The Ministry of Education against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3787
Council Meeting: 13 October 2025
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Photographs
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. This complaint relates to a publication on the RNZ news site headed “‘Act of Racism’: Education Ministry cans children’s schoolbook for too many Māori words”. The complaint is based on breaches of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions and Principle (4) Comment and Fact. Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics is also stated to be relevant. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article, which was published at 4:40pm on 8 August 2025, is headed “‘Act of Racism’: Education Ministry cans children’s schoolbook for too many Māori words”. The article which begins by stating that “[t]he Education Ministry has canned a reader for junior children because it has too many Māori words, infuriating Te Akatea, the Māori Principals’ Association”. The article is primarily about the reaction of the Māori Principals’ Association president Bruce Jepsen who said that the decision not to reprint the book was “racist and white supremacist”. The article then proceeds to set out the Ministry’s rationale for the decision as contained in their letter to principals advising of the decision and statements provided to RNZ. It is easiest to quote the Ministry’s statement in full:
The ministry told schools "At the Marae", did not fit the sequence that young children were now taught to decode words using the structured literacy approach.
- However, it had been re-sized into a "big book format" that teachers could use to read with pupils.
- "The decision was guided by phonics sequencing and decoding suitability, rather than a defined word-count threshold," the ministry told RNZ.
- "Unlike other titles in the series, which typically include no more than three kupu Māori (excluding character names), At the Marae featured six different kupu Māori. While these words reflect everyday language used in classrooms and communities, the higher number presented decoding challenges within the phonics sequence used in the series."
- The ministry said decisions about reader suitability were made through "a collaborative review process involving literacy experts, educators, and cultural advisors".
- "This makes sure resources are developmentally appropriate, culturally responsive, and aligned with the principles of structured literacy."
3. It then, over approximately six paragraphs, proceeds to set out Mr Jepsen’s comments. This is followed by those of another school principal in more detail. Mr Jepsen said there has been an uproar of principals who are enraged and that his members took the view that this was a blatant attack on the Māori language, dismissal of Māori culture, and an assault “on our identity as Māori”. He likened the decision to decisions in the 19th century to eradicate te reo Māori in schools as part of colonisation. Mr Jepsen stated, “Books of this type showed commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and to an anti-racist, decolonising, and equity-focused way of teaching”. Another school principal, a member of the Aotearoa Education Collective is also quoted criticising the decision, although in less extreme language.
The Complaint
4. The Ministry says that the inflammatory headline is unattributed and presents a serious and unqualified accusation. The quotation marks may suggest a quote, but do not constitute sufficient attribution. The Ministry’s decision is framed as racist, which is misleading and does not reflect the nuanced rationale provided in the Ministry’s communications. The decision in fact was based on structured literacy principles and not opposition to te reo Māori. There is also a misrepresentation of the Ministry’s rationale for the decision not to reprint. For many readers the headline might be the only part of the article they see or engage with and could become the dominant narrative.
5. There is criticism of the use of the word “canned” which implies that the book has been discontinued or removed entirely, which it has not. While the small student reader version of the book will not be reprinted, the book remains in circulation in a new big-book format.
6. While acknowledging that the article does say that the book was re-sized into a big book format, there should have been an explanation of the reason for the change. A misleading impression is created that the book was removed or censored, whereas in fact it was adapted to better support literacy outcomes in a culturally responsive way. There was disproportionate weight given to the critical commentary and the highly charged language without sufficient counterbalance or clarification. It is also said that there is an ongoing misrepresentation of the Ministry’s rationale. “The decision was based on structured literacy principles, including the need for texts that support decoding practice aligned with taught grapheme–phoneme correspondences. This ongoing mischaracterisation undermines public understanding and perpetuates a misleading narrative about the Ministry’s intentions and educational approach”.
7. The culmination of these matters has contributed to a distorted public understanding of the Ministry’s decision and educational approach.
The Response
8. RNZ says that the reference in the story to a reason for the cancellation being the “high number of words” was a correct colloquial paraphrasing of the statement in the Ministry’s explanation that “the high number of words that appear in the text in Te Reo Māori” as a reason. The Ministry was given six paragraphs to explain its decision. Phonic sequencing and decoding suitability are all included as a reason, as is the fact that the text was still available in book format. Given the presentation of both sides, two educationalists on one side and the Ministry on the other, the audience could make their own judgment.
9. Reference was made to the fact that quoting the opinions of others is not of itself a breach of Media Council standards, and an earlier Media Council decision is referred to.
