Did Stanford Lose Control of the Curriculum MAG?
Erica's curriculum MAG, which had Michael Johnston as chair and counted Elizabeth Rata and Melissa Derby as members, sent its report to the Ministry on 19 March, 2024.
Public service guidelines state that advisory groups are to supply advice "direct to the minister", but they "should not undertake activities that cut across the responsibilities of the minister or the departmental chief executive".
On 15 March, 2024, Johnston met with a team of Ministry leaders. In that meeting he informed them what was going to be in the MAG's report.
It is clear this meeting is helping the Ministry get underway with the work the MAG wants done. However, that is work that is the work of government, not private individuals contracted to give advice to the Minister.
Anya Pollock emails Johnston a summary of that meeting at 1:09pm on the 15th. The MAG is in charge; the Ministry is doing its bidding: "When we meet again on Monday we will provide where we have got to with the draft schedule and timeline" Pollock writes.
Why is this work being progressed? The Minister hasn't read or responded to the MAG's report, and thus hasn't had the chance to authorise the implementation of any of its recommendations.
Did Minister lose control of the MAG, with the result being they went 'rouge' and seized control of the Ministry? Or are they all enacting a pre-determined plan, with the formality of the advisory group providing procedural cover?
Either way, when a small group are able to take over the work and thinking of a ministry, a key pillar of our democracy has crumbled, and that leaves everyone outside that group at risk.