Crossword

More baffling facts about Peter Hausmann


Scroll through the following and watch the evolution of the Peter Hausmann conflict of interest register. The full register is on the attached links.
The WellCare company is not mentioned until March 2006, yet this contract was signed and sealed by March/April 2006. Somehow, this is the fault of Kevin Atkinson and he and the rest of the board were sacked.

Sep 2005
http://www.hawkesbaydhb.govt.nz/userfiles/100002435.pdf

Peter Hausmann
Managing Director of Healthcare of NZ Limited and Director of Healthcare of New Zealand Limited
Director and shareholder of SPH Limited.
(SPH Limited holds shares in Healthcare of New Zealand Limited.)
Trustee and Beneficiary of Hausmann Family Trust. (The Hausmann Family Trust holds shares in Healthcare of New Zealand Limited.)
Chairman of Freedom Alarms Limited.**

**Disclosure Statement : P. Hausmann

Healthcare of New Zealand Limited currently provides services to the Hawkes Bay District Health Board, to the Ministry of Health and ACC within the Hawkes Bay Region. In regards the District Health Board services provided are predominantly community home care support services.

Currently Healthcare of New Zealand Limited is also providing a limited consulting service for a limited period for referred services management in regards Pharmacy services.

The District Health Board has recently released a Request For Proposal : Community Services. Healthcare of New Zealand Limited will be responding to this RFP creating the potential for a conflict of interest to occur in regards my role as a Director on the Board of the District Health Board. In that capacity I will be requesting guidance from the Chairman and Board as to what if any level of information or governance oversight I should have as a Director. This may include :

1. My exclusion from any decision process associated with the Request for Proposal.

2. My exclusion from any discussion or review of any printed material associated with the Request for Proposal.

3. Any required limitations in regards my personal dealings with those management or personnel of the District Health Board who are involved in the Request For Proposal at appropriate stages during that tender process.

Then in December 2005 his conflicts are listed as;

Peter Hausmann
http://www.hawkesbaydhb.govt.nz/userfiles/100002611.pdf
Managing Director of Healthcare of NZ Limited and Director of Healthcare of New Zealand Limited
Director and shareholder of SPH Limited.
(SPH Limited holds shares in Healthcare of New Zealand Limited.)
Trustee and Beneficiary of Hausmann Family Trust. (The Hausmann Family Trust holds shares in Healthcare of New Zealand Limited.)
Chairman of Freedom Alarms Limited.**

**Disclosure Statement: P. Hausmann

Healthcare of New Zealand Limited currently provides services to the Hawkes Bay District Health Board, to the Ministry of Health and ACC within the Hawkes Bay Region. In regards the District Health Board services provided are predominantly community home care support services.

Currently Healthcare of New Zealand Limited is also providing a limited consulting service for a limited period for referred services management in regards Pharmacy services.

The District Health Board has recently released a Request For Proposal : Community Services. Healthcare of New Zealand Limited will be responding to this RFP creating the potential for a conflict of interest to occur in regards my role as a Director on the Board of the District Health Board. In that capacity I will be requesting guidance from the Chairman and Board as to what if any level of information or governance oversight I should have as a Director. This may include :

1. My exclusion from any decision process associated with the Request for Proposal.

2. My exclusion from any discussion or review of any printed material associated with the Request for Proposal.

3. Any required limitations in regards my personal dealings with those management or personnel of the District Health Board who are involved in the Request For Proposal at appropriate stages during that tender process.

Then it gets interesting;

March 2006
http://www.hawkesbaydhb.govt.nz/userfiles/100002784.pdf
Peter Hausmann

Managing Director of Healthcare of NZ Limited and Director of Healthcare of New Zealand Limited which subsidiary companies operating in Hawke’s Bay include:
– Judith Lambert Homecare
– Wellcare Education
– Explore Services
– NZCare Group

Director and shareholder of SPH Limited. (SPH Limited holds shares in Healthcare of New Zealand Limited.)
Trustee and Beneficiary of Hausmann Family Trust. (The Hausmann Family Trust holds shares in Healthcare of New Zealand Limited.)
Chairman of Freedom Alarms Limited.**

**Disclosure Statement: P. Hausmann

Healthcare of New Zealand Limited currently provides services to the Hawkes Bay District Health Board, to the Ministry of Health and ACC within the Hawkes Bay Region. In regards the District Health Board services provided are predominantly community home care support services.