10. Mr Jepsen is a representative of the Māori Principals’ Association and could be considered to have expertise and the other critical educationalist who was quoted does so in more moderate language. Mr Jepsen was entitled to his opinion and the headline in inverted commas was clearly a quote. It could be quickly seen from reading the article that it was a quote from Mr Jepsen.
11. It was pointed out that when it did respond at 4.17 pm the Ministry thanked RNZ for the follow up and said it had already provided its response which it stood behind. It chose not to respond to Mr Jepson’s serious criticisms of racism and colonialism, and indeed affirmatively turned down the opportunity to do so. RNZ pointed out that it was disappointing that this response had not been included in the complaint documents forwarded to the Media Council.
The complainant’s response
12. The Ministry states that at no point was it asked to respond to allegations of racism. The Ministry was not aware of Mr Jepsen’s comments until after the story was published.
13. It says that when serious allegations are made such as these invoking racism and colonialism, balance requires that the affected parties be given a clear and timely opportunity to respond to the criticism. This was not possible because the headline had already shaped public perception. The Ministry was not given an opportunity to respond to the specific and serious claims by RNZ despite their potential to significantly influence public understanding and trust.
The Discussion
14. It is necessary first to set out the timeline:
- The Ministry makes a policy decision not to reprint the small book version of “At the Marae”, a book used for teaching junior children to read.
- At some point, the date of which is unknown but prior to the article being published, the Ministry sent a message to schools explaining why “At the Marae” would not be reprinted.
- On 7 August 2025 the RNZ journalist contacted the Ministry of Education’s Media Advisor seeking comment on the message that had been sent to schools.
- The Ministry provided a response to the RNZ journalist on 7 August 2025 and a further response on 8 August 2025.
- At 2pm on 8 August 2025, Te Akatea, the Māori Principals’ Association issued a media release about the Ministry’s decision.
- The RNZ article quoting Te Akatea's media release was published at 2:18 pm on 8 August 2025.
- The Ministry emailed the RNZ journalist at 2:25 pm providing them with an updated link to Ministry resources for inclusion in the article.
- The RNZ journalist responded to this new link at 3:08 pm.
- At 3:10 pm on 8 August 2025, RNZ forwarded Te Akatea's media release to the Ministry and sought comment.
- At 4:17 pm on 8 August 2025, the Ministry responded: “Thanks for your follow-up. We’ve already provided you with a factual and contextual response, which we stand behind.”
- Over the afternoon of 8 August 2025, up until 4:40pm, RNZ updated the article to add audio files and a number of images.
- The Ministry complained to RNZ about the article on 10 August 2025.
15. We first comment on some more straight forward issues that arise.
16. It is complained that RNZ did not fully and fairly set out the Ministry’s reasons for the change. However, as the timeline shows, RNZ had contacted the Ministry on the day before the publication and the Ministry had given an explanation for its decision. Extracts from those communications with the Ministry are published verbatim in the article. The essence of the response, which is that the book will continue to be published in “big book” form and the reason for the discontinuance of the “small book” was based on the view that, as a teaching tool it was not aligned with the Ministry’s views as the best way to teach children to read was stated. We therefore do not uphold that aspect of the complaint which refers to the publication misrepresenting the Ministry’s rationale.
17. We also do not consider that the use of the word “canned” was unfair or inappropriate. Certainly, it is a colloquial word, but “canned” in the colloquial context can mean discontinued and that is what it meant here.
18. It is said by the Ministry that there was partial inclusion of key facts without sufficient context. We do not think that has been such a failure. It is a short article and some of the facts it is said should be included were also not included in the Ministry’s responses to RNZ on 7 August 2025.
19. We now turn to the central issue. We note that the article stated at the outset that the decision not to reprint had the effect of “infuriating” Te Akatea. The association expressed a strongly held opinion that went beyond a critique of the policy to a serious accusation that the Ministry had committed a racist act. The association has the right to form that opinion and RNZ is free to report their views. The Media Council also notes that in the very first version of the story, RNZ did include comment from the Ministry on the substantive issue. So, the Ministry did have a right of reply to the general criticism of its decision not to reprint the book as a reader. The Media Council however sympathises with the complainant that the allegation of racism was a distinct and serious matter, and the Ministry should have had the opportunity to respond before publication, not after.
