When Rights Clash — Navigating Conflict in Aotearoa
The second lesson applies the conceptual toolkit to real, contested NZ cases. Students analyse situations where rights genuinely conflict, use Treaty and tikanga frameworks alongside Crown law, and begin to see that rights disputes are always disputes about values.
"I can make observations about how people have acted in the past and how they act today."Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum, p. 58.
"Differences between texts have led to ongoing contentious debate over interpretation; differing key words and phrases and their meanings (e.g. sovereignty, kāwanatanga, and tino rangatiratanga) and how they relate to the assurances the missionaries at Waitangi offered Māori about who would have authority and what they would have authority over."Tāhūrangi — NZC – Social Sciences Phase 4 (Years 9–10), Te Tiriti o Waitangi | The Treaty of Waitangi and constitutional significance.
"The Crown asserted its power to establish a colonial state that in consequence diminished mana Māori. Over time, Māori have worked inside, outside, and alongside the Crown to renegotiate the colonial relationship with the Crown and to affirm tino rangatiratanga."Aotearoa NZ's Histories — Years 9–10 Know, “Sovereignty vs rangatiratanga: wars, laws and policies”.
Assignment Map
These links are the assessed lesson-plan pages for this assignment. The teaching resources submitted with the sequence are linked underneath so the marker can open them directly from the same map.
"He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
What is the greatest thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.
Mead (2003)
Lesson Overview
Rights exist because people matter. This lesson takes ākonga into the difficult territory that follows: because people matter, and because people hold different rights and different values, rights sometimes clash. The lesson asks ākonga to sit with that difficulty rather than resolve it too quickly — to analyse, to take multiple perspectives, and to reason from principles. This is the lesson where Social Studies stops being descriptive and becomes genuinely demanding.
Ngā Whāinga Ako / Learning Intentions
- Explain, using a real NZ example, how rights can come into conflict
- Apply a rights framework to analyse who holds which rights and what values are in tension
- Recognise that Treaty obligations and tikanga Māori are relevant frameworks for resolution, not only Crown law
Paearu Angitu / Success Criteria
- I can identify whose rights are at stake in a conflict and why they conflict
- I can explain what values underlie each position
- I can suggest what a fair resolution might look like and why
Ngā Mātāpono Whai — Key Competencies
Thinking is the analytical core of this lesson — students must hold multiple rights claims simultaneously, reason about underlying values, and evaluate positions against Treaty obligations rather than personal preference. Relating to others is structural: small group case study analysis requires sustained productive disagreement, genuine perspective-taking, and the capacity to represent others' positions fairly before critiquing them. Participating and contributing is developed through the whole-class synthesis board and the public sharing of group analysis — students contribute to a shared picture of what makes rights disputes genuinely difficult.
Key Concepts
When two legitimate rights claims conflict, neither can be dismissed; the difficulty is genuine.
The commitments the Crown made to Māori under te Tiriti, which set a standard for fairness beyond Crown law alone.
Tikanga provides principles for resolving disputes — not supplementary to Crown law, but an independent source of authority.
Rights on paper and rights in practice differ. Who has the power to enforce a right shapes whether it is real.
Three NZ Case Studies
Each group uses a structured analysis sheet: What rights are at stake? Whose? What values underlie each position? What would a fair resolution look like? What does te Tiriti or tikanga add that Crown law alone doesn't?
