Minister of Health faces call for resignation

Press, 15 October 1976, Page 1

Minister of Health faces call for resignation

P A Wellington The Minister of Health (Mr Gill) last evening faced a call in Parliament to resign for allegedly exerting political pressure for the dismissal of a consultant to the Health Department on obstetrics who had given evidence for the defence in the Woolnough trials at Auckland.

The call came from Mr J. L. Hunt (Lab., New Lynn), who said that Professor Dennis Bonham, head of the university department and of the postgraduate School of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Auckland University, had received in July notification of his dismissal as a consultant. The permanent head of the Health Department apologised for the dismissal, saying that it was a political decision of which the department did not approve, but that Ministerial pressure had been strong, Mr Hunt said. Professor Bonham had appeared under subpoena as a witness for the defence in both the Woolnough trials. In evidence, said Mr Hunt, Professor Bonham had said he would have terminated the pregnancies the accused terminated. “He also gave evidence on his views of abortion, which are liberal, to the Royal Commission on abortion at its request,’’ Mr Hunt said. Mr Gill brought before Parliament this year a bill to "hold the line” on abortion but which was voted down. He is a member of the Society for the Protec-

tion of the Unborn Child. Mr Hunt said that both Professor Bonham and Dr Joan Mackay, a former officer of the Health Department, had spent some years writing a report on maternity services in New Zealand. The report was developed under the auspices of the Maternity Services Committee, which had approved every word of the report when it was completed. This report ’ d been published this year, as “Board of Health series No. 26” — but deleted from it was the entire summary of recommendations. Mr Hunt said that the summary had concluded that the present state of maternity services in New Zealand was far from satisfactory. with wide regional variations in standard and availability. It had recommended that all associated services be planned on a comprehensive basis, that specialist gynaecologists be available for about half the patients (those of higher risk), and that neo-natal paediatricians be available for about a fifth of the babies. The summary had also emphasised what it said was a need for public follow-up clinics in each region to provide specialist care, advice on familyplanning, and “parent education.” A Minister had “sacked” an appointed person be-

cause he held views that were emotionally and ideologically opposed to him, but could find no fault with his performance, Mr Hunt said. When New Zealand reached that stage, the Minister could do no other than immediately resign. “I challenge him to deny the facts that I have given this evening,” Mr Hunt said. Mr Gill said that when he became Minister, he had asked how often advisers’ positions were reviewed. “I said we should do it at every change of Government,” he said. The position of advisers had been reviewed, and those who had been in their positions for a length of time had been replaced “by fresh people.” This, Mr Gill said, was an essential stage through which any organisation went. Professor Bonham had been replaced by a Dr Seddon, a younger man who had a great contribution to make as an adviser. Mr Gill said that Professor Bonham was still an important member of the Maternity Advisory Services Committee. The Minister said it was his decision that Professor Bonham be replaced. The professor had been there for 10 years, he said. There had been no letters of complaint about his replacement.

Three other consultants —including the child health consultant—had been replaced, Mr Gill said. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Tizard) said that the Minister could not so lightly “brush the matter under the carpet.” He asked who Mr Gill got letters from in Auckland advising him about the replacement of Professor Bonham. “I wonder if he would care to reveal that they came from a doctor who is closely associated with the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child?” Mr Tizarv. said. He said he had seen the report written by Professor Bonham and Dr Mackay. “It was circulated to the hospital boards concerned, I understand, piecemeal,” Mr Tizard said. “The part of the report that was appropriate to them was sent to them. It was not the whole report.” When action was to be taken on a report, the authors of it needed to be in a position where they could be consulted. “Very strong criticism was expressed, but the authors of the report are neither of them in a position to see that any recommendations they made have been followed up,” Mr Tizard said. PROF. BONHAM’S COMMENT PAGE 4.