There's concerns over whether the costs for the new Waikato University medical school will blow out and be passed on to taxpayers.
Cabinet will contribute $80 million to the $230-million-dollar Waikato University school, which is expected to open in 2028 for 120 trainees.
University of Waikato Vice-Chancellor Neil Quigley says the university is on track for a surplus of $20 million this financial year.
"The university is in really good financial shape, enrolments have risen very quickly this year...and we have no debt at the moment either."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, what's down? What were the major cause and
how will it affect the economy? The big business questions
on the Business Hour with Heather Duplicy, Ellen and Players,
insurance and investments, Grow your wealth, protect your future, US
talk said be.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Evening.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Coming up for the next hour. Red meat exports are
going through the roof Jamie McKay on that. Paul Bloxham
of HSBC on our inflation print yesterday, and the UK
is looking at raising the old pinsion age into Brady
on that before the end of the program seven past six. Now,
if you caught the show yesterday, you're going to know
that I have some doubts about how much the third
medical school at White Couple University will actually end up
(00:40):
costing us. Now it was originally going to cost three
hundred and eighty million dollars in total. Now it's apparently
only going to be two hundred and thirty five million dollars.
Whyecuttle University is asked to come on the show for
a write of reply, and we're very happy to say
we have the vice chancellor, Neil Quickly with us. Hi
Neil evening, Heather, Now, how did you guys get the
cost down from three eighty to two thirty five.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
The biggest part of it is that in the original cost,
we took the total amount of space that we would
need for everything at the university and all the clinical placements,
and we built in the new build cost for that space.
But as it's turned out, as we work through the
business case, both at the university and around the regional
(01:24):
and rural hospitals that we'll be working in, there's a
lot of space that needs some sprucing up renovation, but
that doesn't need to be built new. So the cost
of the capital part of the project came down very substantially.
Is because of that cool.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
You guys have to contribute between yourselves and philanthropists about
one hundred and fifty million dollars. How much of that
is the is the university putting in?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Well, we don't have an exact breakdown, but it's about
fifty to fifty that I expect we'll be doing. At
this point. The university is in really good financial shape.
Our enrollments have risen very quickly this year and we're
on track for a twenty million dollar surplus for this
financial year, and we have no debt at the moment. Either,
(02:07):
so the university is well able to take on.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
The risk of So have you cleared all of your debt?
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Have you? Yes?
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Yes, and you have a facility about one hundred million.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Still yet well next year it'll be one hundred and
twenty million. Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Who are the philanthropists?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well, I can't tell you right now because we got
only a few hours notice that the government was going
to announce on Monday, and the philanthropists need to work
through a process of formalizing their commitments with us now
that we have the green lights. So we'll be announcing
(02:45):
once we work through those and probably with each of
them major donors, having a special event with each of
them to outline what they're supporting.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
So, if you're putting in seventy five and they're putting
in seventy five, have you secured the full seventy five
from philanthropist at least in verbal agreements?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
No, roughly fifty five at the moment.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Okay, so still short of twenty. Where do you reckon
that's going to come from?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Oh, we've only just started, Heather. And the reason is that,
you know, it's really quite difficult to raise money for
a project that's only a talk project. So once it
becomes a real project, once we've got the support of
the government formally, then it's much easier to approach people.
And you know, I'm already finding in the last few
(03:29):
days that I've had people contacted me saying, you know,
let's talk. So that's very encouraging.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Oh that's cool. So can you guarantee me, though, that
the taxpayer, which is due to put in about eighty
three million dollars, will not have to put a cent
more than we are told we'll have to put in.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Well, that's the limit the government has given me, and
that's the limit that I'll work to. So yes, you know,
I think I've got a track record that says the
university can work to the budget limits that we have. Yeah.
