Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14964] 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why on earth would a Minister appoint someone to a district health board when knowing full well that that person was going to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts with that same district health board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is nothing new about the management of conflicts of interest in the health sector or any other sector provided that good governance processes are used. The only political interference in this process has been from the National Party leaking under privilege drafts of a confidential report. 
Jill Pettis 
: What does the report on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board identify as the key failings in managing conflicts of interest in terms of Mr Hausmann? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The report clearly states that Mr Hausmann could have done more to manage his own conflicts of interest adequately. However the report also states: “Consistent with good practice the Chair knowing of Peter Hausmann’s closer involvement in the initiative”—community services—“from his December 2004 meetings with HCNZ should have ensured that Peter Hausmann made more complete disclosure …”. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister give us any indication of when the people of Hawke’s Bay can expect to have a properly appointed functional district health board that is getting on with the job of looking after their health; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The first task of the new commissioner and his deputy is to stabilise the situation to ensure the sustainable delivery of first-class health services to the bay. It is for the interests of the people of Hawke’s Bay that these actions have been taken. The member will also be reassured to know that the Government has no intention of delaying fresh elections any longer than is necessary. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he prepared to act decisively and as part of tightening the rules around conflicts of interest in district health boards to make it a rule that no district health board member should be permitted to enter into business relations with a district health board that the member sits on when he or she stands to gain a personal financial benefit; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The independent review report received yesterday makes a number of far-reaching recommendations not only for the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board but for district health boards nationwide. I have already committed publicly to ensuring through the commissioner that the Hawke’s Bay recommendations are fully implemented and I now reaffirm my commitment and reassurance to the House that all of the nationwide recommendations will be actively pursued. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would this Minister consider appointing a chief executive of a large-scale health provider to the board of a district health board with which that person intends to negotiate multimillion-dollar contracts and why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I say again there is nothing particularly unique about conflicts of interest existing; what is critical is how they are managed. It is conceivable that someone with considerable expertise may provide a useful role on a board provided that the rigour of that conflict management is adequate. What stands out in Hawke’s Bay is that from the chair on down that board could not manage conflicts of interest out of a paper bag. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm the veracity of the story that a $50 million contract was in question; who was it who put that issue—in terms of the amount—into the debate; and has that amount been substantiated or has Parliament received an apology from the perpetrator of that rumour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: To the best of my recollection the figure of $50 million was used by the Opposition. It is clearly incorrect. I have had no apology for that misinformation nor for the string of misinformation that the Opposition has repeatedly put about on this issue over the last month. What is refreshing is finally to have the work of an independent expert review panel that is shedding some light on these matters because as we know sunshine is the best disinfectant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a serious question about an allegation that a $50 million contract was involved in respect of this health board. That allegation was put up by a member of this Parliament and sustained day in day out. I think I am entitled to hear whether there is any truth to that story presented by way of inferential questioning in Parliament and not to hear that shouting from a bunch of backbenchers who have found that their man at the front is a straw man after all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is no truth to the allegation that there was a $50 million contract. No apology has been received from the Opposition as to that misinformation nor the other misinformation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You would have heard Nick Smith shouting out the moment the Minister sought to answer that question “Well how much was it?”. What he is actually saying of course is that his colleague did not give a damn what it was and made an allegation to see if it stuck. But the fact is he should be stopped from that objective so I want to hear the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think there was an interjection but the answer could be heard. We will have it one last time for the member. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am happy to repeat the answer. To the best of my information the figure of $50 million is completely incorrect. It is an example of the perpetual misinformation the Opposition has been spinning for its mates and no apology has been received for it or for the Opposition’s other litany of half-truths. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise that New Zealanders will see this report for the cynical diversion it is because it does not deal with Annette King’s appointment it does not deal with the appalling treatment of the whistleblower and it does not deal with the deceitful collusion of the district health board’s senior management? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It seems that the Opposition calls something a whitewash when its members do not like what they hear. The member impugns the reputation of some of the most senior and well-respected peer chairs and chief executives in the health sector. I am sure they will not forget that if he should ever chance to work on this side of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is this report silent on the role of the district health board’s senior management in colluding with Mr Hausmann by allowing him to make significant changes to the request for proposal tender documents something which even the Minister’s own hand-picked panel said was unusual? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place I did not pick the members of that panel—the Director-General of Health did. Secondly the board has only one employee technically and its job is to manage that employee—that is the chief executive. The report concludes on page 86: “a number of failings alleged against management are ultimately the responsibility of the Board.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister explain why material from version one states: “The panel concluded that (a) Peter Hausmann failed to disclose his interest properly; (b) Peter Hausmann’s disclosures to the board and to the chair about this involvement with the Wellcare initiative were inadequate and at times factually incorrect.” yet in the final version that was all watered down to being everybody else’s fault? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: When the member repeats these allegations in the House and fails to do so outside the House it is no wonder that the journalists around the building are calling him a mouse. I wonder whether Mr Ryall understands the difference between a final and a draft. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This will be heard in silence or members will be leaving. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We know that earlier today you ruled about what was appropriate and what was not appropriate with regard to what members say or do not say in this House. The Minister surely should not keep on trying to do that over the course of this particular answer when there is such a clear question before him. Madam Speaker I implore you to please listen to the Minister and to make the judgment as to whether he is actually addressing the question asked of him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was not addressing the question. He was prefacing his answer with a lot of comments. Would the Minister please just address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes Madam Speaker. I quote from the report at page 8: “[The panel] wishes to record that there has been no pressure placed on it outside submissions by parties to amend its report to support any particular view. In particular it has not received any request or suggestion to do so from the Ministry of Health or the Minister (past and present). The Panel has been particularly careful to make its findings independently of the Ministry of Health and the Minister.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise that what the public want to know is not what is in the report but what is not in the report and why because just like the Ingram report this report is yet another Labour diversion from the murky dealings of its own cronies; and is that not the reason why the Auditor-General should provide a full and independent inquiry into this matter? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member should be very careful what he wishes for because I imagine that some of my colleagues will be interested to talk about other things that are not in that report and that member will look like he is clutching at rather crooked straws. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I seek leave to table a document to show that the lead panel member Ian Wilson was appointed to chair the MidCentral Health crown health enterprise by the National Government was appointed to chair the MidCentral District Health Board by the Labour Government— 
Document not tabled.