Correction to: Mitchell, A. (2025). He Wero Ano: Don’t Just Tell Me, Show Me How Science and Psychology Are Racist in New Zealand. Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, 35(1), 36–64. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16743836

Following publication, several factual inaccuracies were identified in the above article. In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the Journal’s commitment to accuracy, we are required to issue the following corrections and clarifications:

  1. The Place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within Psychology

    On page 37, this article suggested that the NZPB is not subject to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (‘Te Tiriti’) obligations, since it is not formally defined as a ‘Crown entity’ by the Crown Entities Act 2004. The article also suggested that the Board has recently and significantly expanded the role of Te Tiriti within psychology, without wider consultation.

    Clarification: The NZPB is a statutory body corporate established by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA Act), with members appointed by the Minister of Health. Under the Act, responsible authorities are required “to set standards of … cultural competence (including competencies that will enable effective and respectful interaction with Māori)” (s 118(1)(i)).

    The Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand (2002) and the Core Competencies for the Practice of Psychology in Aotearoa New Zealand (2006) both explicitly acknowledge Te Tiriti as foundational to professional and ethical practice. These long-standing documents were widely consulted upon when developed and remain clear benchmarks for psychology practice.

    Correction: The Editors have received clear expert advice that the NZPB’s status as a body corporate does not, in and of itself, absolve the Crown, the NZPB, or the profession as a whole from responsibilities under Te Tiriti. The existing ethical and competency standards also indicate that Te Tiriti has been central to the profession for many years.

    Qualification: These issues are complex and largely beyond the scope of the Journal. The Waitangi Tribunal has been asked to examine them directly, with a claim brought by Dr Michelle Levy (Wai 2725) questioning whether psychology as a profession, and its regulatory frameworks, have met their responsibilities under Te Tiriti.

  2. Claims of the WERO Report

    In the abstract to this article, it is asserted that [the WERO report] “claim[s] that science itself is a social construct of white Europeans”.

    Correction: This claim is not directly made in the WERO report.

    Clarification: The WERO report argues that psychology is “monocultural” (e.g. page 6) and argues, based on their findings, that psychology “assumes a superior status through positivist perspectives such as ‘generalisability’ and ‘replicability’, while failing to conceptualise western science as a culturally situated human construct”.

  3. Peer-review of the WERO report
    On page 45, the article states: “The report did not go through a peer review process, therefore it lacks a formal independent critique outside the WERO research group.”

    Correction: The WERO report clearly acknowledges external academic review by peers outside of the WERO group on page 109, as well as formal ethical review.

    Qualification: The document is an institutional report published by WERO and the University of Waikato, and it is not stated whether reviews were conducted anonymously (‘blind’).

  4. Funding of the WERO project

    The article states: “The programme was awarded $10 million of funding by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Waitoki et al., 2024)”

    Correction: The $10 million (NZD) figure is incorrectly cited and does not appear in the WERO report (Waitoki et al., 2024). It is confirmed elsewhere (e.g. in a press release issued by the University of Waikato (2020) (https://auckland.scoop.co.nz/2020/09/working-to-end-racial-oppression-supported-by-10m-mbie-grant/).

    Clarification: This figure refers to the entire WERO research programme (2020–2025) funded via MBIE’s Endeavour Fund, not to the psychology survey/report alone. The WERO report acknowledges MBIE funding but does not state the cost of this specific project.

  5. Stated goal of the WERO report
    On p. 49 the article states: “Given that one stated goal of the research was to ‘decolonise psychology’ …”.

    Correction: The stated objectives of the WERO report do not explicitly include the goal to ‘decolonise psychology’. The objectives stated are (1) to assess progress toward Te Tiriti o Waitangi aspirations in psychology training, and (2) to examine barriers and facilitators for Māori and other minoritised groups’ participation in training and the workforce.

    Qualification: The report’s recommendations and narrative do use decolonisation language and frame the work (p. 5) as a journey to “unseat colonialism,” but these are never stated as formal research aims.

We thank the readers who drew these issues to our attention and deeply regret that they were not identified during peer review and editorial checks.

Associate Professor Liesje Donkin, Editor
Associate Professor Paul Skirrow, Associate Editor.