KEY POINTS:
Few people have emerged unscathed in a strongly worded inquiry into the management of conflicts of interest at Hawkes Bay District Health Board, but a furious war of words is set to continue for some time yet.
The long-awaited independent review of events at the Hawkes Bay board
released yesterday painted a picture of dysfunctional relationships and a failure to adequately deal with a range of conflicts.
The board was unceremoniously sacked by Health Minister David Cunliffe almost three weeks ago in an action which has sparked a fierce backlash in the Hawkes Bay region.
Mr Cunliffe took the action before the inquiry team had completed its review, but his decision was effectively backed yesterday by the damning results of the investigation.
The inquiry team - headed by chairman and director Ian Wilson - found that neither the board, its chairman Kevin Atkinson, or member Peter Hausmann managed a conflict involving Mr Hausmann well.
Mr Hausmann was managing director of a company which provided services in the healthcare sector when he became involved in a proposal to partner with the Hawkes Bay DHB for community services.
He was then appointed to the DHB and took no part in board discussions about the proposal, but the review suggests his earlier involvement was "unusual" and he should have given more full disclosure of it to the board.
However, the review also criticises other board members including the chairman for not dealing with Mr Hausmann's conflict of interest better.
"Once Mr Hausmann was appointed, both he and the board failed to act on what we believe were clear and obvious signs of a potential conflict," Mr Wilson said yesterday.
The other board member specifically referred to in the report is Peter Dunkerley, who with his immediate family had "substantial" interests in providers of health services to the DHB according to the report.
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.
The sacked DHB members yesterday zeroed in on the missing topics as they claimed the review to be a "whitewash".
"The final report reeks of political interference," the members said.
Two of the former board members have laid a complaint with the police over the disputed events, while the Hawkes Bay region's local councils have also discussed challenging the sacking of the board in court.
Mr Hausmann did not front to answer questions yesterday.
A director at his company, Ken Douglas, issued a statement claiming the report showed Mr Hausmann's actions had "always stood the test of legal practice and ethical practice".
KEY FINDINGS
* Neither the board, chairman Kevin Atkinson nor Peter Hausmann managed the conflicts of interest well.
* The board failed the most simple test of good governance.
* The relationship between the board and senior management was dysfunctional, which affected the management of the conflicts.
* The review panel would have recommended the appointment of a Crown Monitor if the Health Minister had not already appointed a Commissioner.
* Since the board's inception in 2001 until last year the board had no governance manual that dealt adequately with conflicts of interest. It had minimal induction and training.
RUCKUS OVER REPORT VERSIONS
The Director-General of Health says he will continue to oppose publication of a first draft of the Hawkes Bay review, despite the possibility it will be aired in Parliament this week by the National Party.
Stephen McKernan angrily spoke of his disappointment yesterday that the draft had been leaked to media, and said he found the action abhorrent.
"We embarked on a strict confidentiality regime," Mr McKernan said.
"Some of the parties chose to go against that confidentiality regime."
Selected quotes from the draft report were read out in Parliament by National's Tony Ryall last week, in a move which went against a court order preventing media from reporting contents of the draft.
The court order was originally obtained by lawyers acting for the Director-General of Health and Peter Hausmann, the man at the centre of the conflict of interest allegations which sparked the inquiry.
Mr McKernan said yesterday that he would retain his objection because "there is only one report" - the final one.
The fight over the draft has taken on added ferocity because the review panel has admitted the first draft was substantially different to its final report.
Sacked board members have claimed political interference led to the watered-down final version of the report.
But the panel's head, Ian Wilson, yesterday said the review team considered that after hearing further submissions its initial findings were quite simply wrong.
