Ryall Tony: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
Ryall Tony: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. That urgent business is the release of this report which says more about nothing than anything else that could be published through the Ministry of Health. This report is more noticeable for what it does not say than for what it does say. This report which has taken 8 months to produce has failed to answer some of the key questions that New Zealanders have about this whole sorry affair in Hawke’s Bay. There is absolutely no canvassing of the issues around the appointment of Mr Hausmann to the board. There is no canvassing around the issues of the whistleblower’s concerns. There is no canvassing of the issues about the involvement of management in making documents available to Mr Hausmann. This report is a whitewash. It is part of a diversion by the Labour Government to draw attention away from the involvement of its cronies in what has gone on in Hawke’s Bay. 
This report does not address the key issues that the inquiry team should have dealt with. When this report does go through the issues involving Mr Hausmann it mitigates every single one of them with an excuse. It talks about Mr Hausmann’s poor declarations of interest and then says it is because he received minimal induction and training when he joined the board. It talks about his failure to declare changes of interests but then it says that he was inexperienced; it was his first public sector role. It talks about his poorly managed conflicts of interests in communications with management but the report states that that just reflected the poor environment within the board. The report talks about his poor handling of situations but it goes on to say that the managing of conflicts of interest is difficult and it compares him with everybody else. 
Further Hausmann failed to declare his Wellcare Education Ltd contracts early and there were excuses—“Oh it’s just a new board member. He was inexperienced.” The board strongly protested Hausmann’s failure to declare the Wellcare contract early and said that well the contract was of a relatively small value. It was $1.2 million—and the report said that it was of relatively small value. Then it says that Hausmann broke his promise not to become involved in Wellcare price negotiations—wait for it—and the report says that he strictly did not because he was involved on the Healthcare New Zealand side and not the district health board side. The report goes on to talk about Hausmann’s inadequate management of the Wellcare contract and says further that other problems at the district health board were a lot worse. 
This report does not highlight the fact that Mr Hausmann was sent 2½ months before any other potential bidder a copy of the request for proposal documents apparently to remove intellectual property belonging to Healthcare New Zealand. But if we read those attachments it is clear that rather than removing anything quite a lot was added and what was added was to the advantage of Healthcare New Zealand. One of the key points added was the provision that whoever got that contract should have a strong infrastructure in Hawke’s Bay. Lo and behold how many companies had a strong infrastructure in Hawke’s Bay? That again is brushed over by this report. 
But what is worse about this report is the fact that it is so silent on the key issues of concern to New Zealanders. Why did Annette King appoint Peter Hausmann to the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board when she knew that he was intending to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts with that company? Why did Annette King offer that job to him when she knew he was going to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts involving that company? What is worse the Government in the House today after this report said that it would probably reappoint him. That is what Minister Cunliffe said. I asked him whether he in the future would appoint to a district health board a chief executive of a large provider who wanted to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts with that district health board and he did not say no. He did not say no. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not recall being asked whether I would reappoint Mr Hausmann. If I was asked I certainly would not have confirmed that I would have. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is a matter of debate. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Let us allow the question in the House to stand because that is what I asked him. I asked the Minister if he had the opportunity to appoint the chief executive of a large provider to the board of a district health board and that provider was to negotiate to get multimillion-dollar contracts whether the Minister would do it and why and he said that he would look at it. That tells us that this Government has learnt nothing. There is nothing in the report about why Annette King appointed Peter Hausmann to the district health board. Why on earth would a Minister do that? Why would a Minister insert Mr Hausmann into what was always going to be a difficult position? Why would the Minister do that? She has never answered that question. 
Secondly there is not a word about the appalling treatment of the whistleblower Deborah Houston throughout this whole affair. This brave woman who saw the emails and raised the matter with the board was subsequently bullied by senior staff at that district health board had her conversations taped without her knowledge and lost her job. There is not a word about that in this report—not a word. 
Hon Member 
: And she was taped. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: She was taped she was bullied and she lost her job and not a word of it is in this report. She is the woman who started all this and the board turned away from her concerns even though the Prime Minister said that they could be looked at because they were part of the terms of reference—that third reference—that stated “any other relevant parts”. 
