The head girl at the school, Rhiannon Magee, said that the past should be acknowledged and not hidden, and a teacher Mariana Papa noted that the students had the support of King Tuheitia and other Māori leaders.
[1] Historian Paul Moon felt a day of commemoration would build understanding of the wars, although the response from David Bennett and Scott Simpson, members of the governing National Party, was more measured and not totally in support of a public holiday.
[2][3][4] Nanaia Mahuta, in her role as Hauraki-Waikato MP, presented the petition to the National Government of the time, pledging Labour's support for a proposed public holiday in recognition of the struggle.
After receiving a "white feather or raukura as a symbol of peace" during the welcome, the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, said that rather than just one day of commemoration, she favoured "putting the teaching of New Zealand history into our schools, into our education system, for all our young people to learn, I think that is the most significant and important thing that we can do going forward".
[13] The Advisory Group supported the development of "new strategies and responses to create the conditions to empower all ākonga [students] and their whānau [families] to thrive in a changing world, and to meet the challenge of addressing educational inequity" through a review of the "design and use of local curriculum".
[18] Students at St Paul's Collegiate School had been specifically learning about battles in Waikato during the wars for more than 20 years according to the principal Defyd Williams and each term ended with visits to the sites within the region.
[20] A petition presented to the New Zealand House of Representatives on 11 June 2019, requested "legislation that would make compulsory the coherent teaching of our own past across appropriate year levels in our schools, with professional development and resources to do so provided".
[21] Jacinda Ardern was reported in the Waikato Times in September 2019, as saying she had "heard the calls from those who embed themselves in the teaching of our history...[and]...it prompted me to have a conversation again with the Minister of Education to point out to him that this was becoming equally a grass roots movement".
[28] Philippa Hunter, an academic from Waikato University whose research has specialised in "social sciences education, critical pedagogy and curriculum perspectives", suggested that a "momentum" had built up to the making of the decision.
Hunter identified recent actions from the government that indicated a growing awareness to acknowledge the effects of colonisation, concluding: "most importantly, the racist underbelly of Aotearoa New Zealand society has been given scrutiny following the March 15 Christchurch massacre".
[29] Historian Vincent O'Malley, who had earlier claimed that any "half-decent education system around the world should deliver a basic knowledge of one's own country...[and New Zealand's]...is currently failing to do that",[18] said in 2019 that the announcement by the government had "exceeded his expectations".
[30] Another commentator said that the intended compulsory curriculum was in contrast to the reforms of the 1980s in New Zealand education, which had seen a "high autonomy model" under Tomorrows Schools, and this had not facilitated a "coherent approach" to teaching history.
[14] Chris Hipkins, The Minister of Education said that the feedback received had been "wide-ranging, clear, and at times confronting" and he saw it as a good thing that New Zealanders wanted to examine and discuss the nation's histories.
[36] By June 2021, the Ministry of Education had received 4880 submissions on the draft document and several principals reported that they had trialled it, generally successfully with some acknowledgement that teachers would need extra training and the necessity of monitoring that the curriculum did not become a "tick box" add-on to the current Social Sciences strand.
The president of Te Akatea, the Māori principals' association, Bruce Jepsen, said the curriculum was an opportunity for all members of New Zealand society to understand that creating a "more equitable and socially just future" depends on learning how the present is shaped by the past.
The writers note that "history is a contentious and contested space" and at the positive end of the responses the proposed changes to the curriculum were seen as "important, overdue, and of benefit to learners and to Aotearoa."
[40] One academic from Victoria University of Wellington acknowledged some of the concerns in the report from the Royal Society and warned that focusing on the content of what is taught at the expense of how students learn can have pedagogical implications.
[42] Temple said Ron Crosby, a member of the Waitangi Tribunal and author of The Musket Wars: A History of Inter-iwi Conflict, 1806–1845,[43] expressed disbelief that the Musket Wars between 1806 and 1845, which he described as the "longest period of warfare in New Zealand", had no coverage in the draft document, which meant that prevailing "complicated relationships between iwi and hapu...[could not be]...examined and understood in any discussion of claims and counter claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, and especially within the context of the European colonisation that immediately followed".
However, he questioned whether there was provision for the "tools of historical inquiry...[to ascertain] ... "the 'facts'; determining their reliability and relevance; explaining divergence and difference with regard to the former; and crafting an argument based on the analysis of the evidence".
[46] The claim also said that "the failure to teach this, had led to feelings of whakamā (shame or embarrassment) among Māori at the bottom of the socio-economic rung, the victims of widespread hostility directed at them by non-Māori who had no understanding of the history of Aotearoa".
[58] James Shaw responded to van Helden's comments and said it was vital to be honest about the past, even it is not pleasant and New Zealanders need to just say "look this is what happened, what this is what took place, and there are consequences that we feel today for that, particularly for Māori".
[58] van Helden also suggested that the new curriculum would create a culture based on race and was not a true reflection of New Zealand's history with little attention given to achievements such as women's rights, scientific progress and technological innovations.
[59] In his role as Opposition education spokesperson, Paul Goldsmith stated that the curriculum did not focus enough on economic development although he acknowledged it was important to "localise history" to share stories from different regions in New Zealand and how they have influenced cultures.
She concluded that it was important to recognised there were issues in New Zealand's history that remain dynamic and at times unresolved, and while the new curriculum might make some people uncomfortable, it could develop understanding of how the past was shaped and allow "a new way of looking at the kinds of future we can build as a nation".
[63] Charlotte Macdonald from Victoria University said putting history of New Zealand systematically at the centre of schooling in the country was a sign of a "mature society" and Bruce Jepsen, President of Te Akatea, the Māori Principals' Association, stated that the curriculum has the potential to "transform education and society...[enabling citizens]...to think, speak, and teach in decolonising and honourable ways, and I say honourable ways in terms of Te Tiriti as a foundation".
[48] It has been noted by two Wellington-based academics that the new curriculum could build the capacity of students to engage critically with the past and be able to make "informed, evidence-based response(s)...[rather than]...passive acceptance of a particular interpretation or an uncritical rejection".
Exploring the research on why this had not been taught before in New Zealand, the writers suggest "critical mourning" as a strategy of acknowledging losses without romanticising the violent past..."and to present it as still developing, not yet settled, but a living legacy that we all contribute to".