Education Minister refuses curriculum feedback request, says no record exists

Education Minister Erica Stanford has refused to say what changes she asked for to the draft Year 7 to 13 English curriculum. She told the requester her office holds no documentation of the discussions.

The request came from Bevan Holloway, a teacher at Paraparaumu College. He asked what extra changes Stanford sought after officials gave her drafts in the week of 10 February 2025. RNZ

Stanford replied in a signed letter delivered on 18 November. That was two weeks after the due date under the Official Information Act, the law that gives the public the right to request government information. In the letter, she confirmed she had discussed the curriculum with officials. She refused part of the request under section 18(g) of the Act, the provision used when information is said not to be held, on the basis her office did not hold it.

Her letter said the office holds no documentation about what changes were discussed in meetings after those February drafts arrived. She said she gave feedback on the drafts to officials in meetings. She said there is no 'main advocate' for changes. She also confirmed the draft content was reviewed, feedback was given to officials in meetings, and copies were not passed on to anyone else.

The wider picture here is that her reasoning sits uneasily alongside the Ombudsman's advice.

The Ombudsman's guidance for ministers and agencies says the Act covers information even if it has not yet been written down, according to the guidance. It says information can be held in the memory of a staff member.

Holloway has complained to the Ombudsman, the independent watchdog for official information, about the response. Stanford told RNZ she was confident her office had complied with the Act.

This dispute is separate from wider questions about information handling in her portfolio, but the two are now running alongside each other. The Chief Ombudsman requested an urgent meeting with the head of the Ministry of Education after claims ministry staff tried to get around the Act. RNZ

Chief Ombudsman John Allen said he had significant concerns about those claims, according to his statement. A ministry whistleblower has claimed the attempted subversion was not a one-off.

Stanford has denied telling officials to subvert information handling. She said action was being taken after leaked comments by an official about OIA handling were reported on 21 September. She said she was confident her Secretary of Education had the situation "in hand" in relation to a senior official appearing to try to hide information. She described the source behind the allegations as ideologically-driven.

The curriculum at the centre of Holloway's request is part of a larger rewrite. Stanford announced the release of the full draft of the new Year 1 to 10 curriculum in October 2025. She responded to critics of the rewrite in May 2026. An Education Review Office report on histories, released in April 2024, confirmed in her assessment that teachers need better clarity on curriculum and how to deliver it.

Parliament passed the education system reforms Bill through its Third Reading, the final vote in Parliament, in June 2026. It requires a regular rolling cycle of curriculum area reviews. Beehive

Ombudsman guidance defines official information broadly. It includes documents and papers but also information in any format, including drafts, videos, recordings and photos, according to the guidance. A separate Ombudsman guide on information not held covers sections 18(e) and 18(g) of the OIA and sections 17(e) and 17(g) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

The broader context here is process, not pedagogy. For Press Gallery regulars, the test will be how the Ombudsman treats section 18(g) where a minister confirms substantive discussion but says no record exists. Memory, meeting practice and the duty to record are all live issues. So is timing. A late reply invites scrutiny even when lateness alone does not decide a complaint.

Looking at what this means for the Beehive, ministers routinely give oral feedback on drafts. Officials routinely take that feedback away and redraft. The question is what the Act then requires: a retrieval of recollection, or a lawful refusal. The Ombudsman will now have two Education threads to consider. One concerns the minister's office and the English curriculum. The other concerns the ministry and its handling culture. Both will shape how education officials minute meetings from here.