Doctors’ union defends DHB chiefs; behaviour ‘not typical’
HAMILTON: Disgraced former Waikato District Health Board chief executive Nigel Murray’s unjustified spending of taxpayer money is not reflective of all DHB chief executives, the senior doctors’ union says.
Association of Salaried Medical Specialists executive director Ian Powell said Health Minister Dr David Clark was right to put the country’s public hospital managers on notice about their spending.
Yesterday, Dr Clark said he expected district health boards to be acutely aware of the need for proper oversight and control of executive expenses following the release of the State Services Commission inquiry into Dr Murray’s spending.
It found that more than half of the former chief executive’s expenditure on travel and accommodation was unjustified.
‘‘The public rightly expect DHBs leaders to be careful stewards of health funding, and so do I,’’ Dr Clark said.
‘‘Health funding should be used for health care and preven tion. There needs to be clear justification for spending on travel and related costs.’’
While he agreed, Mr Powell said it was also important not to overreact and ‘‘go down a path of micromanagement’’.
‘‘What happened in Waikato is absolutely disgraceful but it was an extraordinary situation, a bit of a perfect storm, and certainly not typical in my experience of other DHBs or chief executives,’’ Mr Powell said.
He pointed out the SSC report was not critical of Waikato DHB’s policies and practices, but rather the abuse of them, and the failure to correctly follow them.
‘‘That’s an important distinction. What we had in Waikato was the combination of a chief executive impervious to accountability and a board chair who did not do his full diligence during Nigel Murray’s recruitment processes.’’
Mr Powell was one of several who warned former WHDB chairman Bob Simcock not to hire the former Southland DHB chief executive in mid2014.
HAMILTON: The man responsible for overseeing the expenses of Nigel Murray was told if any deliberate wrongdoing was found he should terminate Dr Murray’s employment as the Waikato District Health Board chief executive.
In response, former board chairman Bob Simcock assured assistant state services commissioner Geoff Short there was nothing in a draft report of the DHB’s initial inquiry that suggested any criminal offending by Dr Murray or warranted further investigation by other authorities.
The expenses scandal was referred to the Serious Fraud Office this week after an investigation by the State Services Commission found more than half of Dr Murray’s travel and accommodation expenses were unauthorised or unjustified.
Mr Simcock told Mr Short in a phone call on September 29 last year, six days before Dr Murray resigned, the matter centred on Dr Murray’s relocation overspend of $27,000, according to documents released in the State Services Commission inquiry on Thursday.
Mr Simcock indicated the DHB expected Dr Murray’s lawyers would fight the release of a draft report outlining the findings of the DHB inquiry, Mr Short wrote in notes he took of the phone call.
Mr Simcock and the board’s remuneration committee — the group directly responsible for the CEO — heard the damning draft report that day. It was later revealed to show expenses associated with two Canadian women, neither of whom were Murray’s wife.
Mr Short advised Mr Simcock such reports always became public, but said because he did not know what the findings were, he could not advise the DHB other than to say, ‘‘if there had been deliberate wrongdoing then the result should be termination’’.
‘‘I also asked Mr Simcock if there had been any criminal offending or anything that might be perceived by the public to warrant further examination by the police or other authorities. He advised that there was nothing of that nature.
‘‘I reiterated to Mr Simcock that if there was wrongdoing or poor behaviour by the CE then our preference would be for the termination option. He closed out the call following that.’’
Before the DHB launched its investigation in midJuly, Mr Simcock told Mr Short on June 8 a rental car Murray hired, in Moncton, Canada, was charged to the DHB for a month, despite the chief executive returning to New Zealand two days after hiring it.
In another meeting on August 25, Mr Simcock advised Dr Murray stayed in Auckland before moving to Waikato to take up the $560,000 a year role, and had ‘‘expended more than he was entitled to’’.
‘‘I asked Mr Simcock if there was anything particularly concerning in the expenses, particularly in light of media speculation and some suggestions Dr Murray’s behaviours had mixed private and public interests,’’ Mr Short wrote.
‘‘Mr Simcock talked specifically about the trip to North America, where Dr Murray had not attended the health conference he had initially been interested in.
‘‘Mr Simcock was comfortable that all of that was accounted for. I asked Mr Simcock if there was anything emerging that he thought needed further investigation by appropriate authorities. He didn’t think there was anything of this sort.’’
Mr Simcock said on Thursday Dr Murray led a double life which enabled him to hide his actions.
In announcing the findings this week, State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes criticised the DHB for accepting Dr Murray’s resignation, which effectively shut the door on disciplinary action and put an end to the DHB investigation.
‘‘That was not the right thing to do. This meant Dr Murray did not have to answer for his conduct. And that was wrong,’’ Mr Hughes said.
‘‘Public accountability and transparency is essential to maintaining public trust and confidence.’’
DHB acting chairwoman Sally Webb said the board agreed to Dr Murray’s resignation because ‘‘we thought that was best for the organisation and it was the legal advice we got’’.
Ms Webb said the board did not remember Mr Simcock making known the SSC’s preference to terminate Dr Murray’s employment.
‘‘We have no recollection of that being passed on to us. I don’t know if it would have changed the decision but we would certainly have stopped and discussed the impact.
‘‘If we had thought the commissioner said we should dismiss him, not allow him to resign, that would have been part of the discussion and the thinking.
‘‘From my memory and the memory of a couple of other members I’ve checked with, it was not.’’
Simcock did not respond to questions yesterday.
He previously said the decision to accept Dr Murray’s resignation was taken under advice from a senior New Zealand employment lawyer. — NZME