PPTA sued by Maori student

The Post reports:

A bitter dispute over a school speech competition has gone all the way to the High Court, with a judge forced to weigh in.

Tamamutu Mitchell – then a student at Taupō immersion school Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Whakarewa i Te Reo ki Tūwharetoa – won the regional round of last year’s Ngā Manu Kōrero, a prestigious event in te reo Māori education.

But while his speech finished exactly on the 12-minute mark, which was the maximum permitted time, it was followed by a haka tautoko, which Mitchell led for other students in the room. (A haka tautoko is an expression of support for an event that has just finished.)

His runner-up subsequently complained that the haka tautoko had caused Mitchell’s speech to go over time. He was slapped with a five-point penalty by the event’s national committee, which meant he narrowly lost to the runner-up by one point, and had to return his trophy – and missed out on representing his region at the competition’s national stage.

How ridiculous. He won the competition and kept to the time. To award him the trophy then take it away is cruel.

Furious with the decision, and with their appeals falling on deaf ears, Mitchell’s supporters took competition backer the Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) all the way to the High Court for a judicial review.

Good on him.

The application for judicial review was overseen by Justice Muir in April, and his decision was released this month.

In it, he lambasts the PPTA for its handling of the dispute, which amounted to a “breach of natural justice”.

Justice Muir said:

• I consider the PPTA’s response both surprising and disappointing. The constitution of the PPTA includes “explicit … commitment to the principles to the Treaty of Waitangi as central to [its] Constitution.” It acknowledges the PPTA’s “commitment to the concept of genuine partnership embodied in the Treaty”,⁷ noting that: “partnership can occur at all levels of policy making by the sharing of power and decision making, satisfactory methods of consultation and the inclusion of cultural perspectives in policies
• Ms Barton denies that the matter ever proceeded to National Committee decision. She says that whatever assistance the Regional Committee may have received from the National Committee, the ultimate decision remained that of the Regional Committee. I regard that position as untenable. On its face the decision refers to it being that of the National Committee. I consider it surprising that a senior executive of the PPTA would, in affidavit evidence, promote a proposition so clearly at odds with the written record and that this position was maintained by the PPTA’s counsel in submissions.

The Post notes:

However, Justice Muir denied the application for judicial review on the technical basis that the respondent should have been the competition’s committee rather than the PPTA.

So it was lost on a technicality.