Currently Healthcare of New Zealand Limited is also providing a limited consulting service for a limited period for referred services management in regards Pharmacy services.

The District Health Board has recently released a Request For Proposal : Community Services. Healthcare of New Zealand Limited will be responding to this RFP creating the potential for a conflict of interest to occur in regards my role as a Director on the Board of the District Health Board. In that capacity I will be requesting guidance from the Chairman and Board as to what if any level of information or governance oversight I should have as a Director. This may include :

1. My exclusion from any decision process associated with the Request for Proposal.

2. My exclusion from any discussion or review of any printed material associated with the Request for Proposal.

3. Any required limitations in regards my personal dealings with those management or personnel of the District Health Board who are involved in the Request For Proposal at appropriate stages during that tender process.

So in ll instances where a conflict arose Hausmann did declare them but always AFTER the conflict arose. Note also in each and every one of his conflict statements registered after he was appointed he facetiously says in his personal declarations that he should be excluded from any discussion or review of any printed material associated with the Request for Proposal.

Of course he could say that then because he already had a copy of the documents and he had edited them and that was exactly what was issued. From the released emails between him and Chris Clarke which also occurred before these declaration Hausmann was clearly involved in discussions “associated with the Request for Proposal”

BayGate continues on

A couple of excellent articles today in the Herald, the only major MSM outlet prepared to carry on with the searching questions, by Bill Ralston and Fran O’Sullivan.

The State went on the attack last week. Cunliffe felt important and in charge, but they gained no more than uniting The Bay, after he called the board a nest of vipers and HB Today a disgusting little rag or something similar. In fact in November Clark wrote to the board telling them what a great job they are doing (Yes, documents exist to prove it).
What is interesting though is the amount of backflips and flip-flops the Government has performed in this whole debacle:

  • They “do not hold a torch for Peter Hausmann” as opposed to when National repeatedly asked questions about the scandal last year and early this year they defended him to the end.
  • They didn’t sack the board “but rather the previous board” so why hold elections and anyway it is almost entirely the same people!
  • They also sacked the two Maori representatives. Is the Government now saying that those two, men (very good men with integrity) are hopeless and conflicted? If they say all the board had conflicts, then what conflicts, if any, did the State appointed Maori representatives have? The report is silent on this, why is that?
  • They “lost confidence in Kevin Atkinson in 2004” yet reappointed him in 2005!
  • In one of the articles Ken Douglas notes how he was furious when he saw the first draft (Why was he allowed to see it? Did he sign confidentiality agreements?), and that is why the final report was vicious on Kevin Atkinson! Translated, Healthcare’s lawyers and Hugh Rennie, turned the report around.
  • Note that Ken Douglas conflict declarations with Capital and Coast changed (improved) last year, were they not full in the first instance?
  • Cunliffe now uses the reasons of the report as the reason he sacked the board, yet he went out of his way to say that the 4 concerns he gave the board to react to, which he says they failed, were the reasons. Also how can he have sacked the board for the reasons outlined in the report when he claimed repeatedly in the house that he hadn’t seen it and sacked the Board before the report was released?
  • The Government desperately want this thing to go away. It will not. Not in Parliament, not in the MSM (though TV only interested when Connell is not telling everyone to “piss off”), not in the Blogosphere (where lazy journalists get their stories from) and of course not in the council’s court case.
  • I understand that the council’s case is attracting attention and interest from QC’s who are very interested to take on the case and have this one on their CV’s. I would imagine that Cunliffe has been served papers by now…
  • What of the personal relationships between management and the MOH review team. Any conflicts of interest decleared in the document? No, as they chose not to investigate management (even though the terms of reference enabled them to), so therefore no need to declare any conflicts!
  • There is a very interesting tension here: King wants to tough this out but Cunliffe wants it to go away, and it is he, not King who will appear in Court, re the councils case. Watch Cunliffe check with King for visual acknowledgment as he is making his answers in the house about the previous Minister.

