A document dump by the Tertiary Education Commission showed the commission providing advice to the team drawing up Waikato’s business case.
It includes a series of "Talking points for Cabinet sub-committee: New medical school — detailed business case" in March this year prepared for Universities Minister Dr Shane Reti.
But in the two months leading up to this paper, there appeared to be doubts from TEC advisers over the detailed business case.
Heavily-redacted correspondence from TEC advisers show commentary such as "there are assumptions within the paper that are not clearly articulated", "further clarity is required on the Waikato contribution and how it delivers in outcomes" and "it appears a lot of the assumptions and finances have come across from the CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis), this leads to some sections that are slightly unclear with some inconsistencies".
TEC advisers also suggested rewriting material.
"There are quite a few instances where the maths in the tables doesn’t seem to add up.
"This is often because of the difference between options in years of study, or years to become a GP, or similar. The audience has to hold quite a lot of information in their heads at once and that can lead to confusion."
Green MP Francisco Hernandez said it was unfortunate Waikato appeared to get more assistance than Auckland or Otago.
"While it’s obviously appropriate to be working with potential partners to scope out options, it’s very telling that Auckland and Otago were not engaged more closely with to develop their alternative proposals."
The TEC found Auckland and Otago universities’ proposal to expand their rural health offering was assessed as having the "highest benefits" compared to establishing a brand-new medical school in Hamilton, but was "significantly less developed" than Waikato’s proposal and "therefore we have less certainty on the associated timelines and costs".
Last month, the government announced it was pushing ahead with the Waikato medical school, with the first intake of 120 students in 2028.
It approved $82.85 million in government funding towards the project, with the university chipping in more than $150m.
Integrity Institute founding director Dr Bryce Edwards said the whole exercise amounted to TEC "hand-holding" and "reverse engineering" when it came to the final outcome.
"TEC wasn’t conducting an independent assessment — they were functioning as consultants hired to make Waikato’s bid succeed.
"The process was fundamentally compromised from the start, representing a serious failure of institutional integrity in government decision-making."
"The TEC will continue to work with all universities and to fulfil our monitoring and regulatory role for the tertiary sector."
He did not respond to claims from Otago and Auckland universities that they were shut out of part of the process.
Acting Health Minister Matthew Doocey said the Ministry of Health engaged regularly with both the Universities of Otago and Auckland during the development of the business cases and cost-benefit analysis.
"This has included seeking their input on cost estimates and options analysis and feedback on the strategic case."
Mr Doocey said the expert advisory panel for the cost-benefit analysis run by Sapere, although independent, had representation from the Universities of Auckland, Otago and Waikato, the Royal New Zealand College of GPs Medical Director, a rural GP and an independent chair.
This group met on each iteration of the cost-benefit analysis and provided input and review into the methodology and findings, he said.
