Reaction to DHB Report
There are numerous stories in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board report.
First the main Herald story by Paula Oliver:
But it is what was missing from the report which will be the subject of ongoing argument.
The review did not canvas questions of whether former Health Minister Annette King should have appointed Mr Hausmann to the board.
The panel decided that topic was out of the scope of its report.
The report also did not delve into allegations that the board’s chief executive Chris Clarke colluded with Mr Hausmann over a contract.
The treatment of the whistleblower who drew attention to the conflict also was not canvassed in the report.
Yep, it all comes down to the terms of reference. This is how the Ingram Report found Field had done no wrong, yet the Police have laid dozens of charges against him. Ingram was only allowed to look into Field’s actions as a Minister. Likewise this report was not allowed to cover Annette King’s actions or the actions of management.
John Armstrong writes the report vindicates David Cunliffe’s decision to sack the Board:
Health Minister David Cunliffe professes to be satisfied with the damning findings of the independent review of Hawkes Bay’s troubled district health board.
Satisfied? Cunliffe should be satisfied – deliriously so. If his Beehive office were not so cramped he would have been excused performing cartwheels across it.
But he notes:
While Cunliffe can claim to have been vindicated, King, however, cannot claim to have been cleared by the report in terms of the wisdom of appointing Hausmann to the board.
Determining that it was outside the scope of its terms of reference, the panel rejected the board’s request to examine King’s role.
Marty Sharpe in the Dom Post focuses on the former Chair, KevinAtkinson, calling it a whitewash:
Kevin Atkinson, sacked with the rest of the board last month, says the “weasel word” report is a “whitewash in every sense of the word”. He urges the auditor-general to investigate.
But Health Minister David Cunliffe says the report, which criticises the board for failing to meet basic conflict of interest procedures and highlights major rifts with senior management, justifies his decision to sack it.
There certainly was a rift with senior management. But if I was a director and my senior management had been secretly taping conversations, improperly allowing a fellow director preferred access to RFP details, not implementing board decisions etc then I might have a rift also. Whose fault the rift is, is something that was out of bounds for the report as management were excluded. The Auditor-General is his report on one contract found much to criticise.
NZPA reports today that the Minister denies any political interference with the report, and that there is more information to come out.
Finally the Dom Post editorial says the report misses the big picture:
The report makes no comment on the wisdom of former health minister Annette King appointing Mr Hausmann, the managing director of a company with significant interests in the health sector to the board, no comment on the wisdom of board staff giving Mr Hausmann a tender document ahead of rival bidders for a district health board contract and no comment on the appropriateness of the board’s former chief operating officer Ray Lind, Mrs King’s husband and now an employee of Mr Hausmann’s company, secretly recording a meeting with the whistleblower who first questioned the appropriateness of an e-mail from Mr Hausmann to a staff member.
Mr Wilson says that is because the focus of the review was governance. But given the disquiet created by the sacking of the board just 72 days after it was elected, the existence of a substantially different draft report, the contents of which the National Party has begun dripfeeding in Parliament but which The Dominion Post has been prevented from reporting by lawyers acting on behalf of the director-general of health and Mr Hausmann, and the relatively narrow focus of the inquiry, the report will not be the end of the matter.
The board was clearly remiss in its handling of conflicts of interests. Quite possibly it deserved to be dismissed. But the wider question of whether or not Mr Hausmann should ever have been appointed to the board has not been addressed. Nor has management’s role in the debacle.
The region has been poorly served by the board, board staff and government ministers.The only beneficiaries are the National MPs campaigning to retain the Napier and Tukituki electorates later this year.
