Statement on Religious Diversity 2026: A Missing Voice

The fourth edition of the Human Rights Commission’s Statement on Religious Diversity, published in July 2026, gets a lot right about education. It still has nothing to say about the religious instruction that goes on in state primary schools during school hours. It was also written without the voice of the majority of New Zealanders who now say they have no religion.

There is plenty to welcome. The new edition describes secularism as “non-preferential”, meaning the State doesn’t favour any faith, belief or the absence of one. It also calls for teaching about faiths “accurately, fairly, without bias”, with the aim of “awareness and understanding rather than adherence”. Those are the principles secular education campaigners have argued for since before the first edition in 2007. The trouble is that the Statement doesn’t apply them where they matter most.

A secular system with a loophole

The Statement says that, apart from state-integrated and some charter schools, “all state schools are secular”. Parents whose children have sat in the corridor during Bible class will find that hard to accept.

Under section 56 of the Education and Training Act 2020, a state primary or intermediate board can “close” a classroom or the whole school so that volunteer instructors can deliver religious instruction. The limit is 60 minutes a week and 20 hours a year. This is the old “Nelson system” from 1964, and it is still on the books. Most of that instruction is Christian and is delivered by volunteers, not trained teachers. The Ministry of Education doesn’t approve the syllabus.

The Statement also speaks of protecting “students who opt out of religious instruction” from pressure and stigma. Protection is welcome, but the language is out of date. Since 2020, section 58 has required written opt-in consent from parents. That change came after years of complaints and a High Court challenge by the Secular Education Network. Talking about “opting out” six years later puts the burden back on the families the law was changed to protect.

The Statement’s own test is understanding rather than adherence. Measured against it, devotional instruction by church volunteers in state school hours fails. The Statement could have said so. It doesn’t mention the practice at all.

Who wasn’t at the table

Thirty organisations endorse the fourth edition. All of them are faith bodies or interfaith councils. None represents the non-religious.

That is a striking omission. The Statement itself reports that 51.6% of New Zealanders recorded “no religion” in the 2023 census, the first time that figure has passed half. Yet neither the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists nor the Humanist Society of New Zealand appears among the endorsers. According to an account published on this site in 2022, both groups applied to join the Religious Diversity Centre and were turned down. They were also turned down when they offered to help with its report on religious studies in schools. The Centre coordinated endorsement of earlier editions of the Statement and helped shape the national conversation on religion in schools.

This isn’t new. In 2019 Humanists International told the UN that the third edition left non-religious people out of its “right to safety”. It also said the Humanist Society’s requests to fix this had been ignored. The 2026 wording still gives that right to “faith communities and their members”.

The new edition also adds an awkward twist. A footnote defines “faiths” to include anything “expressed as a philosophy, ethic, spirituality or tradition”. Elsewhere the text talks about “non-faith communities” as a separate group. So humanists are either folded into a “faith” label they didn’t choose, or left outside the document altogether. Either way, nobody asked them.

That is the heart of the problem. The Statement tells non-believers what their rights are: the right to hold no faith, to leave one, and to be treated equally before the law. Every one of those assurances was drafted, debated and signed off by religious organisations. The people whose freedom of conscience is being defined were given no seat at the table, and in the case of the Religious Diversity Centre, were reportedly refused one when they asked.

Imagine the reverse: a statement on the rights of Muslim or Catholic New Zealanders, written and endorsed entirely by humanist groups, with Muslim and Catholic bodies turned away. No one would accept it, and the Human Rights Commission would be the first to object. It is absurd, and frankly arrogant, to assume that the rights of the majority of New Zealanders can be settled without them. Rights granted to a group by others, rather than agreed with it, are a courtesy, not a guarantee. A human rights body should know the difference.

Diversity isn’t the same as respect

Principle 7 has been rewritten. In 2019 it said: “Debate and disagreement about religious beliefs will occur but must be exercised without resort to violence and within the rule of law.” It now reads: “Religious diversity means respecting the different ways faith is understood, expressed and lived in a multi-faith society.”

That isn’t what diversity means. Diversity is a fact: people hold different beliefs. Respect is a choice about how we respond to that fact. Plenty of diverse societies don’t respect their own diversity. Running the two together turns a description into an obligation, and an unclear obligation at that.

