Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The government is changing the way school property is delivered after a ministerial inquiry found the current model to be "bureaucratic, overly risk averse, and inefficient".
In April Education Minister Erica Stanford commissioned the inquiry, led by former National Party Minister Murray McCully, after the minister received complaints from schools regarding the performance of the Ministry's school property function.
That report has now been released with a series of recommendations.
- Establish a new entity separate from the Ministry of Education, to assume ownership and asset management responsibility for the school property portfolio.
- Clarify roles and responsibilities for the funding, planning and delivery of school property.
- Review and simplify the current funding model for state schools.
- Implement clear processes for regular reporting and priority-setting to promote accountability, transparency, clarity of expectations, and value for money.
- Establish a Transition Board and Transition Unit to oversee and coordinate the establishment of the new school property entity.
- Undertake a range of immediate actions during the transition period to simplify the operating model and ensure value for money.
Cabinet has accepted those findings but is taking a phased approach, through to 2025, responding to them.
"The report found the Ministry of Education's processes for managing the portfolio are bureaucratic and inefficient, its internal governance structures for property investments are not robust, funding decisions lack transparency, and its organisational structure does not provide the right level of focus or accountability," Stanford said.
Education Minister Erica Stanford says the report found the Ministry of Education's processes for managing the portfolio are "bureaucratic and inefficient". Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
"For example, work began with Kaipara College on a project in 2017. Plans were endorsed by the Board in 2022, Cabinet approved funding in 2023 before the project was fully designed and consented. Despite this, the project was unable to go ahead due to the Ministry's affordability pressures. Many schools told reviewers about significant delays in delivery, with predictable impacts on costs. There were examples of minor projects which could require two months of construction work but had approval processes taking two years. It also identified 29 projects in the New Schools Programme have no construction funding."
The three phases the government is taking to address the recommendations are:
Phase 1 - Initial steps have been taken since commissioning the report, including instructing the Ministry of Education to focus on offsite manufacturing solutions and improve communication with schools. In Q1 2024, over 60 percent of new classrooms were initiated as offsite manufacturing, up from under 20% in Q4 2023. A value for money review has also been completed to ensure a more fiscally responsible approach moving forward.
Phase 2 - Interim improvements including consolidating property and network planning functions within the Ministry of Education as much as practicable, appointing a Functional Chief Executive with expertise in delivering infrastructure to have responsibility for all operational aspects of school property (this will be a two-year appointment). A new independent investment panel will also be established to provide the CE with expert advice on ongoing property decisions and future improvements. Appointments are expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Phase 3 - Determining the new permanent model or entity for operational school property, with decisions expected in 2025.
In the report, released today, the inquiry panel said it took feedback from a wide range of school principals, board members, and property managers, as well as ministry staff, senior leaders and construction sector experts.
"Schools were consistently critical of a lack of transparency, unclear prioritisation of projects, and generally inefficient project planning and delivery. This was exacerbated by a high degree of turnover among frontline staff," the report said.
"Schools told us that Ministry requirements for school property planning are cumbersome and bureaucratic, resulting in slow and often repetitive processes."
"We heard that the Ministry is often slow to plan for and respond to roll growth demands across the state school network," the report said.
Other criticism included the Ministry's use of architects and designers and extensive consultation with stakeholders "often without adequate regard for budget constraints".
There was also a consensus that taxpayer-funded school building should be "simple, functional, cost efficient, and based on repeatable or standardised designs".
The key findings of the report included:
- The Ministry's organisational structure does not provide the right focus or level of accountability for a $30 billion property portfolio.
- Internal governance structures for property investments are not robust, and do not provide any external oversight of decision making.
- The Ministry's processes from planning to delivery are bureaucratic, overly risk averse, and inefficient.
- Too many new school buildings are based on bespoke designs that exceed what is necessary for simple, fit-for-purpose, and functional facilities.
- Kura Kaupapa Māori are not well served by the current system, and many kura want greater autonomy to manage their own capital investment and funding.
- Asset management practices require improvement, including more reliable and comprehensive data on the Crown's assets.
- A significant part of the sector, as well as some Ministry staff, have lost confidence in the current system.