Lesson Sequence
| Time | Phase | Activity | AFL |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 min | Retrieval and Feedback | Return exit cards from Lesson 1. Name two strong examples and one gap to address. Makes the formative loop visible to ākonga — their thinking has directly shaped this lesson. | Gauge readiness for analysis task; address vocabulary gaps |
| 5 min | Rights in Tension — Concept Introduction | Relatable example: school dress code vs. right to wear a head covering (cultural/religious identity). Quick pair-share: when might two people's rights conflict? Kaiako notes examples — will return at the end to see if lesson changed thinking. | Assess vocabulary uptake from L1 |
| 25 min | Case Study Analysis — Small Group Work | Three NZ cases allocated to groups (or rotated). Structured analysis sheet. Kaiako circulates with probing questions throughout. | Observation; guided questioning; note which groups struggle with tikanga dimension |
| 7 min | Whole-Class Synthesis | Groups share. Kaiako maps tensions on board. Common thread: rights conflicts are value conflicts; Aotearoa has a distinctive obligation under te Tiriti to take rangatiratanga seriously as a standard of fairness, not just a legal technicality. | Open discussion; probe for depth |
| 8 min | Whakaaro Mutunga — 3-2-1 Reflection | 3 things learned, 2 questions still held, 1 thing that would help me take a position. Collected. Returned at the start of Lesson 3. | Surfaces misconceptions, open questions, and readiness for L3 action planning |
Ngā Rauemi — Classroom Resources
Case Study Analysis Sheets — Cases A, B & C
One per student. Three cases with structured analysis prompts: What rights are at stake? Whose? What values underlie each position? What would a fair resolution look like? What does te Tiriti or tikanga add that Crown law alone doesn't? Print one set per student before the lesson.
🖨️ Open printable resource →Ka Mahia ā-Kāinga — Homework
Before Lesson 3 — find a live rights issue
Find one current NZ rights issue from a news source (e.g. RNZ, Māori TV News, The Spinoff, a national newspaper). Bring a brief note or screenshot to Lesson 3. This becomes the starting point for your community response plan. Any rights issue in Aotearoa is fair game — it does not need to connect to the three case studies from this lesson.
Connection to Sequence
This lesson builds on the conceptual toolkit from Lesson 1 and prepares students for the civic action task in Lesson 3. The three cases are chosen because each involves genuine rights in tension, each implicates te Tiriti in ways that cannot be resolved by Crown law alone, and collectively they span historical, contemporary, and legal contexts.
Mātakitaki & Whakarongo — Watch & Listen
Curated NZ resources to deepen engagement with the case studies. Select one to open the lesson or assign as pre-reading. Content is deliberately diverse in form — archive, documentary, audio — to model that evidence comes in many shapes.
Ministry for Culture & Heritage. Archival photos, eyewitness accounts, protest footage from Hamilton and Wellington. Primary sources for Case B analysis.
Archive / Website Use as: primary source evidence for Case B analysis, or as lesson hookMerata Mita's documentary of the 1981 Tour from inside the protest movement. Offers a perspective absent from mainstream coverage — powerful for analysing who tells history.
Documentary Use as: extension for Case B — offers a perspective absent from mainstream coverageNgā Tamatoa and the Māori Women's Welfare League's hikoi from Te Hapua to Wellington. Background context for Case A (Te Tiriti land rights) — shows civic action in practice.
Archive / Website Use as: background context for Cases A and C; shows civic action producing changeRNZ audio archive and reports on Treaty issues including Waitangi Tribunal hearings, freshwater rights, and foreshore claims. Direct context for Case C analysis.
Audio / Radio Use as: teacher prep or extension reading for Case C analysisNZ On Screen may require school content agreement for full access. All other resources are open access via NZ government or public broadcaster websites.
Mātauranga o Mua — Prior Knowledge
- Lesson 1 concepts: rights, privileges, sources of rights in Aotearoa, rangatiratanga as a constitutional concept — students have been assessed on this via the exit card
- Exit cards from Lesson 1 have been reviewed and returned — known gaps will be addressed in the opening five minutes
- General awareness of NZ history is helpful but not required — the case study materials are scaffolded to be self-contained
- Some students may have personal or whānau connections to one or more of the three case studies. This is a resource, not a risk — those connections represent lived knowledge that can enrich the analysis
Kuputaka — Key Vocabulary
Aronga Rerekē — Differentiation
| Extension / Gifted | Support / Scaffolding | ESOL / EAL |
|---|---|---|
| Research the actual Waitangi Tribunal ruling relevant to Case C. Write a second analysis sheet from the perspective of the Tribunal — what reasoning did it use? How does it differ from Crown legal reasoning? Is tikanga treated as law by the Tribunal? | Provide a partially completed analysis sheet with sentence starters ("The rights at stake in this case are…", "The value underlying this position is…"). Allow the group to focus on two of the four analysis questions rather than all four. Offer a simplified one-page summary of their assigned case. | Provide case study summaries with key terms glossed in plain English. For Case A (te reo Māori), pair with a student who has personal connection to language revitalisation where possible. Allow the group analysis to be presented orally to the kaiako rather than in writing. |
Neuroarotahi — Neurodiversity & UDL
Dyslexic learners: Provide case study summaries in bullet points (not prose paragraphs) with key terms bolded. Colour-code the three case sheets — Case A teal, Case B amber, Case C navy — matching the visual on the case cards. Allow the group's analysis to be presented verbally to the kaiako rather than written on the sheet. Ensure the analysis sheet uses clear headings and generous white space between questions.
