Waikato University pressing on with med school plan
The University of Waikato is pressing ahead with its third medical school proposal, despite all indications it is now on life support.
The Otago Daily Times has obtained a document advertising the position of an "independent commissioning agent" for the project.
Interested parties have until the end of the month to submit applications, and a decision is due to made before July 4.
"It is important to note that this procurement exercise is being conducted in parallel to the approval of the detailed business case being considered by government for a proposed medical school," the document said.
"As such, there is no commitment that this contract will be awarded should the business case not be approved."
A firm preference is placed on those with previous experience within the sector.
"We are seeking respondents that have demonstrable experience in successfully delivering independent commissioning agent services on projects with a similar nature to ensure a seamless set-up and handover of the building to the university."
The role would last about two and a-half years, depending on how long the first stage took to complete.
It does not mention a salary band.
There was also a outlay plan for stage 1 of the "division of health" precinct, which would provide teaching and learning facilities for the proposed new medical school and support the division's existing programmes in nursing, midwifery and pharmacy.
"The division is in a strong growth phase and has more than 1000 equivalent fulltime students in these existing programmes," a Waikato University spokeswoman said.
Green MP Francisco Hernandez said there was a level of desperation to these documents.
"Aotearoa desperately needs more doctors and medical professionals, but unfortunately this government is just tinkering around the issue while at its core the problem gets worse.
"The Health Minister should do the right thing and kill off this zombie project once and for all rather than keeping it in limbo.
"Setting up a new medical school at a university with no track record of delivering medical graduates and which will require substantial levels of capital investment is a bad use of time and resources."
The Waikato Medical School proposal has proved controversial — the existing medical schools at Otago and Auckland Universities argue they can deliver more medical school students more cheaply and efficiently.
National campaigned on the third medical school at the 2023 election, but Act New Zealand made it part of its coalition agreement it would not like the project to go ahead without a detailed cost-benefit analysis.
When asked about progress on the project, and when the government would likely announce an outcome, Health Minister Simeon Brown reiterated the proposal remained under "active consideration".
This is despite the fact no extra money exists in the Budget for the project for this year.
Documentation from Treasury, the Tertiary Education Commission and Ministry of Education have all expressed concern about the cost of the project, the logistical hurdles in establishing it and the speed at which the government hoped to complete it.
An Otago University spokeswoman said ministers had been clear both before and after the Budget no final decisions had been taken on the proposal for a third medical school.
"Already this year we have taken 10 more domestic students, and we will take another 10 students next year.
"Otago is able to immediately increase our medical intake from 323 to 348 students, raising it to 450 from 2027.
"This increase in students would not require any new capital funding as we would largely reconfigure use of existing facilities and resources."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
Article – RNZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has agreed to work with his counterparts on the 30-year plan, but the discussion got heated. A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature – and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to 'start on a positive note' on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. 'I agree,' Bishop said. 'That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government.' The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. 'At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough,' he said, garnering an emphatic 'yeah' from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. 'You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place,' he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. 'We think some of the things you've done are stupid… what I would like to see is a commitment,' he said. 'There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response.' More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: 'I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point … we may not always agree. 'For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: 'We know where we're at with that.' Bishop: 'You sure?' McAnulty: 'Yes, I am actually… this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. 'This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other.' Bishop: 'Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid.' McAnulty: 'Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves.' Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and 'sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate'. McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. 'The point is to have… almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline,' Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster – a former Wellington mayor – said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. 'Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it – but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money,' he said. 'I'd rather they just do it.' 'Enough of those mandates for councils,' interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. 'We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing,' Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. 'Depends exactly what you're talking about,' Bishop said. 'I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact.' 'So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?' McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. 'Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. 'Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. 'It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'.' Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest – which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? 'You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening,' Bishop concluded – or seemed to. 