Indeed it is far from over. The number of unanswered questions remains high.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Ryall has again quoted from the draft report this afternoon in the House – I’ll check the Hansard later, but it was far stronger criticism of Hausmann for his non-management of the conflict of interest that what emerged in the final report.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
In parliament Clark stated that Hausman was appointed because he had good health info and good fiancial skills etc etc. There are many many people with such skills but who exactly pulled Hausmans name out of the hat? Surely they have minutes of these meetings when peoples names are put forward. Who put Hausman forward and why did no one say to King, hey you idiot, your husband works at that healthboard and if you had any respect for your husband and his reputation you will not appoint appoint Hausman to that board given the bloody obvious conflicts of interest he has! If this blows up in your face Minister then your husband will get dragged into it. If I was Ray Lind I’d be calling my wife a stupid idiot for putting me in such a situation by appointing Hausman against the advice of the board and her officials.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
An urgent debate is underway – clearly, there’s nothing to see here, move on, when Wilson has twice in a fortnight been forced to allow urgent debates!
March 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
This problem of conflicts of interest will not go away because it is now endemic because of the behaviour of the electorate which votes for all the boards around the country. I was a government appointee to the Auckland Area Health Board in the days when half the board were elected and the other half were nominated for their financial and technical skills. In our case we had a well balanced board.
Most of those who were elected represented customers not suppliers – eg Crippled children and so on.
Anyhow we were all fired by Simon Upton when the National Govt (properly) decided no representation without taxation and appointed all future directors – who unfortunately were mainly party hacks who proved incompetent.
So the Labour government reverted to the old system but the used the appointments to correct gender and ethnic balance.
I was asked to stand for the Northland DHB by people in the system and did so emphasising my experience and my training as a director etc, as did one other. But given the tenor of the times the voters gave their votes to professionals – nurses, doctors and pharmacists and we two professional directors came in bottom of the list. As time has gone by the medical professions and unions have been quick to realise that they could gain commercial advantage by standing for these boards and the boards are now stacked with the Boards’ own commercial customers and suppliers. If they strictly enforced the conflict of interest rules they would never have a quorum for a meeting.
The quick and dirty solution is to simply prohibit ANYONE who works for or supplies a Board from standing for a Board position.
Not only would the conflicts disappear but we might get a few directors who actually have the skills for the job.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Paulhelen
It was King’s role to appoint people to the board whether or not her husband worked there. No issue in her fulfilling that role.
Cunliffe was on radio nz with veiled threats of what might be dodgy activities relating to waiting list manipulation for financial gain.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I seriously think it’s getting close to “Get outta here” time. When ministers can appoint board members, have their partners working for the appointed board members company and that board member gets $50m contracts apparently unchallenged. (he worked on the frigin RFP for gods sake) there is something seriously wrong.
However is what is deeply disturbing is that these potentially corrupt peope seem to be totally above the law. Once againwe see a whitewash report which falls nicely into the “nothing to see here – move on” category.
It’s disgusting – anybody who thinks that we don’t need a full and open inquiry into this deserves to be labeled corrupt.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
New Zealand has the biggest whitewash can in the world . Time to go methinks. What a cess-pit of lies.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The fact that King was entitled to appoint Hausman is not in question. The question is, and Bill English has pointed to it in the snap debate, why did she appoint Hausman. This man was the most conflicted man she could have found for this particular DHB and the fact that her husband workded for the DHB in a very senior management role should have seen her back away from appointing Hausman. It is not just a conflict of interest that should be avoided but also the perception of a conflict of interest. That Lind then went to work for Hausman tells me that the communication in the King/Lind household is not too good. As I have said if I had been Lind I would have told the wife not to be so bloody stupid.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
paulhelen
I don’t think “don’t be so bloody stupid” comes to mind for people that think they are (and apparently they are) untouchable.
What is most concerning is that Labour MP’s think they are above the law and that they need not concern themselves with either the legal (governance) issues or the consequences of their actions.
I guess the best we can hope for is for King to tell Clark she might stand as an independent. Then the police will be given the all clear to investigate.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
burt, the police are that far politicized now forget them to ever help expose corruption.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Dad4justice you comment on just about every blog, dont you think your time is better spent where people are actually listening?? the problem in new zealand are people like you, too much moaning and not enough action.
What have you achieved today d4j? worked to help the nz economy or just blogged and recieved a piece of the nz economy???
