Gary Judd KC told MPs law students were being “co-opted” to advance a political agenda of decolonization by having to complete compulsory studies in tikanga Māori.
Photo: RNZ / Anneke Smith

MPs are considering a senior lawyer’s request for Parliament to end compulsory study of tikanga Māori for law students.

Gary Judd KC lodged a complaint with the Government’s Regulation Review Committee over the compulsory course earlier this year.

He has now told MPs that law students are being “co-opted” to advance a political agenda of decolonization by being forced to take the course.

“There is only one good reason to make learning tikanga compulsory for all students: that it is an essential part of a practicing lawyer’s skills.”

Judd said that was not the case and argued that there had been “a determined and concerted effort” by political activists, including some of the nation’s highest judges, to mainstream “spiritual culture amorphous” in the law.

“Mandatory tikanga cannot be divorced from attempts by some sections of the judiciary to impose tikanga into law and they are aided and abetted by lawyers who have abandoned their commitment to the rule of law and who, at the alongside many academics and allies, in the public service, jumping on the bandwagon in the colors of fashionable decolonization.

Judd said the Supreme Court had “completely overstepped constitutional bounds” in its decision in the Peter Ellis case, which reaffirmed the place of tikanga in New Zealand law.

“I come back to the constitutional position and say that Parliament really needs to stand up and assert the fact that Parliament is sovereign and that if we are going to make radical changes to the law like this, then only Parliament has the constitutional power . the right to do so.

Judd KC’s complaint was supported by attorney Thomas Newman, who called the required course “highly political and illegitimate” and argued that it unduly infringed on the rights and freedoms of law students.

“When bodies like the Law Society, the New Zealand Bar Association and others express support for tikanga and make it a compulsory subject, they are simply engaging in prestige politics.

“This is intended to intimidate dissent and create a false impression about the legitimacy of tikanga and its relevance to legal practice. Make no mistake. Tikanga is not the law.”

Justice Neil Campbell, chairman of the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, told MPs the independent body, responsible for prescribing law courses, was a “very broadly representative” group of legal experts who had introduced compulsory tikanga studies after a long consultation process.

He said tikanga was “increasingly relevant” to the practice of law in New Zealand and making it a compulsory course did not force students to subscribe to its ideas.

“It doesn’t require them to subscribe to tikanga. It doesn’t even require them to subscribe to cases like Ellis, which identified the role that tikanga plays in New Zealand law.

“New Zealand law schools already require, due to long-standing regulations passed by the council, that students take all kinds of subjects: contract law, tort law, etc.

“There are aspects of tort law that essentially reflect humanitarian and socialist approaches to law… yes, we require students to learn these aspects of tort law, but we do not ask them to subscribe to the philosophies underlying these aspects.”

He also highlighted legal groups that supported mandatory tikanga studies for law students.

“They are not part of any cabal of revolutionaries: the New Zealand Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators, the New Zealand Bar Association, the New Zealand Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and a number of very senior KCs of the same generation like Mr. Judd.

“I strongly encourage you as a committee to pay attention to views that have simply reinforced the board’s view that this is a subject that should be required for law students.”

No date has been set for when MPs will make their decision.