Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak to the Estimates for health and I'd like to thank the Minister of Health for turning out to that session. We raised a lot of questions in the health portfolio and I have a particular interest in the National Oracle Solution which we raised extensively with the Minister and there are some points I want to talk to here.Just to set the background the National Oracle Solution is a $90 million IT project which started in 2011. It was given a different name then—Finance Procurement and Supply Chain—and in 2013 it became the National Oracle Solution. We asked the Minister and we probed further on conflicts of interest which quite clearly we've been concerned about. We've been concerned that the Minister and his team have turned away some of the questions saying that the National Oracle Solution didn't exist in 2011. Well we know that to be incorrect. We pointed that out. We have the work schedule from Deloitte—and it's not an issue of Deloitte; it's an issue of the appointment that we're working with—that shows us that they were working on this in 2011. In fact they were working quite deeply which I'll come to in a moment. So I think that as an argument just doesn't stand.It's quite clear. Again we know from released documents that at one point Deloitte didn't want their conflict of interest brought into the public domain—when they said It is our preference for this not to be made public." once we'd raised questions in the House—and then later in the day they came back and said "Oh OK. If you have to you can." That's not a good look and of course the conflict of interest document they're talking about details all the work that they'd done on the National Oracle Solution.It actually goes a little bit further than that because what Deloitte does in their conflict of interest statement—the one they wanted to keep from the public—is they actually highlight where they're materially involved. So it's not just a passing comment but where they're materially involved and I would note that in a majority of their work in 2013 right through to 2017 they have been materially involved. They have had a conflict of interest.Now the Minister tried to distance himself from this debacle—and again another sort of riposte that's been made is "Well I didn't commission the review." Well you know if we look to the statement in the House the Minister said this—and we raised this in Estimates as well—"There is no way that the public would not be interested in the reason why we commissioned an independent report". That's an inclusive pronoun—it was a "we". Yes Minister you were involved in that appointment.Then we talked about the quality of the review that's been commissioned and this is really important: $150000 is what the taxpayer has paid Deloitte and/or its full subsidiary Asparona—and the Minister confirmed that—to complete this supposedly independent review. It's important that I read from the transcript so you can grasp how these few sentences were exchanged with the Minister. Reti to the Minister: "[The Deloitte] review was $150000 Minister. Can the taxpayer expect the review to assess if the solution is fit for purpose?" Clark: "Sorry can you say that again?" Reti: "Can we expect for $150000 the review will assess if the solution is fit for purpose? Is that something that will be looked at?" Clark: "Whether the solution is fit for purpose?" Reti: "Correct." Clark: "[Yes]." Now we know that's not possible because again Official Information Act (OIA) documents have shown us Deloitte writing to us specifically saying "We will not be assessing if the solution is fit for purpose."What have New Zealand taxpayers paid for? They have paid for $150000 that the Minister quite correctly thinks is going to assess if the solution is fit for purpose. It's a very reasonable expectation that the Minister should have for $150000 and I think he answered as best as he understood his expectation. Fair enough; I agree with him. However we have on OIA documents Deloitte writing back saying "Oh by the way we will not be assessing if the solution is fit for purpose." That's unbelievable. We can't really expect to pay $150000 of taxpayer money for a review that's really important that will inform the next stages—it will inform Cabinet as to whether they put more money into the National Oracle Solution. The Minister expects it to assess if it's fit for purpose. I expect it. I'm sure the House expects it. I'm sure taxpayers expect it and yet in writing Deloitte said "Oh by the way our review will not assess if it's fit for purpose." That really needs a lot of scrutiny.We gave it some time in committee. We received a response from the new director-general—clearly new in his portfolio. I'm sure he would give a different response today but I think that still stands outstanding for the Minister to explain why all of our expectations including his own were that we would get a quality review for $150000 and yet the reviewers are saying "Ah nah we're not going to do 'fit for purpose'." So I challenge the Minister to offer some further comment to that. Thank you Madam Chair."