Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2754] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 We have just had 7½ minutes from an apologist on behalf of the Otago District Health Board—the member for Dunedin North the Hon Pete Hodgson former Minister of Health. But for a number of years at the Otago District Health Board the largest fraud was being undertaken by Mr Michael Swann and his colleague and it went unnoticed by everybody including the Minister of Health of the day who was the man whose responsibility it was to take charge— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We understood your ruling before and again I think we are now going wide of the mark on the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Here is the difficulty I did not want to get into. If the member wishes to make an analogy that can be drawn back to Part 1 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I will tolerate it. But if we are going to get into a debate just about an issue that is very very obliquely related or not even related to the bill then we are not going to have that. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I was referring to the apologist for the Otago District Health Board the Hon Pete Hodgson who whilst Minister of Health at the time he was in Government oversaw unknowingly—apparently—the largest fraud ever undertaken in a district health board in New Zealand. The direct consequence of that was that a number of my constituents failed to get hip operations cataract operations and any manner of the medical treatments they needed were funded for and deserved because at the time various Ministers of Health were apparently turning a blind eye and are now shamefully in this Chamber apologising for doing so. I have already outlined— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not do this very often but I take offence at the idea that I might have turned a blind eye. That suggests that I might have knowingly allowed a fraud of this nature to continue. That is an offensive proposition; I ask for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Opposition speakers have spent a large part of their contributions this evening in taking credit for the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill but we need to remember that the bill is the result of an inquiry held in 2003. Some 5 or 6 years later the country finally has a National Government—to the great relief of most people—and finally we have this bill back in the Chamber for its Committee stage. Of course had this legislation been enacted in 2003 it may well have made things easier for those people who knew something about what was happening in Dunedin Hospital and at the Otago District Health Board. It may have given them comfort to go to the chief executive or to whoever was designated under the legislation to hear a complaint or be told of some sense of disquiet because maybe those people had noticed the Lamborghini in the car-park as a lot of other people had. Maybe if the previous Labour Government had got off its chuff in 2003 and brought this legislation to the House we would not have had that fraud visited on the Otago District Health Board and the people of Otago would not have missed out on a great many services as a consequence. How many millions were defrauded? Can anyone remember? Was it $13 million? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: $16 million. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: So $16 million was defrauded from the people of Otago. Had this legislation been enacted at that time maybe—just maybe—the person who walked around the car-park of the Otago District Health Board saw the Lamborghini and saw the big boat parked up in the harbour might have thought: “There’s something funny going on here. I think I’ll go and see the chief executive.” So it is a little bit galling to hear members of the Opposition apologising and explaining away the events that happened to the Otago District Health Board. I find that a little hard to believe. 
National utterly supports the broad approach to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. We believe in accountability just as we insisted on accountability at the Otago District Health Board. We welcome accountability which is why we fully support the broad approach of this protected disclosures legislation arising out of the review in 2003. I think it is worth noting that the Ombudsmen are held in high regard across Parliament and across the community as a whole. I go back to the Otago District Health Board issue which I do not think we can turn away from in this instance because the events there are very relevant to the discussion on this bill. I do think that the Office of the Ombudsmen with the increased powers that are given to it under this bill could have been a viable alternative for the person who walked around that car-park.