And let us not forget the Whistle Blower and others who were victims and witness to bullying and intimidation pre and post the discovery of the PH-CC emails. Note also that the report said that Hausmann only edited the emails to remove intellectual property of Healthcare. Funny though the emails forensically recovered along with the edited document show exactly the opposite. Hausmann in fact added many lines and the things he removed could not be considered the intellectual property of anyone, let alone Peter Hausmann or Healthcare. Of course the MSM haven’t checked out those documents and have essentially regurgitated the talking points of Cunliffe. Best they take a look at the doc’s huh…the lazy fucks can download it from here. April 2005 RFP and the July 2005 RFP

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Hawke's Bay united against Labour and Cunliffe

Mayors: We stand by sacked board – Hawkes Bay Today – 2008-03-18 17:00:00.0 – localnews

The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board scandal rumbles on. Labour thought they could “Ingram” this report, they thought wrong.

Napier Mayor Barbara Arnott said the Minister of Health was “fundamentally wrong for dismissing the board”.

She said Mr Cunliffe got what he expected from the report into conflict-of-interest claims on the board, but that won’t stop her council from pushing for a judicial review of the board’s sacking.

“Nothing has changed. His reasons [for sacking the board] are still so slight they don’t even come on the radar.

“We believe this board is no worse than any other DHB in NZ and better in many criteria.

“Let’s face it – the minister got what he expected from the report, the second report, and so did we. I am not surprised.”

The next step will be for the mayors to wait for the Health Minister to reply and then a judicial review could be held mid-2008.

The government will want a judicial review like I want cancer, right in the middle of the election year. The government hasn’t fared so well in judicial reviews so far losing all of them.

'Weasel Words'

‘Weasel words’ – The Dominion Post: local, national & world news from Wellington’s daily newspaper

The DomPost has bothered where John Armstrong hasn’t, to actually read the report and they have come to the same conclusion I have. It is nothing but weasel words.

A report on conflicts of interest at Hawke’s Bay District Health Board skirts key issues and “completely exaggerates” board failings in an attempt to clear Peter Hausmann of any wrongdoing, its former chairman says.

Kevin Atkinson, sacked with the rest of the board last month, says the “weasel word” report is a “whitewash in every sense of the word”. He urges the auditor-general to investigate.

Their editorial is even stronger.

It will be the fervent hope of Health Minister David Cunliffe and Director General of Health Stephen McKernan that the report, released yesterday, into conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board ends speculation about why Mr Cunliffe sacked the former board and appointed a commissioner to run health services in the region. It is a hope that is doomed to disappointment, writes The Dominion Post.

The editor reiterates that the DomPost has been silenced by court orders at the behest of Hausmann and the D-G of Health. Clearly they don’t believe in transparency. Annette King cops a flogging albeit by insinuation.

But given the disquiet created by the sacking of the board just 72 days after it was elected, the existence of a substantially different draft report, the contents of which the National Party has begun dripfeeding in Parliament but which The Dominion Post has been prevented from reporting by lawyers acting on behalf of the director-general of health and Mr Hausmann, and the relatively narrow focus of the inquiry, the report will not be the end of the matter.

The board was clearly remiss in its handling of conflicts of interests. Quite possibly it deserved to be dismissed. But the wider question of whether or not Mr Hausmann should ever have been appointed to the board has not been addressed. Nor has management’s role in the debacle.

Mr Cunliffe has achieved the remarkable feat of uniting public opinion in the Hawke’s Bay on a health issue, but it is not a feat for which his Labour colleagues will thank him. There is a sense of aggrievement in Hawke’s Bay and it is not a sense that will be assuaged by a report into some, but not all, the causes of the health board’s troubles.

