Probe won’t look at new claims

An independent review into a 2015 confidential investigation into Wintec chief executive Mark Flowers will not include new allegations Stuff put to the tertiary provider.

Wintec Council chair Barry Harris on Friday released the terms of reference for two probes. They are a peer review and an audit on overseas spending by Wintec’s executive team since 2009.

The confidential 2015 investigation into complaints and allegations made against Flowers cleared him of any wrong-doing, but former Wintec Dean Merran Davis told Stuff that she believed the investigation was a whitewash and that issues raised were not looked into.

The review and audit is estimated to cost Wintec $110,000, which is $65,000 less than the amount Wintec has spent on legal fees to protect itself over media inquiries. Both investigations come after it was revealed in December that Wintec spent more than $174,000 with high-powered law firm Bell Gully and Hamilton firm Norris Ward McKinnon to deal with the media over the confidential investigation and new allegations.

The result of the peer review and audit is expected to be released in May. Wintec Council announced in December that they would undertake the review and audit following calls for Flowers to be interviewed by Stuff.

So far he has avoided being interviewed in person.

Stuff have been threatened with legal action if it published allegations from former Wintec executives and senior members of staff. In December a former Wintec staff member asked Education Minister Chris Hipkins to investigate the tertiary institution.

Wintec Council have employed Wellington QC Victoria Casey to undertake the independent review, and Audit New Zealand will conduct the audit work.

Harris said the council ‘‘proactively instigated these actions to give assurance that Wintec continues to be a responsible, public organisation’’.

‘‘This work is estimated to cost Wintec approximately $30,000 for the independent peer review, and approximately $80,000 for the initial stage of the additional audit work,’’ he said.

‘‘I wanted to be upfront and transparent about the costs so that

you realise the completeness and thoroughness of these pieces of work.’’

Harris said the peer review of the 2015 investigation is to provide advice on whether the investigation was sufficiently robust.

‘‘For the avoidance of doubt, the peer review is in relation to the investigation and should be restricted to the allegations and complaints dealt with in the report,’’ he said. ‘‘In particular the peer review should not extend to any matters to be separately considered by Audit New Zealand.’’

Terms of Reference – 2015 confidential investigation

In 2015 the Tertiary Education Commission received complaints regarding Flowers, and those complaints were passed on to Wintec’s Council.

Following receipt of the complaints Wintec’s Council appointed a well-respected and independent lawyer as an investigator to undertake a confidential investigation and make factual findings on whether the alleged conduct had occurred. Subsequently that investigator prepared a confidential report which concluded that the allegations made had no credibility and did not stand up to scrutiny (the Report).

For completeness and openness, and in light of recent media coverage, in engaging an independent peer review of the investigation, it is Wintec Council’s purpose to satisfy itself as to whether the findings of the investigation can be relied upon. The peer reviewer is to provide advice to Wintec’s Council on whether the investigation was sufficiently robust and that Wintec’s Council can have confidence in its conclusions. This should include the peer reviewer’s views on whether: the complaints were investigated, the investigation process undertaken was adequate, the conclusions reached were reasonable, and any other matter relevant to the purpose of the peer review.

The peer reviewer may make recommendations to Wintec’s Council, including that the Council reopen the investigation, or accept the report’s conclusions as sufficiently robust.

For the avoidance of doubt, the peer review is in relation to the investigation and should be restricted to the allegations and complaints dealt with in the Report. In particular the peer review should not extend to any matters to be separately considered

Terms of Reference – Audit Extension

In relation to the Chief Executive’s expense claims and redundancy and severance payments to former employees of Wintec and its subsidiaries. The work will involve consideration of:

The expenses incurred in relation to all travel to Hong Kong and China by the Chief Executive, from the beginning of 2009, to the end of 2017. The expenses incurred in relation to all travel to Hong Kong and China, by all members of the executive team both past and present, from the beginning of

2009, to the end of 2017.

The expenses incurred in relation to all travel, other than to Hong Kong and China, by the Chief Executive, from the beginning of 2013, to the end of 2017.

The expenses incurred in relation to all travel by all other members of the executive team both past and present, other than to Hong Kong and China, from the beginning of 2013, to the end of 2017 and all redundancy or severance payments made to former employees of Wintec, from the beginning of 2013, to the end of

2017, including those made where the contract providing for the payment, between Wintec and the former employee, includes obligations to keep details confidential. The approach will test all expenses against:

Wintec’s policies and related guidance; any contractual agreements; any applicable statutory requirements; the Office of the Auditor-General’s auditing standards, particularly AG-3 Effectiveness and efficiency, waste and lack of probity or financial prudence; and the Office of the Auditor-General’s good practice guide: Controlling Sensitive Expenditure: Guidelines for public entities.