Stanford and Principals' Federation at Odds Over Convention Speech
Education Minister Erica Stanford and New Zealand Principals' Federation president Jason Miles are in open dispute over her address to the International Confederation of Principals Convention. The federation called the speech embarrassing, disappointing and disrespectful. Stanford called Miles' behaviour towards her after the speech rude, aggressive and unprofessional RNZ. The disagreement was reported on 25 September.
What the speech was for
In an email to members, Miles said Stanford had "exploited the convention to use the global stage to promote her party policies". Her address set out the Government's education reforms to lift achievement. The text welcoming overseas delegates to the 2026 convention was published on 23 September Beehive.
At issue is what the speaking slot was for. Miles said the convention coordinator told the minister's office it was an opening welcome of 5-10 minutes, not a policy or political speech. Stanford's address thanked nine associations and groups for their help to her. It did not name the hosts, the NZPF, the main group speaking for primary principals.
Meetings and policy
Access is the other flashpoint. Miles said he approached Stanford after the speech to ask why she had declined meetings with him. He said she replied "because you go to the media". Stanford said she had met with NZPF before and further meetings were not possible given her workload RNZ.
NZPF is also proposing an independent curriculum and assessment council, a separate expert body to keep those decisions with experts rather than politicians.
The broader context here is the working relationship between a reforming minister and the main principals' organisation. A host federation expects to be named in an opening welcome. A minister's office expects room to set out its reform programme to an international audience. When those expectations differ, the missing name becomes the evidence for one side. The length and content of the speech become the evidence for the other.
Looking at what this means for the next phase, meeting access will be the test. Ministers have limited time and must ration it. Associations count meetings as a sign of access. A minister linking access to media comment, and a president putting that exchange in writing to members, leaves less room for a quiet repair. The council proposal shows where the policy argument sits. It is about who controls curriculum and assessment change, and how long that control lasts beyond the current minister.
