KEY POINTS:
Alarm bells should be ringing in the offices of the Auditor General and Ombudsman over the Government's response to a weekend story about a whistleblower who no longer works for the Hawkes Bay District Health Board.
These independent officers of parliament don't have to be asked to investigate; they can initiate their own inquiries and this appears to be a case that warrants it.
You have to wonder whether Labour still harbours resentment towards the AG over his 2005 election spending findings, so resistant was it to asking the Auditor-General to look at it.
First the issue wasn't serious enough to look at.
Health Minister Pete Hodgson told my colleague Paula Oliver on Sunday "I feel anxious about troubling the Auditor-General over something which is almost nothing".
In the next breath it was serious enough to get three people on the case - the leading member of the review group being the current chairman of another DHB, who is appointed by the Government and answerable ultimately to Hodgson.
The terms of reference released on Tuesday were disturbing as well.
There was nothing specifically about the treatment of the whistleblower. Rather, it concentrates on conflict of interest issues which have been pretty well rehearsed.
In a slap in the face to Hodgson, the board itself yesterday called for the intervention of the Auditor-General and for the inquiry to be extended to the treatment of the whistleblower who is clearly keen to talk to the investigation.
If the AG can't step in, then the Ombudsman should - at least on the whistleblower aspect.
I'll help conflict inquiry: Informer
A brief history: The whistleblower alerted the Hawkes Bay District Health Board to an intercepted email that indicated that a board member whose company was tendering for a $50 million community services contract - and who had agreed to stay out of the contract bidding process - was privy to the drawing up of the terms of reference for the tender.
The board's own inquiry early last year resulted in the tender being stopped on legal advice.
The intriguing story was uncovered by the Herald on Sunday at the weekend with the added twist that the husband of former health minister Annette King was part of the management and now works for the board member.
Minister in $50m stoush
An added twist on the added twist is that King is now responsible for the Protected Disclosure Act, under which whistleblowers are protected.
All this happened in 2005 and 2006 but it appears to be troubling the board today and is possibly infecting its relationship with management.
This whole issue is slightly off the political radar.
It's not Auckland or Wellington; it's not the stuff of the $560 million contract for lab services, but something is wrong and if it is affecting the way the board operates, it may be affecting the way health care is delivered in Hawkes Bay.
It deserves an inquiry that can't itself be turned into a political football.
On another matter, the Auditor-General yesterday declared Labour's July 1 literature within the law, as I suggsted it was in my July 3 blog: The Auditor-General's position on publicity by the Labour parliamentary party
