Deusdedit Ruhangariyo
ICT
Around the world: Western Australia government unveils statewide Aboriginal-led family support initiatives; Yukon government and First Nation in Canada clash over mining claim authority; New Zealand Ministry of Education criticized for removing Māori words from reading book.
AUSTRALIA: Western Australia unveils Aboriginal-led family initiatives
The Western Australia government announced new Earlier Intervention and Family Support programs across the state on Thursday – delivering what it called “a record level” of Aboriginal-led support for children and families, National Indigenous Times reported January 10.
Eighteen new contracts have been awarded to deliver the Family Support Network and the Intensive Family Support Services programs to support children and families at risk of involvement with the child protection system.
The programs are being delivered by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations – or in partnership with an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation – to provide culturally responsive services that prioritise the needs of Aboriginal families. The Family Support Network provides two streams of support for families across the Perth metro area, including assessment and coordination and intensive case management.
The Intensive Family Support Services is an intensive in-home support service operating in metropolitan and regional locations including the Perth metropolitan area, Goldfields, Great Southern, Mid West/Gascoyne, West Kimberley and the Wheatbelt.
Western Australia Child Protection Minister Jessica Stojkovski the announcement means there will be more Aboriginal organizations delivering important family support services in Western Australia than ever before.
“This represents a major step forward in the State Government’s early intervention approach – ensuring Aboriginal leadership is at the heart of our work to keep children safely at home,” she said.
“We know we deliver the best outcomes for Aboriginal children and families with (Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation)-led and (Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation)-partnered services.”
The new Family Support Network and Intensive Family Support Services contracts complete the recommissioning of the Western Australia government’s Earlier Intervention and Family Support programs to ensure Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations are “at the centre” of the programs to deliver culturally appropriate services, the government said.
The recommissioned programs are in addition to the Aboriginal In-Home Support Service, which provides support for Aboriginal families across the Perth metro area to keep children and young people safely at home with family, returned safely to family, and connected to country, culture and community.
All four programs are being delivered by the Western Australia government in partnership with the community services sector under the Earlier Intervention and Family Support Strategy.
The government described the programs as a “key part” of its “commitment to earlier intervention and prevention to keep children out of the child protection system and safe at home,” ad reiterated its commitment to supporting Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation-led service delivery of Earlier Intervention and Family Support Services, in line with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.
CANADA: Yukon and First Nation clash over mining claim authority
Tensions are escalating between the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun and the Yukon government over control of mineral staking in the First Nation’s traditional territory. As reported by CBC News on August 8, the two parties are at odds over who holds final authority while a regional land-use planning process is underway.
Last week, First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun released a firm statement declaring that any new mining claims staked during the ongoing land-use planning process are “unwelcome, unlawful, and will be opposed through all available legal and political avenues.” This declaration followed the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun and the Yukon government to launch a formal regional land-use planning initiative within the First Nation’s traditional lands.
The planning process will cover approximately 35,000 square kilometers – representing about 7 percent of the Yukon – and aims to define where development will be permitted or prohibited. Chief Dawna Hope of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun emphasized the overdue nature of this effort. “The land-use planning process comes very early in our final agreements and really, it should have been completed three decades ago,” she said. “We wouldn’t be in the situation we are right now if we knew where the go and no-go zones were across the landscape.”
The First Nation pointed to a 2023 Yukon Supreme Court ruling involving a mining project within its territory. The court found that approving new development during a planning process undermines that process, reinforcing the argument that such actions are incompatible with the law. “Accordingly, Yukon law strongly discourages staking claims in areas undergoing a land use planning process,” the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun statement noted.
In response, the First Nation has implemented its own mining policy to guide development within its traditional territory throughout the planning period. “We want to build respectful relationships built on [First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun’s mining policy and the land use planning process] as dictated within our final agreement,” said Chief Hope.
The First Nation’s comments also followed its recent decision to reject the Yukon government’s proposed framework for updating the territory’s mining legislation – a move that underscores growing frustrations with the territorial government’s approach to Indigenous rights and land management.
However, Yukon Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources John Streicker responded on Thursday by stating that the territorial government does not agree with First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun’s interpretation of the lawfulness of staking claims during the planning period. While acknowledging that the First Nation’s mining policy could serve as a reference point, Streicker insisted that it is “not the final authority.”
He added that while the government does encourage companies to consult with Indigenous communities, the final agreement with the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun confirms that on non-settlement lands – areas outside formally transferred First Nation titles – the Yukon government retains “legislative and management authority over mining development.”
This ongoing dispute highlights deeper questions of sovereignty, legal interpretation, and the legacy of land agreements that continue to shape resource management in the Yukon. With both sides asserting their legal footing, the conflict sets the stage for further political and possibly legal battles over the future of mining in Indigenous territories.
