������Դ

The New Zealand Defence Force has pressed pause on the implementation of a new cultural policy. This comes after Act MP Todd Stephenson wrote to Defence Minister Judith Collins to argue that the framework appeared to go beyond normal expectations of the Public Service “for a professional, politically neutral public service”. In his letter, Stephenson argued that: “rather than focusing on operational effectiveness and merit, the framework imposes a set of cultural competencies that would not normally be expected of public servants”.

There are a number of things to unpack here. For one, the Army keenly emphasises the value of its bicultural heritage in documents such as ‘The Way of the Warrior’. Here the Māori warrior is celebrated, seen as something to be proud of. So why the concern about incorporating basic te reo Māori and tikanga into officer requirements?

If enacted, the policy would require junior officers to be able to recite pepeha, know two common waiata and two karakia (one for opening meetings, one for closing meetings). It would also require those officers to know the Army haka.

I suspect most people will have learned their pepeha and know how to sing Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi at whatever school they went to. Should this framework have only included the haka, would that have been a problem? Would there be complaints about this? We all love the haka. It takes centre stage for rugby and any cultural events. But more than just the haka, is seen as a challenge. Why? Learning just a little more, for some reason, is deemed too much despite everything else being done in English and despite Māori also being an official language of Aotearoa New Zealand.

So, is the resistance to this actually being generated because it genuinely distracts from core business? The core business of soldiering is warfighting, sure. But central to warfighting is morale and unit cohesion. Military culture is core business. Ensuring soldiers and officers can trust those around them is fundamental. If the (substantial) Māori cohort in the soldiering and officer ranks see that commitments to te ao Māori do not go beyond ‘dial-a-haka’ then how should they take this most recent insult, and the resistance of their colleagues to the most minimal of efforts to acknowledge the importance of their culture? The aim of this cultural policy appears to be an effort to bring the most minimal, the most basic, easy and enjoyable of activities in to ensure that those who belong to Ngāti Tumatauenga (New Zealand Army) – yes, don’t forget too that this is officially an iwi – can belong. The leadership frameworks require soldiers and officers to be resilient, mature, agile and able to adapt, so why is this too great an ask?

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, Aotearoa New Zealand’s main founding document is Te Tiriti o Waitangi: a document that promises partnership between two cultures. When we talk about a ‘professional … public service’, however, what we have in mind is derived entirely from British structures, values and practices: the wearing of a particular kind of formal dress (uniform or suit), shaking hands and exchanging business cards – all are derived from one-side of this partnership. What this shows us is that ‘cultural competency’ is already expected as part of being professional – it just tends to go unnoticed because we only expect people to be competent in British cultural practices. For a public servant in Aotearoa New Zealand to be familiar with the cultural practices of both parties to the treaty should be an expectation of professionalism and not something that detracts from this.

This article was originally published on on 20 February 2026.

Dr Bethan Greener is Professor of International Relations. She is also currently Head of School for People, Environment and Planning at Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa ������Դ. Dr Greener has published extensively on international security-related topics, including New Zealand defence issues.