On 20 December, 2023, Cabinet approved the establishment of the curriculum review Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG), with Michael Johnston as Chair.

At 10:06am on 22 December, Michael texts Erica asking if she has time to discuss the MAG. She does, “in about an hour”, but it doesn’t happen, and so Michael texts again at 1:47pm.

A phone call wasn’t required, which suggests previous conversations had been had about the reasons for Michael wanting talk. One was to do with an individual in relation to the MAG (an addition?). The other is very curious.

What is the “second part of the work” that Michael gets the green light to start when he likes? The MAG had no second part in their Terms. This is important because the Public Service Guidelines state the Terms are a key way in which the “quality and independence of the advice” is protected.

This text raises the possibility of this MAG’s independence being compromised from the earliest of stages. It is also clear evidence of the Minister’s knowledge that the MAG was going to operate beyond their Terms. We know that an area in which they did this was in writing curriculum material, which is a violation of Public Service Guidelines. We know that the MAG referred to writing curriculum material as “their work” in communications with each other. We know that material was presented to ERO as the curriculum, not a sample to the Minister as the Terms allowed.

Is this text exchange evidence of the Minister giving the green light for that violation?