KEY POINTS:
Health Minister David Cunliffe professes to be "satisfied" with the damning findings of the independent review of Hawkes Bay's troubled district health board.
Satisfied? That must be something of an understatement. Was there room in his rather cramped Beehive office, Cunliffe would have spent the afternoon performing cart-wheels across it.
The report of the Ministry of Health-instigated review panel completely vindicates Cunliffe's hugely controversial decision to sack the board and replace it with a commissioner.
There will be continuing charge and counter-charge as to why the panel has made changes between its initial draft report and the final version released today.
But no-one can seriously argue that this is some Government-directed "whitewash". That is because the panel shrewdly examined the board's handling of other conflicts of interest among its membership, rather than merely focussing on that involving Peter Hausmann, whose appointment sparked the whole sorry affair.
The Hausmann case was not the only example of the board's weak systems which failed the most simple test of good governance.
Hausmann comes in for some criticism, but much less than many of his critics will feel is warranted.
Instead, the board as a whole and its chairman Kevin Atkinson cop the full blast of the panel for failing to adequately handle conflicts of interest and for interfering in operational matters to such an extent there was a "culture of mistrust and dysfunction" between the board and senior management.
Such was the shambles that the panel would have recommended the minister appoint a monitor to keep a check on the board's activities _ another option available to Cunliffe under the law _ had the minister not opted for the more extreme choice of axing the board and appointing a commissioner to sort out the mess.
The panel's chair, Ian Wilson, would not be drawn on whether he agreed with that course of action. But judging by the tone of the report he and two other panel members produced, it is a fair bet they heartily concurred.
Wilson summed up the board's failure to apply good practice and common sense akin to "approaching a rail crossing with the lights flashing and driving through regardless". Definitely unsafe and not good practice.
If Cunliffe can claim vindication, Annette King cannot claim to have been cleared by the report. It may say the Hausmann case was an accident waiting to happen. But it makes no judgement on his appointment by King. The panel decided that was outside the scope of its terms of reference.
That is one among many reasons why the report will probably fail to mollify those in Hawkes Bay who believe the board to have been lily white in its actions and who are furious with Cunliffe. Even so, the report should give them considerable pause for thought.