ADHD / attention regulation: The 25-minute case study block is the attention risk zone. Build in a structured mid-point check-in at 12 minutes — each group states their current question and what they're focusing on next. This resets attention without stopping momentum. Allow students to move between reference materials posted on the wall. Use a visible countdown timer throughout.
Autism spectrum: Pre-brief the three case topics at the close of Lesson 1 so students who need processing time can prepare. Provide a sample partially-completed analysis sheet to make expectations concrete. Allow solo work on one case with teacher check-ins substituting for group discussion if group work is genuinely difficult. Prepare a written protocol for the whole-class synthesis so students know exactly when and how they will be called on.
Multiple means of representation (UDL): Post the four analysis questions visually on the board throughout the case study work — students should not need to re-read the sheet to stay oriented. Provide RNZ audio links as alternatives to text for Case B and C for students who process audio more easily. The three case cards in the class display provide a visual overview students can refer to when the detail of their sheet becomes overwhelming.
Āhua Ahurea — Cultural Responsiveness
Case A (te reo Māori) may be personally significant for some ākonga. Frame it carefully — ask who in the class has experience of a language their tūpuna spoke that they don't have full access to. This reframes the case as lived experience, not historical content.
If any students have connections to Māori communities, treat their perspective on the cases as analytically valuable, not anecdotal. Their knowledge is a resource for the whole class.
When discussing tikanga Māori as a dispute resolution framework, position it as a legal and philosophical tradition with its own sophisticated logic — not as an "alternative to real law" or a cultural practice. It has been recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal and increasingly by courts.
The 1981 Springbok Tour (Case B) involved complex, competing rights claims — not simply "people angry about apartheid." Hold that complexity. Avoid presenting the government's position as obviously wrong; the rights tension was genuine even if the resolution was contested.
The synthesis board map should include te Tiriti and tikanga as columns alongside Crown law — not as footnotes. This signals that they are equally valid analytical frameworks for this inquiry.
Hononga Marau — Cross-Curricular Links
1981 Springbok Tour; te reo Māori revitalisation history; Waitangi Tribunal establishment and function
Close reading of case study documents; constructing and presenting a written analytical response
How the 1981 Springbok Tour was covered by mainstream media vs. protester lived experience — perspectives and bias
Direct preparation for AS91028: demonstrating understanding of a social issue using evidence and values analysis
Whakahaere Neke — Transition Management
- →Return of exit cards: keep this to a hard five minutes. Do not let feedback become another lecture. Name patterns, name one gap, move on — the lesson needs the time that follows.
- →Case study allocation: decide group composition and case assignments before the lesson begins. Have printed case study materials pre-positioned on group tables. Do not use lesson time to form groups or distribute materials.
- →Case study work → whole-class synthesis: give a two-minute warning before the transition. Write each case as a column header on the board before the lesson starts so the map is immediately ready to use.
- →Synthesis → 3-2-1 reflection: distribute reflection slips during the final minute of the synthesis discussion. Students should have the slip in hand before you ask them to write — this removes dead time.
Whakaaro Kaiako — Teacher Reflection (Post-Lesson)
Which case study produced the most analytical depth? Which the least? What does that suggest about the difficulty level or personal relevance of each case for this class?
Did students engage with tikanga Māori as a genuine analytical framework, or did they treat it as background information? What would shift this in a future iteration?
Were any students visibly uncomfortable with the case study content? How was that responded to? What would you do differently?
What questions in the 3-2-1 reflections suggest lingering misconceptions that must be addressed before the action planning task in Lesson 3?