'The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land.' 'Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords,' Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers – a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, 'because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates', but the agency was making 'good progress' and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract – whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities – with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: 'And the minister doesn't even know … that's very disappointing.' Bishop: 'Yes. So's your behaviour.' Utikere: 'No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive – that is our responsibility. 'It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget.' Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too – after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would – in turn – have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature - and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to "start on a positive note" on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. "I agree," Bishop said. "That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government." The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. "At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough," he said, garnering an emphatic "yeah" from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. "You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place," he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. "We think some of the things you've done are stupid... what I would like to see is a commitment," he said. "There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response." More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: "I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point ... we may not always agree. "For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: "We know where we're at with that." Bishop: "You sure?" McAnulty: "Yes, I am actually... this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. "This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other." Bishop: "Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid." McAnulty: "Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves." Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and "sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate". McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. "The point is to have... almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline," Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster - a former Wellington mayor - said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. "Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it - but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money," he said. "I'd rather they just do it." "Enough of those mandates for councils," interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. "We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing," Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. "Depends exactly what you're talking about," Bishop said. "I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact." "So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?" McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. "Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. "Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. "It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'." Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest - which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? "You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening," Bishop concluded - or seemed to. "The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land." "Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords," Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers - a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, "because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates", but the agency was making "good progress" and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract - whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities - with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: "And the minister doesn't even know ... that's very disappointing." Bishop: "Yes. So's your behaviour." Utikere:"No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive - that is our responsibility. "It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget." Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too - after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would - in turn - have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill: A State-Sanctioned Assault On The Working Class
The National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (ERAB), will see a sweeping series of legislative changes that reshape the legal terrain of labour in Aotearoa. These changes, billed by the government as necessary for 'labour market flexibility' and 'economic growth,' represent a radical rollback of worker protections. Cloaked in technocratic language and presented as pragmatic reform, the bill in fact amounts to a systemic attack on organised labour, unionism, and the basic rights of working people. ERAB does not signal the failure of the state to protect workers, it reveals the true nature of the state itself. The bill should be understood not as a policy misstep, but as a calculated act of class warfare by a government acting as the political arm of capital. What the Bill Contains At the heart of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill lies a multi-pronged effort to deregulate labour protections and entrench power in the hands of employers. There are four major pillars to this legislative shift: The Introduction of a 'Contractor Gateway Test' The Limitation of Personal Grievance Remedies The Repeal of the 30-Day Rule for New Employees The Restoration of Employer Powers to Deduct Wages During Partial Strikes Each of these measures contributes to the erosion of worker autonomy and legal protections, and together they mark a sharp rightward shift in employment law—one that prioritises capital accumulation over dignity, security, or fairness. Institutionalising Insecurity: The Contractor Gateway Test Perhaps the most structurally damaging reform is the introduction of a 'contractor gateway test.' This test is intended to establish a legal presumption that certain workers are not employees, but independent contractors—thereby removing them from the protections afforded under the Employment Relations Act. If a worker meets a checklist of conditions (such as having a written contract stating they are a contractor, having the theoretical ability to work for others, and not being penalised for declining work), they can be categorised as contractors regardless of the actual nature of the work. This change is designed to exploit the legal fiction of contractor 'freedom.' In practice, it will increase precarity for thousands of workers who are functionally dependent on a single employer. Gig