Waikato DHB boss praises whistleblowers

The chair of one of New Zealand’s most prominent health service providers praised whistleblowers yesterday after a damning report was released confirming unjustified executive expenses.

Sally Webb, acting chair of the Waikato District Health Board, spoke out after a government inquiry identified excessive and undue spending from Nigel Murray, the organisation’s former chief executive.

According to the State Services Commission investigation, Murray spent $218,209 of the Waikato DHB’s funding on travel, accommodation and related expenses during his three-year tenure as chief executive. More than half of that ($120,608) has since been deemed unjustified.

“I’m really pleased that the report acknowledged the courage of DHB staff, who made repeated efforts to bring the issue of overspending and spending outside policy to Dr Murray’s attention, before escalating their concerns to the chair,” said Webb.

“This is one man, out of a staff of 7,000, who was a bad apple, did not meet the high standards we would expect from a chief executive and has damaged the reputation of our DHB, but is not indicative of how the many hard working and committed staff in our organisation behave,” she added.

Murray stepped down in October last year – less than a month after the Minister of Health requested an investigation into circumstances surrounding Murray’s spending.

The subsequent report, conducted by the State Services Commission, found 129 items of inappropriate expenditure – 59 of those (valued at $101,161) did not meet the Waikato DHB’s standards for appropriate authorisation and 45 (valued at $120,608) were unjustified when measured against the Auditor-General’s guidelines.

A further $74,265 was identified by the Waikato DHB as personal expenditure requiring reimbursement. So far, Murray has repaid $54,831 of the personal expenditure but a further $19,434 remains in dispute.

State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes criticised the DHB for accepting Murray’s resignation rather than making him face the consequences of his actions.

“The board put pragmatism ahead of principle and the public interest. That was not the right thing to do. This meant Dr Murray did not have to answer for his conduct. And that was wrong,” said Hughes.

“Serious allegations ought to be fully determined wherever possible, so that either a person’s name is cleared or they are held publicly to account for their actions. Public accountability and transparency is essential to maintaining public trust and confidence,’ he added.

Webb, however, has defended the decision to accept Murray’s resignation.

“We weighed up many factors in coming to this decision but decided the ongoing costs to the organisation not only financial but also in the amount of time we would spend on this, were outweighed by the need to move on and focus on delivering health services to our population,” she said.

Webb also assured critics that the DHB has implemented a number of new practices and processes which should prevent such a breach happening again.

“These include communicating the policies regularly to staff and ensuring they understand them, then actively monitoring that they are complying with these policies,” she said. “We make sure that the business purpose for travel is clearly set out in the requests and the appropriate documentation is provided to support the request.”

Webb also acknowledged that the report highlighted failings in the recruitment process as thorough reference checks would have raised red flag’s about Murray’s potential behaviour.

“The investigation found the former chair was too trusting of Dr Murray. And Dr Murray let the chair down,” said Hughes, who also suggested Murray could soon be facing criminal charges.

“While Dr Murray’s conduct did not meet the standards expected in the State sector it is not the role of this inquiry to determine whether there was any criminal wrong-doing,” he said. “That is why I have referred the investigation report to the Serious Fraud Office.”