The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board corruption scandal is now being covered in the Herald, in depth and also the SST. Labour’s whitewash isn’t going to wash and that is why the Air New Zealand Slave Labour scandal got an airing. Here is a round up of HBDHB stories.
Healthcare of New Zealand’s chief executive Peter Hausmann took a big punt by going public on Thursday claiming he would be vindicated by an inquiry into the management of his conflicts of interest on the former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.
Two days before the inquiry team’s final report was due to be delivered to Health Minister David Cunliffe, Hausmann effectively said he could stay silent no longer while his reputation continued to be attacked in Parliament.
Lawyers usually counsel against claiming victory until judges or, in this case the Director-General of Health’s review panel, release their findings.
But Hausmann was confident enough after all the toing and froing between his lawyers, Russell McVeagh, and the review team, to claim that the final report would vindicate and explain his position.
At issue now is whether Hausmann’s comments may have set the scene for a legal challenge to the inquiry team’s report.
Quite how that reconciles with the draft report which said “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann, on the other hand, knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper, which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted’?” is beyond every commentator except Peter Hausmann, Annette King, Ray Lind and David Cunliffe.
Hausmann is now on full attack against the former board;
Former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board member Peter Hausmann has challenged the interests of other former board members in the management of health board commercial contracts.
Hausmann – who is at the centre of an inquiry into the management of his own conflicts of interest at the health board – this week went public claiming the final report which is expected to be released tomorrow would vindicate him.
The ONLY way he knows the report will “vindicate him” is if he has seen it, leading to questions as to whether the minister has also seen it.
Two District Health Board members have gone to the police to ask them to investigate the case.
TWO MEMBERS of the sacked Hawke’s Bay District Health Board have asked police to investigate the Peter Hausmann conflict of interest case, saying they believe the review panel findings, due out tomorrow, have been “hijacked for political expediency”.
Diana Kirton and Helen Walker lodged a complaint with Hastings police on Friday, and say the move was endorsed by other former board members. They also want police to investigate the actions of health board managers around the contracts with companies Hausmann is involved in. Kirton and Walker say they gave police evidence recovered after computer files were sent to London for forensic examination. That “supports our view that board contracts were seriously compromised”.
Hausmann rather predictably considering he has two government ministers and the husband of one of them in his pocket, laughed off the complaint.
Board games in Hawkes Bay health – Sunday Star-Times – National News
A useful timeline and cast of characters is listed in the SST by Anthony Hubbard. Just reading that un-biased litany of conflict should raise hackles.
Ruth Laugesen reports Annette King saying “she and her husband Ray Lind will be cleared of wrong doing” by tomorrow’s report.
How does she know this? And why have there been such radical changes to this report between first draft and the final version? This is a very bad look. All the major characters talking in advance with great confidence about being vindicated.
Lastly there is fellow blogger Inventory1 at Keeping Stock who has his own questions;
I have a few questions of my own.
* How would he know that the report “vindicates him”?
* Has he or his legal team already seen the report?
* Given the snide comments that he has made in the House about “smoking guns” and who they are pointed at, has David Cunliffe already seen the report?
* How can a report, which in its first draft was so criticial of Hausmann’s involvement – “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann, on the other hand, knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper, which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted.” (as per Hansard, 13/3/08) – change so much in its final form, that Hausmann now claims to be exonerated?
* Has the review team also considered submissions from the Board, and was any weight given to them?
Something very rotten has been happening at the HBDHB, but I bet the report that comes out tomorrow has King, Lind and Hausmann smelling of roses.