Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10356] 
3.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Did her Chief Medical Advisor Dr Colin Feek reassure Mrs Shirley Crowley in September 2001 that Mr Ian Breeze would be stopped from operating as stated by Mrs Crowley; if so why did she or her ministry not then initiate an inquiry into Mr Breeze’s practice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that Dr Feek confirmed with Mrs Shirley Crowley in October 2001 that Mr Breeze had had constraints placed on his ability to practise and was not doing any major surgery. That was in relation to his work at Tauranga Hospital. Both the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Medical Council have undertaken investigation into Mr Breeze’s practice. They are the agencies with the legal jurisdiction to investigate any claims against Mr Breeze in accordance with the Health and Disability Commissioner Act the Medical Practitioners Act and now the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Neither the Ministry of Health nor the Minister usually undertakes investigations into the practice of individual doctors. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did no one in the health system stop this surgeon earlier when a number of people knew that when it came to Mr Breeze there were 13 cases of documented “serious complications” five of accident compensation “medical mishap” two of “medical error” and six complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The appropriate authorities did undertake action against Mr Breeze. On 29 August 2000 Mr Breeze had restriction placed on him by the district health board in relation to his colorectal surgery. On 14 December 2000 further restriction was placed on his colorectal surgery. In September 2001 restriction was placed on his general surgery and the Medical Council carried out a competency review of him in 2001. In the words of the Health and Disability Commissioner it was one of the most extensive audits ever undertaken with two advisers considering all colorectal surgery performed by Mr Breeze from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite do not like hearing what has happened. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: When did the Bay of Plenty District Health Board first become aware of the unacceptable complication rate in Mr Breeze’s patients and why did they try to convince Mrs Shirley Crowley that her husband Lionel’s death was not due to medical misadventure? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am unsure of when the district health board first became aware of problems with Mr Breeze. The first complaint against him to the Health and Disability Commissioner was received in September 1999. However it was on 29 August 2000 that the district health board itself placed restrictions on Mr Breeze. That is some considerable time ago and it was action taken by the district health board. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What action will the Minister take to investigate the case of Mr Breeze now that it is clear that the death of Lionel Crowley is only the tip of the iceberg and that for years Tauranga doctors have had concerns and have previously whistle-blown on Mr Breeze? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As that member knows the appropriate place to whistle-blow on any medical professional is the Health and Disability Commissioner or its body. [ 
Interruption 
] That is absolutely right and it is set out in the Medical Practitioners Act in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and in the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. That is the appropriate place to investigate. I can tell that member that from September 1999 to October 2003 five complaints against Mr Breeze were received by the Health and Disability Commissioner. One did not proceed because it was not supported by the family. Of the four complaints investigated one was minor and no action was taken; in two cases no breach was found; and the third was the Crowley case. The appropriate authorities appropriately handled all complaints which is exactly what would have happened to Dr Scott if a complaint had ever been laid against her. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table an email from Mrs Shirley Crowley to Margaret Wilson dated 19 February stating: “All I want is an answer to why this tragedy happened. Will it happen to others as has happened before? 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister concluded that answer with a statement that leaves a member in some serious difficulty and that is this: she said that is exactly what would have happened had a complaint been made against “her”—referring to another person’s professional background. Though that is a statement of the facts it is an imputation or an inference that that could have happened. It is wrong and she should not try that cheap little shot in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I reflected on it at the time and if Dr Scott had taken objection I most certainly would have intervened. On reflection I think I will ask the Minister to withdraw that last sentence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you listened to my answer I set out the series of Acts and the processes that are undertaken and said it could happen to any medical practitioner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not require that assistance. I ruled the last sentence out of order and that is it.