The report suggested it would be faster and cheaper to get a significant boost to doctor training within our existing two medical schools rather than opt to build a third school at the University of Waikato.
The schools in Otago and Auckland say they could train hundreds more doctors, without extra capital spending, if only the government would raise their annual intake numbers.
During last year’s election campaign the National Party promised to increase trainee doctor places by 50, but then only delivered 25 of them in the Budget.
Whether that was to make National’s proposal for a new school at Hamilton seem more urgent and palatable is anybody’s guess.
Since any new school in the Waikato is still years away, and the two existing schools had said they could accommodate extra places, that penny pinching move was out of kilter with the coalition’s mantra about boosting training of medical professionals domestically.
That new school election promise is still waiting in the wings, unable to get off to the flying start National might have hoped for because its agreement with Act New Zealand requires a full cost-benefit analysis to be presented before any binding agreement is made on it.
That analysis is not expected until early next year.
We would have thought a detailed analysis should have been a given when the policy first appeared back in 2016.
As it stands, it is hard to believe the suggested $380 million in capital (with Waikato University contributing $100m) is realistic or that the school could get off the ground as promised in 2027.
Ministry of Health officials, in their briefing to the health minister Dr Shane Reti last year, drew attention to challenges and risks in the new school proposal, including the cost, and the significant work to set up operations.
There has also been ongoing controversy about the politicking behind the scenes around the Waikato University proposal.
In May, the Auditor-general John Ryan released a letter critical of the university’s lack of a competitive procurement process when it engaged the lobbying firm of former National Cabinet minister Steven Joyce which was paid $1.1m by the university between 2019 and 2023 (and continues to be engaged).
Mr Ryan’s concern was that the university did not provide a satisfactory explanation or analysis to support its vice-chancellor’s view Mr Joyce was the only suitable option to deliver a variety of services.
Without such analysis, the public may speculate about the reasons why a provider was selected, the amount paid, and whether it was appropriate, he said.
Vice-chancellor Prof Neil Quigley told Mr Ryan what mattered were the outcomes produced by the work, rather than the process by which the money was spent to achieve those outcomes.
Mr Ryan understandably drew attention to the risk of an ends justifying the means approach.
As he pointed out, the university did not seem to appreciate it was accountable to Parliament and the public for whether it had followed appropriate processes when spending public money.
Relying on a view the university was entirely satisfied with the work did not provide such assurance.
Such public telling off is not a good look for the university and will have done little for public confidence in its policy processes.
It might be easy or convenient for the government to dismiss the PwC report, funded by the universities of Otago and Auckland, as patch protection in the face of competition from Waikato’s plans.
However, given the chequered history of the Waikato proposal which reeks of pork barrel politics, and the dog’s breakfast the government is making of its messaging around health spending, this report could play a part in allowing it to make a dignified retreat from a proposal which looks messier and more expensive by the day.
