Letter to Stephen Rainbow re: Urgent Request for Public Statement on Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum

Thursday, 30^th October 2025

Stephen Rainbow
Chief Human Rights Commissioner
Human Rights Commission | Te Kāhui Tika Tangata
Wellington

Tēnā koe Stephen,

Re: Urgent Request for Public Statement on Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum

I write to you both as the Chief Executive of Rights Aotearoa and as a fellow advocate for human rights in Aotearoa, regarding a matter of urgent concern that falls squarely within the Commission's mandate to promote and protect human rights in New Zealand.

On 28 October 2025, the Ministry of Education released draft Health and Physical Education curriculum content for Years 0-10 via the Tāhūrangi portal. This draft curriculum completely erases all references to sexual orientation, gender identity (beyond gender stereotypes), and intersex variations. Following the removal of the Ministry's Relationships and Sexuality Education guidelines as part of a coalition agreement, schools are now left with no guidance whatsoever on teaching about LGBTTQIA+[1] identities, relationships, or experiences.

This erasure affects approximately 20 percent of New Zealand students who identify as rainbow. It is not curriculum simplification—it is systematic discrimination that breaches New Zealand's domestic and international human rights obligations.

Why the Human Rights Commission Must Act

The Commission has a statutory mandate under the Human Rights Act 1993 to advocate for the protection and promotion of human rights in New Zealand, to promote equal opportunity and non-discrimination, and to monitor New Zealand's compliance with international human rights instruments.

This situation directly engages that mandate in multiple ways:

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination in education on the grounds of sexual orientation and sex (including gender identity). A curriculum that systematically omits LGBTTQIA+ identities fails to provide education free from discrimination.

Section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees freedom from discrimination. The erasure of rainbow students from curriculum content—particularly in Health and Physical Education, the learning area most directly concerned with identity and wellbeing—is discriminatory by design.

Section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020 requires schools to provide emotionally safe environments. The Commission has previously recognised that emotional safety for rainbow students requires affirmation and visibility, not erasure.

Beyond domestic law, this curriculum places New Zealand in breach of our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 2 and 29), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 26), and the Yogyakarta Principles on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Symbolism of Your Name and Role

Stephen, I note with no small irony that you bear the name Rainbow while serving as Chief Human Rights Commissioner at a moment when rainbow identities are being systematically erased from New Zealand's national curriculum. This is not merely symbolic—it creates a unique opportunity for moral clarity and public leadership.

Your voice carries particular weight on this issue, both because of your role and because of what your name represents. A public statement from Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow condemning the erasure of rainbow students would be powerful, memorable, and strategically significant. In your covering letter for the role, you talked passionately about LGBTTQIA+ rights.

It would also send an unambiguous message: that human rights are not negotiable in coalition agreements, and that discrimination by omission is still discrimination.

What We Are Requesting

Rights Aotearoa formally requests that the Human Rights Commission issue a public statement:

1. Expressing concern that the draft Health and Physical Education curriculum erases all references to LGBTTQIA+ identities, relationships, and experiences;
2. Affirming that education free from discrimination requires that all students see themselves reflected in curriculum content, and that silence about rainbow identities is not neutrality—it is exclusion;
3. Stating clearly that the draft curriculum, in the absence of supplementary RSE guidance, fails to meet New Zealand's obligations under the Human Rights Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Education and Training Act 2020, and relevant international human rights instruments;
4. Calling on the Ministry of Education to restore explicit references to sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex variations in either the curriculum framework itself or in supplementary RSE guidance; and
5. Urging meaningful consultation with rainbow communities, students, and education stakeholders before the curriculum is finalised.

Timing and Impact

The consultation period for this curriculum closes on 24 April 2026. However, the longer this discriminatory draft remains unchallenged by authoritative voices like the Commission, the more it becomes normalised as acceptable policy.

A statement from the Commission now would:

• Provide moral and legal clarity to the public and policymakers;
• Strengthen the hand of educators, advocates, and rainbow communities making submissions;
• Signal to rainbow young people that their rights matter and that institutions are watching;
• Create a benchmark against which the final curriculum will be measured; and
• demonstrate that the Commission takes its mandate seriously when marginalised communities face erasure.

The Stakes

Stephen, we both know what the research shows: LGBTTQIA+ students experience dramatically higher rates of bullying, mental distress, and suicide ideation than their peers. Inclusive curriculum content is a proven protective factor. Removing it is not just legally problematic—it is dangerous.

At a time when rainbow young people are already facing increased hostility in public discourse, an education system that renders them invisible sends a devastating message about their worth and belonging.

This is not an abstract debate about curriculum design. This is about whether New Zealand will uphold its commitment to human rights for all people, or whether some children can be erased from their own education for the sake of political convenience.

Conclusion

The Human Rights Commission exists for moments like this—when the rights of marginalised communities are threatened by government policy, and when independent moral authority is needed to speak truth to power.

I recognise that the Commission must navigate complex relationships with government agencies. But human rights are not a matter for diplomatic silence. They require clarity, courage, and visible leadership.

Rights Aotearoa stands ready to support the Commission in any way that would be helpful, including by sharing our legal analysis, connecting you with affected students and communities, or coordinating advocacy efforts.

I urge you to act swiftly. Rainbow students are watching. The education sector is watching. And history will judge how New Zealand's human rights institutions responded when an entire generation of rainbow young people was erased from the national curriculum.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you further at your earliest convenience.

Nāku noa, nā

Paul Thistoll
Chief Executive
Rights Aotearoa

📧 paul@rightsaotearoa.nz
📱 02040063160
🌐 www.rightsaotearoa.nz

[1] The extra “T” in LGBTTQIA+ stands for Takatāpui and will be the acronym Rights Aotearoa uses going forward to be culturally inclusive.