We've done very well with all of our capital projects
in the ten years that I've been at Wycott, and
I think this one is not out of the ordinary
(04:07):
for the scale of our capital investment each year at
the university. So I'm confident we can brilliant.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
I feel heartened by this conversation, Neil. I need to
ask you something. Did Adrian all swear in a meeting
with Treasury on twenty one February.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
I wondered if you had raised that. I don't have
any comment about that.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
So you're aware of this? Are you this news that's broken?
Speaker 2 (04:27):
I've just heard in the last hour that there's a
conversation going on, but I'm not a part of it.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
No.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Did he swear in a meeting with Treasury on the
twenty first, effep?
Speaker 2 (04:36):
I can't comment on that.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Why can't you comment on that?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, because that's a matter of privacy that I don't
that I don't think I should discuss.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Is that because there's a gag order preventing you from
discussing it?
Speaker 2 (04:49):
No?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
No, okay, there is no get you just said.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
No.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Are you telling me there's no gag order?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Oh, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that
my normal obligation to preserve the privacy of someone that
I work with or who works for me means that
I can't comment on things like that.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Did know that's okay? Did he swear in a meeting
with the Finance minister three days later?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, I've heard that that's been said, but I can't
comment on that.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Weren't you at that meeting?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I was at that meeting?
Speaker 3 (05:26):
Yes, so did he swear. Did you send him an
email three days after that? Neil, did you send him
an email saying to him, Hey, here's a whole bunch
of specific and concrete allegations against you about your behavior?
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Well, see, I can't go into that head.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Listen to stag order may prevent what he did, but
can it Does it prevent you discussing what you did,
which includes sending him this email?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
It's all been covered by Anofficial Information Act request and
we responded to that. So that's as I can go,
and everything that I can say and I'm willing to say,
we've said in response to the official Information EATE requests.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Now, Neil, I'm sure that it hasn't escaped your attention
that I have been quite critical of you for the
fact that you have misrepresented a bunch of a bunch
of facts here. Do you have anything to say about that?
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Well, what do you have in mind? In particularly Well, you.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Said that he left for personal reasons, and it clearly
wasn't personal reasons.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
No, I said that was a misquote by some journalists.
It's problem with journalists reading each other's work. I said
that adrian resignation was a personal decision. Yes, and it
was at the time we were working through some difficult issues,
(06:45):
but those issues weren't actually resolved for about a month
after Adrian's resignation. That's the funding agreement, and so I
wasn't in a position to go into anything relating to that.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
So there was stuff that preceded the funding agreement. Is
that what you're telling me?
Speaker 2 (07:05):
No, it was all part of the discussion of the
funding agreement.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Are you telling me? Are you telling me he quit
for the funding agreement? Is that why he quit?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
No? No, I'm just telling you that. You know what
we've said in our response to the Official Information Act requests.
I'm confused now because.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
If he quit on the funding decision, the funding agreement,
then that's not a personal decision, is it.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
There's nothing about a difference of view about where we
were headed with the funding that required his resignation. He
could easily have continued, and that's why it was a
personal decision to resign.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
So are you telling me he didn't actually quit about
the funding agreement, which we thought he'd quit over.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
No, No, you're you're turning what I've said around the
wrong way. Either. What I've said is there was a
difference of view about the direction we were traveling on
the funding agreement. But there was nothing about that that
required Adrian to resign. He chose to make a personal
(08:08):
decision that he would resign at that point when we
were halfway through the negotiation.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
But can you understand can you understand our confusion because
he quit because of the funding agreement, right, But you're
saying it's a personal decision. It can't be both.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
It's one or the Oh, no, it is no, No,
it is because well, because there was nothing about the
funding discussion that required him to resign.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
In your opinion.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
In my opinion, yes.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
But he might have thought that there was something about
it that required him to Are you using personal decision
because every time someone quits it's ultimately a personal decision.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
No, but I think it clearly was in this case.