The region has been poorly served by the board, board staff and government ministers.The only beneficiaries are the National MPs campaigning to retain the Napier and Tukituki electorates later this year.

Yes indeed, there will be few party votes for Labour this election in the Hawke’s Bay, that alone may swing the election for National. This story isn’t done yet and he next phase will be launched in parliament this afternoon.

John Armstrong hasn't read the report

John Armstrong: Decisive action well warranted – 18 Mar 2008 – Politics: New Zealand Political News, Analysis and Comment including 2008 election coverage – NZ Herald

Armstrong: DHB report should have Cunliffe doing cartwheels – 17 Mar 2008 – Politics: New Zealand Political News, Analysis and Comment including 2008 election coverage – NZ Herald

John Armstrong must have taken his talking points straight from the ninth floor in his two sycophantic articles in the Herald this morning. What is patently clear is that he hasn’t turned even one page of the report. There is no other explanation for his toadying, he would not be able to write what he has if he had just bothered to read even Section 1 and 2. If he had struggled on and managed to read sections 3 – 8 he would have been in no doubt that the report that should have been damning of Peter Hausmann was very mild though still critical.

The only way matters can be settled is for the TWO draft reports to be published so we can see just how much manipulation of the facts has been done.

The one and only thing that Armstrong has got right in both of his articles is that Annette King spoke too soon and that she is not exonerated by the report. Not that she is implicated either because the reviewers simply didn’t look into her involvement nor that of her husband Ray Lind, out of scope you see.

This is a larger and better written report than the Ingram report but an Ingram report it is nonetheless.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

HBDHB report – Part 1


The report into the HBDHB governance issues has been released and as predicted it is a whitewash, glossing over substantial conflicts of interest.

The Herald gives it a once over lightly in their coverage as does Stuff.

I am at page 8 and several questions have raised their head.

2.17 A draft report was provided to the parties? solicitors on 23 November 2007. The Panel received written submissions on that draft in December 2007, with submissions from the Board within eight days, on 2 December.

2.18 The Panel carefully considered all submissions and continued its own deliberations and review of the evidence. This resulted in substantial changes to the draft report. Because of these substantial changes and the complexity of the review, the Panel took the unusual step of issuing a second draft report to the parties for further submissions.

2.19 Both draft reports were working documents, provided to the parties for the purpose of fulfilling natural justice requirements and enabling parties to respond to comments and views expressed in the draft reports.

2.20 As such, the views contained in the draft reports were preliminary views expressed at the time that the drafts were provided. The Panel now considers that a number of these preliminary views were wrong. Further, the view taken of the framework within which the HBDHB operates, particularly with respect to handling of conflicts of interest, has evolved into that contained in this report.

Interesting comments those.
There wasn’t one draft report there were two!
There were substantial changes to both of those.
Where are the draft reports and what are the changes?
It was unusual to issue a second draft.
The Panel got its initial view “wrong”.

How did all that happen?, we now have an unusual report into the unusual goings on at the Health Board. Not only that but the review panel was wrong? How can a review panel be wrong? The only they could have been wrong is if one or more parties got litigious on the reviews. Clause 2.20 is virtually a “mea culpa” apology. Are alarm bells ringing with you?, they certainly are where I am. To make matter worse the reviewers go to some length to explain that they were pressured and even include a butt covering statement for the minister.

2.23 The Panel received strong submissions from the parties on both draft reports.

2.24 However, it wishes to record that there has been no pressure placed on it, outside submissions by parties, to amend its report to support any particular view. In particular, it has not received any request or suggestion to do so from the Ministry of Health or the Minister (past and present). The Panel has been particularly careful to make its findings independently of the Ministry of Health and the Minister.

See how they cover Annette King as well as Cunliffe. Now why on earth would the reviewers make such statements? It simply draws attention to them by having them there.

So who did pressure the reviewers?

