Labour leader Chris Hipkins told his party’s education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime she should have responded to attempts the Government was making to brief her on the NCEA change process.
But he doesn’t believe it was unreasonable for Prime to wait to speak with teachers and parents before meeting Education Minister Erica Stanford.
Prime is, for the most part, standing by her actions but has acknowledged she could have explained to the minister why she wasn’t initially taking up her offer.
She also responded to Act leader David Seymour saying he would have sacked her, by saying, “I’m glad he’s not my leader, and he isn’t my leader”.
It comes after revelations from the Herald this morning that Stanford and her office wrote to Prime on multiple occasions over several months inviting her to be briefed on the NCEA work programme and meet with officials, but the Labour MP initially didn’t respond.
More than three months after the initial invitation, Prime wrote back and declined the invitation. But that was only after Stanford went around her and straight to Hipkins.
A few weeks later, as the Herald was reporting that NCEA changes were coming soon, Prime sought a meeting with Stanford. This couldn’t happen before the reforms were publicly announced this week but a meeting is now in the works.
Hipkins last month spoke about the importance of cross-party consultation. He told the Herald how he reached out to the then-Opposition when he was the minister in charge of reforms and called for the current Government to do the same.
Asked on Friday whether Labour was being hypocritical by not initially engaging, Hipkins said he believed “consultation involves more than just having a meeting where you tell people what you’re going to do”.
“It actually does involve involving them in the process,” he said before noting he included the likes of National’s Nikki Kaye in his work.
“It was actually quite extensive involvement. It wasn’t just a courtesy meeting.”
A text message obtained by the Herald from March shows Stanford did reach out to Prime after she became the party’s education spokeswoman and offered not only to “get you up to speed with the NCEA change process”, but a meeting with officials and an advisory group.
Emails show Stanford’s office offered for officials to “address any questions you may have” and allow for “cross-party collaboration”.
Hipkins said it wasn’t “unreasonable” for Prime to meet stakeholders before the minister, but he indicated to her “it would have been better if she’d gone back to the minister and told her that that was what she was doing”.
He said he “became aware that she hadn’t replied to Erica Stanford in July and made it clear to her that she did need to reply to her”.
Prime on Friday acknowledged she could have responded to Stanford earlier.
“I probably could have said, this is why I need to take my time and please assure me that I can have the time that I need to do this.
“But I was not given any time frames from the minister that we have only this amount of time to engage because I’m going to announce and there’s only six weeks subsequent to that.”
She also elaborated on the rationale behind not meeting with the minister.
“I was doing that due diligence and had done that engagement and wanted to bring that to the minister for her consideration because it’s not what I think. What I think is most important here is what does the sector think?”
Prime said she got the impression from her engagement that the sector had been unsure what was happening. She questioned whether the current six-week consultation process was genuine.
Stanford has said the change process was informed by an advisory group with a number of school principals represented. She believes the six-week period balances a need to get feedback, while also getting moving with any changes.
Prime and Hipkins dismissed Seymour’s suggestion that he would have sacked her.
“If David Seymour was a member of the Labour caucus, I would have sacked him a long time ago,” the Labour leader said.
While Prime responded to Stanford and declined the invitation after Hipkins’ intervention, she did appear to later have a change of heart.
On July 20, the Herald revealed an NZQA briefing warned Stanford that NCEA faced a credibility crisis because of “over-used flexibility”. That story also reported that Stanford was preparing an announcement on the future of the qualification.
Five days later, Prime sent Stanford a letter asking to meet “to discuss national primary and secondary education curricula and assessment”.
She listed seven questions she wanted to discuss with Stanford about matters such as how to best link curriculum and assessment, options to improve NCEA and how the sector had been involved in proposals.
On August 3, the day before the public announcement of the changes, Stanford responded to Prime’s letter, thanking her for her interest.
The minister outlined how she had reached out to her, her office and Hipkins on multiple occasions.
“I particularly sought your engagement on the curriculum and NCEA work programmes, both have progressed substantially since my initial message to you. Key decisions have now been taken to formulate proposals for consultation.
“These decisions have been informed by months of evidence-based advice and professional input from the Professional Advisory Group.”
Stanford said she initially received no response to her invitation and then Prime declined. Any opportunity to influence the direction of the proposal had now passed, the minister wrote.
“Work has continued and we are now ready for broader sector consultation. I am committed to working constructively, and I would like to arrange for you to receive an official briefing on the NCEA proposal and our curriculum work programme, as has been previously offered.”
She said she would be willing to meet with Prime to hear her feedback.
“As you will know, both the education sector and the public have expectations of cross-party collaboration with something as important as our national qualification which is why I reached out so many times.”
Further emails show Prime accepting the offer of a briefing and the respective offices attempting to find a date for this to happen.
Stanford told the Herald she was “glad” Labour had “recognised the significance of these proposals and the clear public mandate for us to work together”.
“It’s been really good to see positive comments from the Leader of the Opposition indicating that he is broadly supportive of the plan that’s been laid out.
“Of course, it will be disappointing for the public to see Willow-Jean Prime refused to engage earlier in the process, but I’m so pleased that this has now changed and I look forward to her engagement.”
– additional reporting by Rosie Leishman
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.