That's my view.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Nothing is clear about this at all. Okay, Neil, thank you,
I appreciate your time. That's Neil Quickly the University of
why Cuttle's vice chancellor. Mmmmmmm, I'm as confused as you. Listen,
I will explain to you why all of a sudden
he was facing those questions. Let me come back to that.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Shortly for more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live
to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
What's up, what's down? What were the major cause and
how will it affect the economy? The big business questions
on the Business Hour with Heather Duplicy, Ellen and Players,
insurance and investments, Grow your wealth, protect your future, US
talk said be.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Evening.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Coming up for the next hour. Red meat exports are
going through the roof Jamie McKay on that. Paul Bloxham
of HSBC on our inflation print yesterday, and the UK
is looking at raising the old pinsion age into Brady
on that before the end of the program seven past six. Now,
if you caught the show yesterday, you're going to know
that I have some doubts about how much the third
medical school at White Couple University will actually end up
(00:40):
costing us. Now it was originally going to cost three
hundred and eighty million dollars in total. Now it's apparently
only going to be two hundred and thirty five million dollars.
Whyecuttle University is asked to come on the show for
a write of reply, and we're very happy to say
we have the vice chancellor, Neil Quickly with us. Hi
Neil evening, Heather, Now, how did you guys get the
cost down from three eighty to two thirty five.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
The biggest part of it is that in the original cost,
we took the total amount of space that we would
need for everything at the university and all the clinical placements,
and we built in the new build cost for that space.
But as it's turned out, as we work through the
business case, both at the university and around the regional
(01:24):
and rural hospitals that we'll be working in, there's a
lot of space that needs some sprucing up renovation, but
that doesn't need to be built new. So the cost
of the capital part of the project came down very substantially.
Is because of that cool.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
You guys have to contribute between yourselves and philanthropists about
one hundred and fifty million dollars. How much of that
is the is the university putting in?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Well, we don't have an exact breakdown, but it's about
fifty to fifty that I expect we'll be doing. At
this point. The university is in really good financial shape.
Our enrollments have risen very quickly this year and we're
on track for a twenty million dollar surplus for this
financial year, and we have no debt at the moment. Either,
(02:07):
so the university is well able to take on.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
The risk of So have you cleared all of your debt?
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Have you? Yes?
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Yes, and you have a facility about one hundred million.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Still yet well next year it'll be one hundred and
twenty million. Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Who are the philanthropists?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well, I can't tell you right now because we got
only a few hours notice that the government was going
to announce on Monday, and the philanthropists need to work
through a process of formalizing their commitments with us now
that we have the green lights. So we'll be announcing
(02:45):
once we work through those and probably with each of
them major donors, having a special event with each of
them to outline what they're supporting.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
So, if you're putting in seventy five and they're putting
in seventy five, have you secured the full seventy five
from philanthropist at least in verbal agreements?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
No, roughly fifty five at the moment.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Okay, so still short of twenty. Where do you reckon
that's going to come from?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Oh, we've only just started, Heather. And the reason is that,
you know, it's really quite difficult to raise money for
a project that's only a talk project. So once it
becomes a real project, once we've got the support of
the government formally, then it's much easier to approach people.
And you know, I'm already finding in the last few
(03:29):
days that I've had people contacted me saying, you know,
let's talk. So that's very encouraging.
Speaker 3 (03:34):
Oh that's cool. So can you guarantee me, though, that
the taxpayer, which is due to put in about eighty
three million dollars, will not have to put a cent
more than we are told we'll have to put in.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Well, that's the limit the government has given me, and
that's the limit that I'll work to. So yes, you know,
I think I've got a track record that says the
university can work to the budget limits that we have. Yeah.
We've done very well with all of our capital projects
in the ten years that I've been at Wycott, and
I think this one is not out of the ordinary
(04:07):
for the scale of our capital investment each year at
the university. So I'm confident we can brilliant.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
I feel heartened by this conversation, Neil. I need to
ask you something. Did Adrian all swear in a meeting
with Treasury on twenty one February.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
I wondered if you had raised that. I don't have
any comment about that.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
So you're aware of this? Are you this news that's broken?
