Tremain Chris: General Debate 
Tremain Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:645;Page:14628] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 That was Charles Chauvel trying to cut down John Key. The problem is that the public are not listening. They like John Key. He has a huge vision for this country he has the policies to back it up and Kiwis are supporting him at the polls. We are all behind him over here. 
This Government is responsible for bad public administration bad political management and bad ministerial judgment. That is no more so than in relation to what has been allowed to unfold at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. What is more it is a scandal portrayed by cover-up diffusion and spin-doctoring. Today I challenge the fourth estate to look behind the spin-doctoring of this scandal and to seek the truth. This is a case where sound journalism needs to cut through the bullshit to ensure that the truth comes out. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no the member will withdraw. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise. This is a case where sound journalism needs to cut through the spin to ensure that the truth does come out. On one side there are too many inconvenient truths. Annette King did appoint an associate against the advice of officials to be an independent director at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. That director is involved in a conflict of interest row with the board over a $40 million contract. A whistleblower who exposed these dealings to the board was subsequently restructured out of her job. Annette King’s husband was involved as chief operating officer and he suddenly started working for the man at the centre of the allegations. These are separate inconvenient facts. If they were proven to be intertwined they have huge ramifications for this Government. A lot is at stake. 
There are some facts on the other side too. A democratically elected board has been sacked. It is a board made up of quality people who are hugely experienced and two of whom are clinicians themselves. This board was praised by Mr Hodgson in his letter of 9 July 2007 just a few months ago when he commented: “This board and management have put tremendous effort”—that is “tremendous effort”—“into successfully managing what was a successful a challenging 2006-07 plan.” 
The other fact is that the board became aware of two contracts where one of its own—an appointed board member—appears to have colluded with management to ensure a better bite at the cherry. This led to a breakdown in the relationship between the board and the independent director and between the board and senior management. Well there are no surprises there. In the middle of all these facts is the Government’s murky world of bad public administration bad political management and bad ministerial judgment. Quite frankly even now I do not know who is right or wrong in this whole affair. 
What I do know is that this Government has gone to some fairly extreme efforts to defuse and deflect this story to confuse the public and the media and generally to ensure that it is very difficult to get to the truth of this whole story. Firstly we were told in December that the board chair would not be appointed because the review into the conflict of interest was incomplete. The result was a day-to-day chair no deputy and no standing committees. In February the Minister accused the board of a breakdown in governance. No kidding! The Minister had made the situation untenable. The Minister then started making wild accusations about the board’s dysfunctional relationship with senior clinicians. Two members of the board are clinicians themselves. Apart from the two doctors one of whom has now left for Australia the Minister has been proven to be totally wrong. 
Rick Barker continued the line of subterfuge yesterday. He accused the board of having received a vote of no confidence from clinicians. That is absolute rubbish. I have here an email from David Davidson saying: “When this rumour arose last year I was astonished that as a board member and ex-clinician I had no knowledge of such a move. It seemed particularly pointless to pass such a resolution and then keep it secret. My inquiries confirmed that no such resolution had ever even been voted on.” How will the people of Hawke’s Bay take that subterfuge Rick? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Minister. Secondly the Minister sent the board a letter stating the reasons for his disapproval of the board. It is strange that that letter said nothing about the conflict of interest review or about his accusations about a dysfunctional relationship with senior clinicians. He accused the board of a poor report from the Controller and Auditor-General when in fact it is no worse than those of a whole heap of other boards. He accused the board of a ballooning deficit when the board is within 1 percent margin of error. He accused it of a breakdown in a relationship with himself. The Minister did not even try to form a relationship.