The third important feature that does not feature in this report is the involvement of management in the making available of documents to Mr Hausmann ahead of any other bidder. I will just remind members what happened. It has been revealed through emails that were recovered in London through forensic computer analysis that Mr Hausmann sought a copy of the request for proposal and then received it from the chief executive on the chief executive’s instruction. Mr Hausmann made changes to that request for proposal he sent those documents back to the district health board and on the instruction of the chief executive the board accepted virtually every one of those changes. Those changes subsequently made it into the final request for proposal that went out to tender. There is not a word in this report about the involvement of management in making those documents available. In fact in this report it is stated that dealing with the request for proposal was not Mr Hausmann’s responsibility. So instead of dealing with why management made those documents available to Mr Hausmann there is not one mention about that in this report. 
That is really surprising because if it were all open and above board about the sending of these documents to Mr Hausmann why did we not get the return emails in the Official Information Act request? Why did it take a forensic analysis in London to uncover those emails? I ask the Minister why if it were all open and above board the information was not released in the original Official Information Act request and why it took a forensic analysis in London to get that information. That tells us all about what was going on at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
So we end up with this report which is a whitewash. It is typical “Labour Party 101”—Labour shooting as many people as it can to divert attention from the real issues behind this Hawke’s Bay District Health Board report. First why did Annette King appoint someone to that district health board who was going to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts? Secondly why did the report not deal with the concerns of the whistleblower. Thirdly why did it not look at the involvement of management in this? In front of the Health Committee last week the Auditor-General’s representative confirmed that the management of conflicts of interest is also the responsibility of the management of a district health board. It is also the responsibility of a district health board yet we did not see any of that in this report. None of that is in this report. 
Why is there no investigation by that panel of what happened to Deborah Houston? Members will recall that this woman had her conversations taped without her knowledge. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: By her—she signed the settlement. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister says to look at what she signed. Well let us look at what she signed. Does that signature say that she was not bullied by senior management at the district health board? Does it say that she does not believe her job was done away with because of what she said? No it does not. That letter from Deborah Houston states that she accepted there was a restructure and that it was not related to her whistle-blowing. But does she state in that document that she did not lose her job because of her whistle-blowing? Not at all—and the Government has been misrepresenting what that woman has been saying and I think it is appalling that it has done that. 
The fact is that this report is a whitewash. It is a diversion away from the real issues. What this Government should have done and what it had the opportunity to do was to get into what has gone wrong here. Over the weeks ahead we will see that the problems at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board are happening elsewhere around the country. This Government has appointed to district health boards people who have all sorts of conflicts of interests that the House will be interested in—all sorts of conflicts of interest—and the way they are being dealt with is not appropriate in the views of not only this panel but also the Auditor-General. If we look at the Auckland District Health Board and at the poor handling of conflicts of interest there and if we look at other issues at other district health boards around the country then we will see those issues there as well. 
So very serious issues are associated with this report but what worries me is that the Government on reading this report has not even learnt the lessons. When I asked the Minister whether he would appoint a chief executive of a large player to a district health board when he would be bidding for multimillion-dollar contracts I ask members whether he said no. 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No; he said that it all depended on how it was all happening—da-de-da-de-da. He basically said that yes he would. That shows that despite the report of the Auditor-General on the Diagnostic Medlab case and despite the report of this panel—the chairman of which is a Labour appointee—panel members are raising concerns this Minister because he values this report has not taken any account of. 
Over the weeks ahead Parliament will want the Minister to explain why this version varies and is so different from what was originally thought. Who got to the members of the panel why did they change their minds what evidence was there and why will they not provide the arguments for what they changed? This Parliament and the public want the full story and there is no full story in this report. This report is more noticeable for what is not in it than for what is in it. The Minister has been giving instructions to that panel through his comments in the House over the last few weeks. He has been shouting out his views in the House over the last few weeks on what should and should not be covered in this report and members of that panel would have heard what he was saying. They knew that the Government would not want them to look at the appointment process. They knew that the Government would not want them to look at the Deborah Houston issue because it got too close to home. They knew that the Government would not want them to look at the behaviour of the management of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board because of what was going on there. 
This Government has failed in its responsibility to answer any of the basic questions. It is “Labour 101”; it is like the Ingram report all over again. This report will be found to be wanting and not to have canvassed the issues that matter to New Zealanders but in 7 to 9 months’ time New Zealanders will have their opportunity to tell this Government that it has manufactured what it has put in this report. The Government has manufactured its activities in relation to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and New Zealanders want to know the full story. That is why we think the Auditor-General needs to step in and provide a truly independent report on this issue.