said the treaty objective will be considered in an omnibus review of treaty clauses across a broad range of legislation.  

There are numerous references to the treaty in the Act. Stanford is hardly going to winkle them out one at a time. The last thing she needs is a rolling maul of criticism from her political opponents distracting from her agenda to raise educational achievement.