Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Under-reporting of Cervical Smear Abnormalities in the Gisborne Region

2. Procedure

2.1 On 30 October 1999 the Committee of Inquiry had published notices in the public notice column of the New Zealand Herald, Wanganui Chronicle, Nelson Mail, Even Standard, Sunday Times (13 October), Otago Daily Times, Northern Advocate, Waikato Times, Christchurch Press, Hawkes Bay Today, Gisborne Herald, Daily Post, Bay of Plenty Times, Dominion and Evening Posts, inviting persons having an interest to register their interest with the Committee of Inquiry and explaining how to access information about the Inquiry by 0800 number, via email or through a website.

2.2 On 18 November 1999 the Committee of Inquiry held a preliminary conference at Gisborne. This was followed by a further preliminary conference at Auckland on 19 November 1999. The purpose of these preliminary conferences was to explain the scope and purpose of the inquiry, to discover the number of persons with an interest in attending the inquiry hearings and to provide them with an opportunity to comment on the procedures the Committee intended to follow. Subsequently Committee member Druis Barrett and Hanne Janes, one of the counsel assisting, attended a number of informal meetings and hui in the Gisborne region with the women affected by the misread cervical smear tests and other persons with an interest in the inquiry to provide further explanation about the inquiry. Then on 27 January 2000 a final pre-hearing conference and hui was held at Pakirikiri Marae, Tokomaru Bay.

2.3 The Committee of Inquiry held public hearings at Gisborne between 10 April 2000 and 11 May 2000. It reconvened in Gisborne on 3 July 2000 and sat until 6 August 2000. It then reconvened in Gisborne to hear submissions from 18 September 2000 until 29 September 2000. The hearings were largely conducted in public. In some cases persons who gave evidence wished parts of their evidence to be confidential and in this case suppression orders were made, but otherwise the evidence was given in public. Legal representation was permitted for those who requested it.

2.4 The Committee adopted an inquisitional approach to the inquiry where possible. Persons who were given the status of parties or persons entitled to be heard under s.4A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 were permitted to lead evidence as of right and with the leave of the Committee to cross-examine other witnesses. Leave to cross-examine was only granted when the Committee was satisfied that the area to be covered in cross-examination was relevant to the terms of reference. The Committee wishes to record that it was greatly assisted in its task by the evidence which the parties and persons entitled to be heard adduced.

2.5 Representatives of the news media, (print, audio and visual), sought and were given permission to cover and report on the Inquiry hearings. The evidence was also made available on the Inquiry’s internet website.

2.6 After the close of the public hearings the Ministry of Health/HFA filed further evidence with the Committee to update it on the progress of various changes to the National Cervical Screening Programme. This evidence was circulated among the parties and persons having a recognised interest in being heard and they were given the opportunity to file evidence and submissions in response if they so wished.