We also find out that apart from the previous board attempting to injunct the review, other un-named parties also tried to sue the reviewers.

2.33 As well as the difficulties already noted, the Panel has faced various Official Information Act requests, some of which were referred to the Ombudsman, threats of legal proceedings, and then the issue of proceedings by the Board to try and injunct our review. These proceedings, and the referral to the Ombudsman, were withdrawn after the appointment of the Commissioner.

Who were the people threatening to issue legal proceedings on the reviewers? It wasn’t the board else the reviewers would have mentioned that in clause 2.33 as they specifically mentioned in regard to the injunction. Who issued OIA requests?

Clearly there is much unsaid in this report and I have only reviewed Sections 1 and 2.

HBDHB scandal

The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board corruption scandal is now being covered in the Herald, in depth and also the SST. Labour’s whitewash isn’t going to wash and that is why the Air New Zealand Slave Labour scandal got an airing. Here is a round up of HBDHB stories.

Fran O’Sullivan: Hausmann’s punt for vindication – 16 Mar 2008 – Public healthcare news – NZ Herald

Healthcare of New Zealand’s chief executive Peter Hausmann took a big punt by going public on Thursday claiming he would be vindicated by an inquiry into the management of his conflicts of interest on the former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Two days before the inquiry team’s final report was due to be delivered to Health Minister David Cunliffe, Hausmann effectively said he could stay silent no longer while his reputation continued to be attacked in Parliament.

Lawyers usually counsel against claiming victory until judges or, in this case the Director-General of Health’s review panel, release their findings.

But Hausmann was confident enough after all the toing and froing between his lawyers, Russell McVeagh, and the review team, to claim that the final report would vindicate and explain his position.

At issue now is whether Hausmann’s comments may have set the scene for a legal challenge to the inquiry team’s report.

Quite how that reconciles with the draft report which said “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann, on the other hand, knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper, which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted’?” is beyond every commentator except Peter Hausmann, Annette King, Ray Lind and David Cunliffe.

Fran O’Sullivan: Contracts challenged – 16 Mar 2008 – Public healthcare news – NZ Herald

Hausmann is now on full attack against the former board;

Former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board member Peter Hausmann has challenged the interests of other former board members in the management of health board commercial contracts.

Hausmann – who is at the centre of an inquiry into the management of his own conflicts of interest at the health board – this week went public claiming the final report which is expected to be released tomorrow would vindicate him.

The ONLY way he knows the report will “vindicate him” is if he has seen it, leading to questions as to whether the minister has also seen it.

District Health Board members go to police – Sunday Star-Times – National News

Two District Health Board members have gone to the police to ask them to investigate the case.

TWO MEMBERS of the sacked Hawke’s Bay District Health Board have asked police to investigate the Peter Hausmann conflict of interest case, saying they believe the review panel findings, due out tomorrow, have been “hijacked for political expediency”.

Diana Kirton and Helen Walker lodged a complaint with Hastings police on Friday, and say the move was endorsed by other former board members. They also want police to investigate the actions of health board managers around the contracts with companies Hausmann is involved in. Kirton and Walker say they gave police evidence recovered after computer files were sent to London for forensic examination. That “supports our view that board contracts were seriously compromised”.

Hausmann rather predictably considering he has two government ministers and the husband of one of them in his pocket, laughed off the complaint.

Board games in Hawkes Bay health – Sunday Star-Times – National News
A useful timeline and cast of characters is listed in the SST by Anthony Hubbard. Just reading that un-biased litany of conflict should raise hackles.

The Hive: Baygate
The Hive reports that the SST has an article on page A3 from Ruth Laugesen which asks;

Ruth Laugesen reports Annette King saying “she and her husband Ray Lind will be cleared of wrong doing” by tomorrow’s report.

How does she know this? And why have there been such radical changes to this report between first draft and the final version? This is a very bad look. All the major characters talking in advance with great confidence about being vindicated.

Indeed!
Lastly there is fellow blogger Inventory1 at Keeping Stock who has his own questions;

I have a few questions of my own.