economy workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, care workers, and migrant labourers will be among the hardest hit – those least able to negotiate or contest exploitative arrangements. By facilitating this mass misclassification, the state legitimises a race to the bottom. Sick leave, minimum wages, overtime, and holiday pay become luxuries rather than rights. Workers will be rendered atomised economic agents, responsible for their own exploitation. Making Workers the Problem: Personal Grievance Restrictions The bill also proposes restricting workers' ability to raise personal grievances, especially in cases of dismissal. Under ERAB, employers may avoid paying compensation if the dismissed worker is deemed to have contributed to their dismissal through 'serious misconduct.' In other words, the government is offering employers legal leeway to terminate employment while avoiding financial consequences. The bill also excludes workers earning more than $180,000 from being able to raise personal grievances, creating a two-tier system in which legal recourse is determined not by the justice of one's case, but by the size of one's paycheque. These provisions are punitive and ideological. They send a clear message: if a worker is sacked, it is probably their own fault. This is not an attempt to resolve disputes fairly – it is a mechanism of discipline. A demoralised, fearful workforce is a compliant one. Attacking Unionism: Repealing the 30-Day Rule Another key component of ERAB is the repeal of the 30-day rule. Previously, when a worker started a job in a workplace with a collective agreement, they would automatically receive the terms of that agreement for their first 30 days. This protected workers from being picked off and offered worse contracts before they had a chance to join a union or understand their rights. Its repeal will allow employers to immediately undercut collective agreements by offering inferior individual contracts. The aim is not to promote fairness—it is to weaken union density, divide workers, and remove the incentive for employers to negotiate with unions at all. It is a classic tactic of divide and rule. Recriminalising Solidarity: Deductions for Partial Strikes Finally, the bill reintroduces employers' ability to deduct pay for 'partial strike' actions—where workers might refuse specific duties while continuing to perform others. Partial strikes are a form of limited industrial action that allow workers to escalate disputes strategically and carefully. Punishing them with pay cuts is intended to suppress this tactic and reassert managerial authority. This reform is aimed squarely at reasserting capital's power to punish resistance. It also represents a symbolic victory for employers: a return to the draconian provisions of the Employment Contracts Act era. A Longer History of Repression While these reforms are severe, they are not novel. Rather, they follow a decades-long trajectory of neoliberal labour market restructuring in Aotearoa. The 1991 Employment Contracts Act, spearheaded by National's Ruth Richardson, abolished compulsory unionism and national awards, deregulating industrial relations and shifting power dramatically towards employers. This was complemented by the broader economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government, which introduced market logic into almost every facet of public life, including education, health, and welfare. Since then, no government has meaningfully reversed this trend. The Clark government (1999–2008) offered some mild reversals, and the Sixth Labour Government (2017–2023) introduced the Fair Pay Agreements (since repealed). But the fundamental structure of employer dominance has remained untouched. In this light, ERAB is not a betrayal of some progressive consensus. It is a continuation of the neoliberal project with renewed aggression. Its goal is to further erode the legal terrain on which workers might mount a defence. The State as the Manager of Capital Anarcho-communists have long argued that the state does not function as a neutral arbiter in labour relations. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the conditions under which capital can reproduce itself. It may, at times, offer workers concessions such as welfare payments, labour protections, or health and safety laws, but these are always tactical, not moral. They can be revoked as easily as they are granted, and they are most often granted in the wake of unrest or threat. ERAB illustrates this logic perfectly. Rather than responding to a crisis of productivity or economic necessity, it seeks to pre-emptively disarm the working class in anticipation of future struggle. Its goal is to ensure that capital can extract more surplus value with fewer obstacles. In this sense, the bill is not simply anti-worker—it is anti-democratic, in the truest sense. It aims to suppress the ability of people to determine the conditions of their own labour, and thus their own lives. Resistance: Beyond Legalism, Beyond the State Faced with these developments, many liberal commentators and union leaders have called for legal challenges, electoral change, and lobbying. But anarcho-communists recognise that such strategies are insufficient. The state has already shown its allegiances. No matter which party holds office, workers' rights will be contingent on the approval of capital and its political servants. Instead, we must build resistance from below. That means rejecting the logic of legalism and instead fostering the conditions for direct action and solidarity. This includes: -Rebuilding radical, rank-and-file led unions that are accountable to workers, not party officials. -Organising mutual aid networks to provide material support for striking or sacked workers. -Occupying and collectivising workplaces under threat, with or without legal recognition. Conclusion: No Authority but Ourselves The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not a detour from democratic principles – it is a confirmation that parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is a dead end for the working class. It consolidates employer power, undermines unionism, and exposes the state's role as an instrument of class domination. But in this dark moment, there is also clarity. The illusions of social partnership, of progressive government, of justice through legislation are burning away. What remains is the possibility of something else: the possibility of worker self-organisation, of mutual aid, of a society based not on hierarchy or profit, but on solidarity and shared need. We must turn away from begging for better laws and begin building our own power. The road ahead is not easy, but it is ours. And as always, it begins not in Parliament but on the shop floor, in the streets, and in the hearts of those who still believe that another world is possible.