NEW ZEALAND: Education ministry criticized for removing Māori words from reading book
A Ministry of Education decision to stop printing a primary school reader due to its inclusion of te reo Māori has sparked widespread backlash among education leaders, linguists, and Māori communities. The book in question, At the Marae, contains just seven Māori words – marae, karanga, kai, karakia, wharenui, koro, and hongi – as well as a character named Tāne. Yet the ministry deemed this “a high number” of Māori terms and chose not to reprint the student version, according to Te Ao Maori News on August 8.
The ministry communicated this decision to schools in July via Te Poutāhū – The Curriculum Centre. In a public statement, it explained that the book was no longer suitable for decoding practice in early literacy programs. “Te reo Māori vowel sounds are different than English, making this book less appropriate for students to practice decoding words containing grapheme-phoneme correspondences,” the ministry said. It also claimed many of the Māori words are multisyllabic, which, under structured literacy programs, are introduced later in the curriculum.
Despite these claims, many educators say the rationale is flawed. Ripeka Lissels, president of the education union, NZEI Te Riu Roa, called the move “extremely angering” and believes it reflects a deeper political agenda. “It feels like what this government is doing really is that they are lessening the emphasis on te reo Māori in schools,” she said, citing the recent $30 million cut to Te Ahu o te Reo and reductions in frontline Māori literacy staff. “It just feels like this government hasn’t yet finished with us.”
With over three decades of teaching experience, Lissels challenged the logic of removing texts containing Māori vocabulary. “If your focus is an approach like structured literacy … then where does it stop? Will they remove all other texts that they believe have too many Māori words?” She also warned that limiting At the Marae to large-format, teacher-led sessions shuts out whānau and reduces opportunities for children to engage with te reo at home.
Linguist Dr. Vincent Olsen-Reeder echoed these concerns, pointing out the ministry’s reasoning lacks linguistic validity. “All of the pronunciations that occur in te reo Māori are present in English,” he said. “They are encapsulated within A E I O U.” Moreover, he confirmed all the Māori words in At the Marae appear in the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary – meaning they are officially part of the local English lexicon.
Olsen-Reeder warned this exclusionary decision risks hiding the language from children. “We’re taking the language out of the eyes of the child. … I just don’t think that’s correct.” He accused the ministry of misusing academic jargon without proper understanding: “That effort to misinform is quite scary.”
Associate Professor Corinne Seals of Victoria University also refuted the ministry’s argument about vowel confusion. “That vowel sound argument is just absolutely not true,” she said, calling the book a clear example of “translanguaging,” where children benefit from switching between languages.
Māori principals across Aotearoa condemned the move as “educational violence,” likening it to colonial-era suppression. Te Akatea Māori Principals’ Association stated: “These are acts of racism, cultural suppression … deliberate attempts to recolonize our education system.”
They have called for the decision to be immediately reversed. Education Minister Erica Stanford declined to comment.
My final thoughts
My final thoughts are in New Zealand. The New Zealand Ministry of Education’s decision to stop printing the At the Marae reader due to the inclusion of Māori words is not just linguistically flawed, it is culturally regressive and politically alarming. In a nation committed to honoring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and revitalizing te reo Māori, such a move raises serious questions about whose voices are being silenced in the classroom.
The ministry’s justification – that te reo Māori vowel sounds differ from English and make decoding difficult – collapses under linguistic scrutiny. As linguist Dr. Vincent Olsen-Reeder rightly pointed out, all Māori vowel sounds (A, E, I, O, U) exist in English, making the claim scientifically unsound.
Worse, this rationale reveals a troubling reliance on imported literacy models that fail to reflect Aotearoa’s bicultural foundation. As Ripeka Lissels, president of education union, NZEI Te Riu Roa, emphasized, such decisions suggest a political agenda to marginalize te reo Māori under the guise of pedagogy.
This decision is not about reading levels – it’s about control. Removing the small reader and offering only a big book for teacher-led sessions limits whānau engagement, deprives tamariki of independent access to Māori culture, and subtly reinforces the idea that te reo belongs in controlled settings, not everyday literacy.
Moreover, the ministry’s dismissal of Māori linguistic integration contradicts extensive international research on the cognitive and cultural benefits of bilingualism. Scholars like Dr. Corinne Seals described this as “translanguaging” – a powerful learning strategy that helps children navigate multiple language systems and deepens cultural understanding.
Perhaps most disturbingly, Māori principals have compared the ministry’s actions to colonial-era suppression. This isn’t hyperbole. When a government removes a child’s access to their language, it echoes past policies that sought to erase Indigenous identity. If anything, the At the Marae controversy reveals how fragile te reo Māori’s place remains in mainstream education – and how vigilance is needed to protect it.
This is more than a publishing decision. It is a test of whether New Zealand will honor its promise to a language, a people, and a future built on partnership, not erasure.