* How would he know that the report “vindicates him”?
* Has he or his legal team already seen the report?
* Given the snide comments that he has made in the House about “smoking guns” and who they are pointed at, has David Cunliffe already seen the report?
* How can a report, which in its first draft was so criticial of Hausmann’s involvement – “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann, on the other hand, knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper, which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted.” (as per Hansard, 13/3/08) – change so much in its final form, that Hausmann now claims to be exonerated?
* Has the review team also considered submissions from the Board, and was any weight given to them?

Something very rotten has been happening at the HBDHB, but I bet the report that comes out tomorrow has King, Lind and Hausmann smelling of roses.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Another Day, another email

The emails just keep flooding in about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

The sacked members of the board have issued a press release.

HAWKE?S BAY HEALTH BOARD REPORT EXPECTED TO BE A ?WHITEWASH?

The former board members of the Hawke?s Bay District Health Board expect the review panel?s report, due out on Monday, will be a ?whitewash?.

Based on comments made to date, both inside and outside Parliament, they suspect the report will fail to address many of the key issues and ignore evidence given in the Board members? submissions.

Comments made under Parliamentary privilege this week indicated that the final report will be radically different from the first draft.

?This whole process reeks of political interference,? the former Board members said today.

?Based on comments made by Mr Hausmann earlier today, it appears that he has been given advance notice of some of the report?s content. It now seems clear that this exercise has been nothing more than a drawn-out, pointless, whitewash,? the former Board members said.

?There seems little doubt now that the only way the public will get full disclosure and accountability on this matter is for the Auditor General to investigate. We will continue to ask him to do just that.?

The purpose of the report was to review the conflict of interest concerns surrounding Government-appointed Board member Peter Hausmann and the way in which the Board, the chief executive and senior managers handled those conflicts.

?We?ve always maintained that the conduct of Mr Hausmann, chief executive Chris Clarke and certain senior managers in managing the conflicts of interest was, and remains, unacceptable for a publicly accountable entity,? said the former Board members.

– ends –

Yes, unfortunately for Cunliffe the original draft report will be seeing the light of day on or about the same day he reaches for his bucket of whitewash.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Fran O'Sullivan: Prebble's team in political whitewash

Fran O'Sullivan: Prebble's team in political whitewashState Services Commissioner Mark Prebble spins issues so often these days he can probably perform somersaults in his sleep.
His decision to release the commission's "investigation" into the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry…
[NZ Politics]

"Right Wing Blogger" Fran O'Sullivan devastatingly examines the whitewash from Mrk Prebble into Clare Curran's appointment at the Environment Ministry.

As Adolf points out Labour have Americanized the Public Service.?

If I was National I would sack most of the department heads and the layer below them when I took office, they won't of course and some time in the future National will wonder why their departments are leaking like a proverbial sieve.

Typical, when the going gets tough have an Inquiry

Commission to look into who runs Auckland – 30 Jul 2007 – NZ Herald: New Zealand National news

God, Labour are pathetic. Right now they are rushing around pissing on bushfires and the best distraction they can come up with is a Royal Commission of Inquiry to examine and report on what local and regional governance arrangement are required for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future.

The same fool who is rushing through changes to our Electoral Act arguably far more important than governance of our largest city is in charge, expect a complete balls up.

Mark Burton couldn't manage a root in a brothel and would be seriously out of his depth in a carpark puddle.

It is a travesty of justice that we have a Royal Commission of Inquiry for governance of a city but not one for major changes to our Electoral Act which goes to the heart of our democracy. One of the few Royal Commissions we have had recommended MMP, again a major change in our Electoral system.

Of course, don't expect the MSM to point out this little inconvenient truth will you. Whilst everyone focuses on the Royal Commission for the governance of Auckland the Labour Party rams through the most draconian assault on free speech and democracy we have ever seen.

There are much more important things for a Royal Commission, Police Corruption for one, Electoral Funding for another.

Powered by ScribeFire.

×