Creech hits out again at PM's husband

By FRANCESCA MOLD political reporter

New documents show the Health Research Council did not discuss a possible conflict of interest when it gave the husband of Prime Minister Helen Clark a grant to research health reforms.

National MP Wyatt Creech has obtained papers under the Official Information Act which detail the process the council followed before giving Professor Peter Davis and four other researchers a $738,000 grant in 1999.

The funding was for research into hospital sector reorganisation and changes in nursing practice between 1988 and 1999, and whether they had affected patient outcomes and the health of the nation.

Helen Clark was Minister of Health in the early years being investigated by the researchers.

Mr Creech said the documents showed the analysis of Professor Davis' research proposal was superficial and did not match the council's claims of an "exhaustive" assessment process.

"The documents show that issues of conflict of interest weren't considered. I think they should be.

"It is clear from the research application this study involves reviewing the health reforms and the impact on hospital outcomes," said Mr Creech.

"To have the Prime Minister's husband leading that team seems to me to create a potential conflict of interest."

Senior Labour minister Michael Cullen, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is in Asia, said Professor Davis was one of the country's most qualified researchers in the public health field.

He was perfectly competent and capable of heading the study, said Dr Cullen.

"The Health Research Council obviously did not consider marital status relevant for consideration and nor should it be."

Dr Cullen said Helen Clark had proved her ability to act professionally when, as Health Minister, she sacked the entire Auckland hospital board, which at the time included her husband.

The council provided Mr Creech with copies of four evaluations by unidentified referees who reviewed Professor Davis' application.

Two of the review reports were just over a page long, the others were four paragraphs.

The first found the research could reveal useful information and was a worthwhile project.

However, it had concerns about the attempt to find a link between patient outcomes and nurse staffing.

The second reviewer said the study had the potential to produce useful information about the experience of Maori nurses, but it was disconcerting to note that none of the researchers had a background in Maori healthcare.

The third thought the project would address an area of research that had been neglected in New Zealand.

The fourth review said the research could be very valuable. The project's scientific merit, design and methods were "informed and appropriate."

Last month, the research council said Professor Davis' application had competed with 300 others for financing.

It said New Zealand-based and overseas experts had reviewed the application according to criteria looking at its significance for health, its scientific merit, design and methods, and the expertise and track record of the research team.

"Implicit in this process is consideration of researcher conflicts of interest," the council said.

"This is why the process emphasises scientific merit, objectivity and scientific independence."

But Mr Creech said that because the conflict of interest issue had not been addressed, there would be doubts about the research results when the project was finished.

"It could end up just being used as grist for the political mill."

Dr Cullen said it was absurd for Mr Creech to prejudge the results of the research.

"If he feels Professor Davis is going to fiddle the results, he should declare it loud and clearly."