Heli rescue


TEC Funding for 2016

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Paul Kelly 3 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
  • #4856

    Paul Kelly

    I have heard that the landsar board wrote a letter supporting SARINZ application to the TEC for access to SAR (ACE) funding. Could you explain why you did this and what you intend to do now that the TEC have declined SARINZ request.

  • #4858

    Rex Hendry

    Gidday PK,

    The timing is a little different that noted above….Harry and Tony worked together through the middle of last year(2015) to identify where there were gaps in the initial training that could benefit from additional or un-utilised SARACE funding.

    Subsequently SARINZ put an application to TEC (the Tertiary Education Commission) in July last year for training for this year (2016), bearing in mind that the SARACE funding goes directly from TEC to the training provider for the initial training portion of the SAR sector-wide training provision. At the moment the only training provider for initial training funded by TEC is Tai Poutini Polytechnic.

    TEC turned down the application from SARINZ late November. The LandSAR Board then wrote a letter to TEC in support of a review of this decision should SARINZ pursue a review.

    The LandSAR Board supports multiple training providers in both initial and continuation training for a range of reasons which includes;
    • Competition improves quality, provides choice, encourages innovation and improves accountability
    • Different training organisations have different skill sets
    • A variety of providers builds redundancy into the system should external changes affect a single provider
    • It would be ideal for the sector to develop vertical integration between the initial training and the continuation training. SARINZ provides the bulk of the continuation training for our volunteers
    • We are realigning our training to meet the requirements of the competencies framework that we are developing – smaller training providers tend to be more agile and responsive to curriculum changes than larger institutions. The competencies framework gives the SAR coordinating authorities (i.e. NZ Police and the Rescue Coordination Centre) the confidence that our people are assessed at an appropriate, minimum and measurable standard of competency
    • Multiple training providers encourages ongoing contemporary curriculum development.

    At this stage I am unaware if (1) SARINZ have pursued a review of the TEC decision (2) if TEC has had time to consider a review and, if so, (3) what the outcome is.

    The LandSAR Board will continue to work to protect the SAR training provided by looking to have multiple providers in the sector for the reasons stated above. When we know where this process has got to we will look at the options then.


  • #4862

    Paul Kelly

    Hi Rex

    Thank you for providing the information. It is good to see that the board see,s the value in having multiple providers and that you have made it very clear as to why this is important.
    Are the landsar staff and CEO suppose to follow and actively work at making sure that what the board wants and supports is achived or do they have cart blanch to suit themselves.
    If a staff member was found to be promoting the demise of a training provider behind closed doors would the board be concerned and if so what action would the board expect to be taken to adress this.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.