The obligation matters for parents. Respect for people, and for their right to believe, is something a free society can ask of everyone. Respect for every way faith is “expressed and lived” is different. One of those ways is evangelism, including evangelism of other people’s children in a state classroom. Parents who object to that aren’t being disrespectful of diversity. They are relying on principle 4, which protects the right of others “to express their views about your faith”.

The commentary on principle 7 is better than its headline. It grounds respect in “the inherent dignity and humanity of each person” and calls disagreement “normal, legitimate and welcome”. The headline should have said the same.

What a non-preferential statement would say

If the Commission means what it says about secularism, a fifth edition, or an addendum, should:

Name religious instruction. It should acknowledge that section 56 allows state schools to close for devotional instruction, and say plainly whether that is consistent with “understanding rather than adherence”.
Use the current law’s language. Religious instruction is opt-in. The Statement should support schools getting written consent and not treat non-participation as the exception.
Teach about worldviews, not just faiths. Comparative education should include non-religious worldviews such as humanism. That is the world view held by many of the children in the room.
Extend the right to safety to everyone. Safety and freedom from harassment because of belief should cover people of no religion in the same words as people of faith.
Bring the non-religious into the process. Humanist and rationalist organisations should be consulted and invited to endorse. The bodies that coordinate interfaith dialogue should be open to them.

A statement for everyone, or for most?

The fourth edition is a more thoughtful document than the third. It takes indirect discrimination seriously, recognises that no single voice speaks for a faith, and calls for accurate teaching about religion. Those are real gains.

But a statement on religious diversity in a country where most people have no religion can’t be built by faith groups alone. Nor can it call state schools secular while a 1964 provision still lets them close for Bible class. Secular education is not hostile to faith. It is the arrangement that lets every family, religious or not, trust that school is for learning, and that belief is for the family to pass on.

Questions for the Commission

The Human Rights Commission is responsible for the Statement, and these are the questions it should answer publicly.

Process and consultation

Which organisations were invited to take part in drafting and consultation for the fourth edition, and how were they chosen?
Were any humanist, rationalist or secular organisations, such as the NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists or the Humanist Society of New Zealand, invited to take part? If not, why not?
Did any non-religious organisations ask to take part or endorse the Statement, and how was that handled?
Who decided which organisations could endorse the Statement, and on what criteria?
With 51.6% of New Zealanders reporting no religion in the 2023 census, how did the Commission make sure their views were represented?
Why did the Religious Diversity Centre and the National Interfaith Forum not coordinate or endorse this edition, as they did for earlier ones?

Rights of the non-religious

Principle 3 gives the right to safety to “faith communities and their members”. Does the Commission accept that people of no religion have the same right? If so, why doesn’t the principle say so?
A footnote defines “faiths” to include philosophies and ethics, but the text also refers to “non-faith communities”. Which category are humanists in, and were they asked how they wished to be described?
Humanists International raised the omission of non-religious people from the right to safety with the United Nations in 2019. What did the Commission do in response?

Education

The Statement says “all state schools are secular” apart from integrated and charter schools. How does that fit with section 56 of the Education and Training Act 2020, which lets state schools close for religious instruction?
Why does the Statement refer to students who “opt out” of religious instruction when section 58 has required opt-in consent since 2020?
Does the Commission consider devotional religious instruction by volunteers during school hours consistent with its own test of “understanding rather than adherence”?
What is the Commission’s current position on religious instruction in state primary schools, and has it changed since its 2009 report Religion in New Zealand Schools?
Does the “comparative education” the Statement calls for include non-religious worldviews such as humanism?

Principle 7

In practice, what does “respecting the different ways faith is … expressed” require? Does it limit criticism of religious practices, including proselytising, which principle 4 protects?
Why was the 2019 wording that disagreement must occur “without resort to violence and within the rule of law” removed from the principle itself?

We will also be asking the Commission, under the Official Information Act, for the list of organisations it consulted and invited to endorse the Statement, any correspondence about secular or humanist groups, and its drafting advice on principles 3, 6 and 7. We’ll publish what we receive.