March 18th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Did King appoint Hausmen because that was the best option for the board, or the best option for her husband?
March 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Haha, anybody see how nervous King was and how pathetic Cunliffe was in the house of horrors today on the TV One News.
Guilty as sin.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Dad4justice, Wow you watched the news today between blogging you’re a talented individual. A role model for all New Zealander’s.
Lead the way D4J for a better future- lol
March 18th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Tax payer kiwi ; Yes I agree the way forward is a country without political corruption and that is why I helped file a High Court Injunction today. It was rather expensive but worth it . I was very busy and thankful for the loan of the computer between legal arguments.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Thanks for adding such a useful contribution Tax paying Kiwi. Good point regarding the theme of this thread.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Best question of the day:
“Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister not realise that what the public want to know is not what is in the report but what is not in the report and why, because, just like the Ingram report, this report is yet another Labour diversion from the murky dealings of its own cronies; and is that not the reason why the Auditor-General should provide a full and independent inquiry into this matter?”
And Cunliffe’s threatening reply – very revealing!!
“Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member should be very careful what he wishes for, because I imagine that some of my colleagues will be interested to talk about other things that are not in that report, and that member will look like he is clutching at rather crooked straws.”
March 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I2
So the dim-bulb Cunliffe (silent “T”) seems to be covering up for more than just King, Lind & Hausmann. Surely this reply indicates that there is a lot more to this story and a full inquiry is absolutely essential.
Look I don’t give a toss if the entire x-board end up in court with multiple charges of corrupt practice, the important thing is that currently we can have no confidence in the administration of public money. Clearly (from how this question was answered) the minister is covering more asses than just his Labour colleagues. This is simply not good enough.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am
This saga reveals the extent to which health services are contracted out and some of these contracts almost seem to qualify as PPP’s. Privatisation by stealth. It’s wrong to do this locally, inefficient for a start, and open to corruption/manipulation. These should be negotiated at a national level.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I note that Cunliffe denies there was another report in the context of Tony Ryalls quote. So why an injunction to prevent its publication? Either Cunliffe is lying or Ryall is inventing, most likely there is an earlier version, hence the injunction so the real question is if as suggested the draft reports conclusions were wrong what new facts emerged to cause a change in conclusion. Perhaps Tony Ryall will ask these questions.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Annette King is in the news this morning:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/03/annette-king-and-dirty-tricks.html
March 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
freethinker – there are many of us who would like to know what new facts emerged, or how the review team came to the conclusion that they had erred in the first draft, which definitely exists – Ryall has already quoted from in twice, and the Dom-Post has a copy but is gagged. Why did the review team say that they came under no pressure to reach a different conclusion?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
So let me get this right: Ray Lind goes home and tells his wife that another woman came up to him at work and told him people were talking about him having an affair. The wife reacts by writing a letter to the woman which Ray then delivers to the CEO to give to the woman. Sounds like common sense to me.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sounds to me like Lind is the most pussy-whipped person to have ever been appointed to Hausmann’s company… Actually is it Hausmann’s company or is it King’s ?
March 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
burt , it makes a mockery of the terms insider trading and coercion. King is up to her vile neck in this, but as Lieanne Dalzeel has shown in the past, you can lie openly in Klark’s regime as often as you like and without ever having to face a consequence.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If the letter from King is true then if nothing else it demonstrates her inability to keep out of the day to day business of her portfolio and that she is very dumb and lacks the very common sense she preaches so much about. One wonders if she does the same thing with the police? Who dare give her hubby a speeding ticket?
March 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
If the CEO said he received the letter and showed it to others and questioned the adviseability of passing it on to Ms Parisi then clearly it exists and is effectively by Kings refusal to directly deny it, so if it is not on her database perhaps it has been “accidently” deleted and the UK software forensic team should be provided with the hardrive for retireval of all “lost Data”.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Ryall’s questions in the house today intimate that King was involved in this debacle after she had appointed Hausman. I wonder what else he has, he appears to be dripfeading.