Hague Kevin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1147. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.KEVIN HAGUE (Green)to the Minister of Health: Why did he ask the Ministry of Health to review the minutes of the Health Promotion Agency regarding Katherine Rich’s conduct when the Ministry of Health is not the agency responsible for determining whether board members have acted appropriately at meetings?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):Because to date the member has asked 59 written and oral questions about Katherine Rich. My office initially advised me that if current trends continue I will have to answer a further 8732 questions from the member about Katherine Rich before the next election. But on checking that figure is actually 1255. It is the role of the ministry to assist me in dealing with this large and pointless workload.Kevin Hague: Can he confirm that Katherine Rich acting in her role on the board of the Health Promotion Agency has never declared a conflict of interest with any specific agenda item or withdrawn from discussion or participation on any agenda item?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is going to get very tedious. We have covered this in the previous 59 questions but the answer is still no.Kevin Hague: What actions will he take given that the Health Promotion Agency minutes and Katherine Rich’s own statements show that she has never recused herself from a meeting or a discussion of the Health Promotion Agency board in which she has an interest which she is obliged to do under section 66(a) of the Crown Entities Act 2004?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I will take exactly the same actions I have outlined in the previous 59 answers.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On a regular basis Ministers are asked questions in the House that relate to material they have provided in written question answers. It cannot be acceptable for them to simply say: “I have already answered that in a written question.” Ministers are answerable at question time in the House and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion it would be helpful if the Minister had actually said he was going to take no action. That would have been more helpful to the House. But the Minister was absolutely responsible for his answer and his answer certainly addressed the question. It is for members of this House and the public to be satisfied as to the quality of the answer but the question has been addressed.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To get further clarification from you are you suggesting that if a Minister has made a statement in another forum—whether it be a media stand-up or a written parliamentary question or an Official Information Act request—they can simply say: “I have already answered that in some other forum.” and get off the hook from answering oral questions in the House?Mr SPEAKER: No I am saying that in this particular case in response to the question that was asked the Minister has addressed the question. I have acknowledged—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! If the senior whip is going to continue to interject when I am on my feet giving a ruling to him I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. I have said that the answer given whilst it may not be the most helpful to the House has addressed the question. That is the end of the matter.Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile the answer he has just given the House and his continued acceptance of Ms Rich taking part in Health Promotion Agency board discussions on board agenda items about tobacco and alcohol with section 66(a) of the Crown Entities Act which says: “A member who is interested in a matter relating to a statutory entity—(a) must not vote or take part in any discussion or decision of the board or … otherwise participate in any activity of the entity that relates to the matter;”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because under section 67(1) of the Crown Entities Act it states: “The board must notify the responsible Minister of a failure to comply with section 63 or section 66 and of the acts affected as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the failure.” and I have had no such notification.Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm that the only way Ms Rich is allowed to participate in any way in issues that she has an interest in under the Crown Entities Act is if her chairperson Lee Mathias grants in writing prior to the meeting an exception to the requirements of section 66(a) and records that in the annual report and can he also confirm that no such exceptions are recorded in the annual reports?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Section 66(a) says: “A member who is interested in a matter relating to a statutory entity … must not vote or take part in any discussion or decision of the board or any committee relating to the matter or otherwise participate in any activity of the entity that relates to the matter;”. Frankly I am very confident that Lee Mathias has managed all this absolutely appropriately. If the member has concerns about her integrity he should air them outside the House which I do not think he will.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister agree that the reason there are strict rules around the management of conflicts of interest on Crown entities is to avoid exactly the situation currently playing out in the Health Promotion Agency where a tobacco and alcohol lobbyist participates in decisions that could impact directly on the bottom line of the businesses they represent?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No I totally disagree with the premise of his question.Kevin Hague: Given the Minister’s comments that he is confident that all matters related to conflicts of interest have been well managed will he now ask the State Services Commission to check whether Katherine Rich acted appropriately in the management of her interests as a member of the agency’s board given the commission has the statutory authority to do so whereas the Ministry of Health does not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No because there is no need to.