20. However, the realities of publication in this electronic age must be recognised. When an article is published purely electronically as this article was, it could be changed almost immediately. RNZ should have sought comment a reasonable time before the publication of the serious adjectival allegations, but it did in fact seek comment some 52 minutes after publication. A copy of the Māori Principals’ Association’s media release was sent to the Ministry at 3:10 pm.
21. The response of the Ministry – at 4.17pm after they had received the Māori Principals’ Association’s media release, was “Thanks for your follow-up. We’ve already provided you with a factual and contextual response, which we stand behind.”
22. Further as RNZ has noted, the final timestamp on the story was 4.40pm. It has been updated a number of times to add an audio file and a number of images. There had been a considerable opportunity for the Ministry to provide is comments on the Friday to complete the development and final presentation of the story.
23. Thus, surprisingly, given the complaint that was filed two days later, the Ministry, with knowledge of both the article and the press release, did not provide any comment or response which it can be assumed RNZ would have published.
24. Undoubtedly some readers would have already seen the headline and read the article in the first hour or two. However, if within a matter of a few hours the Ministry had provided a response to the racism and colonialism allegation, and it was published as an addition or addendum to the article, balance would have been achieved, albeit belatedly. Instead, the Ministry affirmatively said that it had already provided a factual and contextual response. It provided no comment on the racism and colonialism allegations.
25. The question is therefore whether the failure to put the allegations of racism and colonialism to the Ministry prior to publication should nevertheless not be upheld because of the Ministry’s failure to take the opportunity to provide balance. We note that the Ministry’s responses were being prepared by specialist communication staff and there is no suggestion that it did not have the resources to act immediately.
26. RNZ should have sought comment on the allegations of racism and colonialism prior to publishing the article. However, its actions in sending the Māori Principals’ Association’s media release to the Ministry within 52 minutes and the Ministry, with knowledge of the article and headline, responding affirmatively that it will make no further comments, assuage RNZ’s error. The opportunity for balance was not taken up.
27. Therefore, RNZ should have put the allegations to the Ministry before publication. However, putting them to the Ministry 52 minutes later and giving it the chance to respond, persuade the Council that this complaint should not be upheld. This is re-enforced by the fact that the Ministry positively responded approximately an hour later saying effectively that it did not wish to add to its previous comment.
28. We record that this decision is not a precedent for publishers being excused for lack of balance because an opportunity to respond is given to a person or organisation who has been strongly criticised after publication, and the publisher is thereby being absolved for lack of balance. This situation was unique in that comment on the policy behind the decision to not re-print had been sought from the Ministry and provided by it the day before, and because of the RNZ notification within an hour to the Ministry and the Ministry's reply stating that it stood by its response of the previous day.
Decision
29. The complaint is not upheld.
Dissent by Scott Inglis and Jo Cribb
We believe this complaint should be upheld.
Principle (1) is clear in that, "In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. "
This requirement includes an obligation to give people and organisations a fair chance to respond to strong accusations or claims before those comments are published. This a basic aspect of responsible journalism.
In this instance, RNZ included comments from Te Akatea Incorporated that the Ministry's decision was an "act of racism" and an "act of white supremacy" but failed to give the Ministry the chance to respond before publishing those comments.
The fact it had earlier approached the Ministry for general comment about its decision about the book does not get it off the hook. New information came to light prior to publication, and this meant RNZ needed to go back to the Ministry.
The fact it was a government Ministry rather than a person or business also does not provide an exemption.
The quotes, attributed to Mr Jepson, that were particularly inflammatory and demanded an opportunity to respond pre-publication were:
"Make no mistake, our members see this move as an act of white supremacy. It's an act of racism. It's a determined act to recolonize our education system, and it sends a very dangerous message and is immensely harmful and it's utterly shameful."
"Our members view this as a blatant attack on our language, dismissal of our culture, and an assault on our identity as Māori," he said.
"Our members liken this decision to the introduction of the Education Ordinance Act of 1847 and the Native Schools Act of 1867. Both of these oppressive acts of colonisation sought to eradicate te reo Māori in schools, and we see the removal of books that carry our language as being exactly the same."
RNZ then took nearly an hour before asking the Ministry for a response to Te Akatea's statements.
The fact the Ministry ultimately chose not to respond does not absolve RNZ of its obligation. The Ministry maintains the damage was already done.
RNZ should have given the Ministry a fair chance to respond. If the Ministry had not responded in reasonable time, RNZ would at least have demonstrated an effort to seek a right of reply, and this could have been reflected in the story.
We would have upheld this complaint under Principle (1) in that the article was unfair and ultimately did not contain the appropriate balance it needed.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote