Promises Mean Nothing if the Ministry Won’t Keep Them

by Rebecca Thomas

In May, the Ministry of Education told Kāhui Ako educators and boards that their collective agreements would be honoured. That if fixed-term roles extended into 2026, salary allowances could be protected for up to 12 months. It was written. Published. Shared. A public statement. A promise.

But barely a month later, a second communication emerged—stripped of that clarity, clouded in caution. This time, boards are "strongly advised" not to extend any arrangements past January 2026. No funding will be made available, the letter warns, and any board that chooses to follow through will carry the burden alone.

This is not merely a shift in policy. It is a shift in accountability. It is a subtle retreat from responsibility dressed up as calculated guidance.

This manoeuvre undermines more than just contracts—it undermines trust. It dishonours a public commitment. And it assumes that Boards of Trustees will accept this new message without scrutiny, without question.

We must not let that happen.

Boards must be given the full truth.

The Ministry cannot mask its retreat behind careful wording and then expect boards to bear the fallout. If Boards of Trustees are to make informed decisions, they need clear, critical questions:

• What changed between May and June?

• Why were earlier commitments walked back?

• Who is being protected by this new advice—and who is being left exposed?

This is about more than the Kāhui Ako payroll. It is about whether educators and schools can rely on government communication. Whether public statements hold weight. Whether the Ministry will honour its own frameworks.

And it is about whether this government will continue to make decisions that quietly dismantle collaborative spaces under the guise of budgetary convenience.

Many Kāhui Ako have already made plans to continue their mahi. Not because they’re defiant, but because they’re committed. Because they know collaboration, innovation, and whanaungatanga are not political trends—they’re educational imperatives.

So what can Boards of Trustees do?

First, know that they are not solely responsible. They acted in good faith within the Ministry’s own framework. The Ministry—not individual boards—is responsible for the structures it created, the roles it approved, and the funding it committed to. Boards should not be left to carry the risk of policies they didn’t design.

It’s also crucial to understand that a national Budget does not override existing contractual obligations. Collective agreements are legally binding and remain enforceable regardless of fiscal decisions made later. Boards that appointed staff according to Ministry guidance and under valid collective agreements are still entitled to expect those commitments to be honoured.

The Ministry cannot use the Budget as a retrospective excuse to avoid its obligations.

Boards can:

• Demand written clarification from the Ministry.

• Engage NZSBA and union support.

• Honour staff commitments made under collective agreements.

• Ask public, critical questions and make the issue visible in their communities.

  
  

And what about the Ministry?

It must be held to account. It cannot issue one public promise and then quietly shift blame through vague advisories. That is not how trust in public education is built—or maintained.

This latest move is not just a policy shift—it is a public shame. It is yet another example of a government not keeping its word. And it must not be allowed to pass unnoticed.

To all educators, union leaders, and trustees: Ask the hard questions. Demand accountability. Ensure that language is not used as a shield for broken promises.

Because we are not fools.

And we are watching.