Speaker 2 (04:27):
I've just heard in the last hour that there's a
conversation going on, but I'm not a part of it.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
No.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Did he swear in a meeting with Treasury on the
twenty first, effep?
Speaker 2 (04:36):
I can't comment on that.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Why can't you comment on that?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, because that's a matter of privacy that I don't
that I don't think I should discuss.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Is that because there's a gag order preventing you from
discussing it?
Speaker 2 (04:49):
No?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
No, okay, there is no get you just said.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
No.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Are you telling me there's no gag order?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Oh, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that
my normal obligation to preserve the privacy of someone that
I work with or who works for me means that
I can't comment on things like that.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Did know that's okay? Did he swear in a meeting
with the Finance minister three days later?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, I've heard that that's been said, but I can't
comment on that.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Weren't you at that meeting?
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I was at that meeting?
Speaker 3 (05:26):
Yes, so did he swear. Did you send him an
email three days after that? Neil, did you send him
an email saying to him, Hey, here's a whole bunch
of specific and concrete allegations against you about your behavior?
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Well, see, I can't go into that head.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Listen to stag order may prevent what he did, but
can it Does it prevent you discussing what you did,
which includes sending him this email?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
It's all been covered by Anofficial Information Act request and
we responded to that. So that's as I can go,
and everything that I can say and I'm willing to say,
we've said in response to the official Information EATE requests.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Now, Neil, I'm sure that it hasn't escaped your attention
that I have been quite critical of you for the
fact that you have misrepresented a bunch of a bunch
of facts here. Do you have anything to say about that?
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Well, what do you have in mind? In particularly Well, you.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Said that he left for personal reasons, and it clearly
wasn't personal reasons.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
No, I said that was a misquote by some journalists.
It's problem with journalists reading each other's work. I said
that adrian resignation was a personal decision. Yes, and it
was at the time we were working through some difficult issues,
(06:45):
but those issues weren't actually resolved for about a month
after Adrian's resignation. That's the funding agreement, and so I
wasn't in a position to go into anything relating to that.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
So there was stuff that preceded the funding agreement. Is
that what you're telling me?
Speaker 2 (07:05):
No, it was all part of the discussion of the
funding agreement.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Are you telling me? Are you telling me he quit
for the funding agreement? Is that why he quit?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
No? No, I'm just telling you that. You know what
we've said in our response to the Official Information Act requests.
I'm confused now because.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
If he quit on the funding decision, the funding agreement,
then that's not a personal decision, is it.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
There's nothing about a difference of view about where we
were headed with the funding that required his resignation. He
could easily have continued, and that's why it was a
personal decision to resign.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
So are you telling me he didn't actually quit about
the funding agreement, which we thought he'd quit over.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
No, No, you're you're turning what I've said around the
wrong way. Either. What I've said is there was a
difference of view about the direction we were traveling on
the funding agreement. But there was nothing about that that
required Adrian to resign. He chose to make a personal
(08:08):
decision that he would resign at that point when we
were halfway through the negotiation.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
But can you understand can you understand our confusion because
he quit because of the funding agreement, right, But you're
saying it's a personal decision. It can't be both.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
It's one or the Oh, no, it is no, No,
it is because well, because there was nothing about the
funding discussion that required him to resign.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
In your opinion.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
In my opinion, yes.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
But he might have thought that there was something about
it that required him to Are you using personal decision
because every time someone quits it's ultimately a personal decision.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
No, but I think it clearly was in this case.
That's my view.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Nothing is clear about this at all. Okay, Neil, thank you,
I appreciate your time. That's Neil Quickly the University of
why Cuttle's vice chancellor. Mmmmmmm, I'm as confused as you. Listen,
I will explain to you why all of a sudden
he was facing those questions. Let me come back to that.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Shortly for more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live
to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!