Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Will the director-general’s inquiry into the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board cover the role of management in dealing with conflicts of interest; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 For the information of the member I was asked the same question yesterday by Heather Roy to which I replied: “Although the draft review and the final review are I am told a matter of governance the relationship between a board and its senior management team is no doubt relevant.” None the less I fully expect the member to continue his desperate attempts to undermine an independent review. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister be concerned to hear that leaked findings of the review team’s version one report say: “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann on the other hand knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Of course the difference between the member and me is that he thinks he has the report and I do not because he is violating Speakers’ ruling 32/4 which says that he should exercise his privileges only in exceptional circumstances not to protect his cronies. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is unacceptable that a Minister can get up and say that a question is outside the Standing Orders. If it is outside the Standing Orders he should take a point of order and ask the Speaker to rule. That was not an answer to a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister made reference to a Speakers’ ruling and I have made reference to that Speakers’ ruling in the past on matters related to this one. For the benefit of those who are interested I advise it is Speakers’ ruling 32/4. Of course members’ rights to freedom of speech in this House are not curtailed but members are reminded in the Speakers’ ruling that it is only in exceptional circumstances that they would go against a court order. However it is at the end of the day in the judgment of the individual member as to what he or she says or does. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am concerned that your ruling may have given the impression that a member has gone against the court order. That is not in fact the case. In fact the court order concerned quite explicitly says it does not cover the fair reporting of statements made in Parliament. So there is no question here of an MP using privilege to breach a court order; the court order does not apply in this circumstance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was not making that implication at all; I was merely reiterating to members a ruling that has been made before. It is for members to decide whether it applies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister should answer the question without reference to the cover of your previous ruling which does not apply in this case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if he wishes to. I think he had two parts to his answer as I recall it. But does the Minister wish to readdress the question? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Continuing from the previous answer I was asked the same question yesterday and I said then in my answer that the report I am told was on matters of governance but may include the relationship between the board and the management team. I would invite the member if he is confident that his material does not breach a court order to read the same material out in the corridor after question time. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In his previous answer the Minister made a remark that I believe is unparliamentary. He alleged that a member of Parliament was using the privilege of the House to “protect his cronies”—those are the words he said. I believe those words are quite unparliamentary. I have never heard that allegation made before. The member is not actually using privilege in any case and the Minister should be required to withdraw that allegation. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this particular line of questioning over some weeks has been accompanied by direct statements from that member and certainly from other members on the National front bench about the protection of cronies and indeed other people. It is a little rich to now raise the issue when somebody on this side has used the phrase. 
Hon Bill English 
: It was the Minister’s allegation that a member was using privilege. Now the use of privilege in this Parliament is something that we all take seriously and I will repeat what I said before. I have not heard the accusation made in this Parliament before that an MP is using privilege to protect his or her cronies. In fact the statement is wrong; the member is not doing something that requires privilege. The Minister should be asked to withdraw his allegation that privilege has been used for some kind of self-interest. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Everything said in this Parliament is subject to parliamentary privilege. If one cannot say that then one cannot even use the phrase “protecting cronies” in regard to almost anything else. The fact is that what is said in this House is privileged and members use that on occasions to say things that if they said them outside the House they would be subject to legal sanction for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker we are in great danger here if you are to accede to Mr English’s request of so restraining the rights of members of Parliament as to in fact end up with an abuse of our rights which we have had since 1688. Just because Mr English is sensitive about some things that is no reason for you to tighten the Standing Orders. But more important Mr Ryall has been invited countless times to go outside this House and say what he has said here. The fact that he does not do so might add some substance as to whether we should believe him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. I shall reserve my ruling on this matter because it is obviously one of some importance to everyone. Now can we proceed? 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister concerned by continuous attempts to undermine the independent director-general’s review? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I am aware that yesterday some former board members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board attempted to undermine the director-general’s report by falsely stating that I would be in breach of no less than the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if the review were released without giving them 7 days to review it. I will soon seek leave to table advice from Crown Law relating to this matter. That was a clear act of desperation from a group of individuals who first sought to slow down the process by taking out an injunction and who are now attempting to further delay the release of the independent report. I am also aware that yesterday the National Party claimed that a draft of the report exonerated the former board. Why why why are members across from me working so hard to undermine this review? What are they afraid it will say? 
Heather Roy 
: Why was it when I asked exactly the same question as the primary question yesterday that the Minister said I sorely—sorely—tempted him to disclose some of the many pieces of information that the good people of Hawke’s Bay have sent to him since he made his decision; and why does he not put on record the information he has and who supplied it that makes him think he is so right when the good people of Hawke’s Bay think he is so wrong? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s question is an important one and it is precisely because I am seeking to ensure the independence of the director-general’s review report. I am therefore unwilling to put in the public domain any material that I have independently received lest the two be confused. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister be concerned if the leaked findings from the review team say of Annette King’s appointee: “Peter Hausmann did not provide adequate disclosures to the board of his interest in the community services initiative.” and in particular that “He assisted in drafting both the RFP itself and the board paper that recommended that the initiative should be adopted.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the sense of neither my decision to replace the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board nor as I have previously said any relationship I may have with the board in my position as Minister of Health in no case am I seeking to protect Mr Hausmann. Mr Hausmann is accountable for his actions in exactly the same way as all other members of the board will be. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister not ask Mr Ryall to table the information from which he is reading—which is clearly improperly obtained—so that all the rest of the members of this House and the public can know what on earth he is talking about; would he simply ask that question now and seek leave for that to happen? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: For the information of the member I tell him that I have previously asked the member opposite to declare what information he has received and how he has received it and further to restate his questions outside the House. I do not think he has been straight enough with the public to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did Annette King appoint Mr Hausmann and say that his conflicts would be well managed when it is clear that this Government appointee was drafting board papers and amending tender documents; if that is “well managed” what would a badly managed conflict of interest look like? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: One report I can refer to is the Auditor-General’s report on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board which goes to the year ended 30 June 2007 and which in sections 4 and 5 goes through large numbers of governance failures at the board. I think that that speaks for itself. All I can say is that I look forward very much to making public the independent report of the director-general whatever it says about whomever it says it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs is unwell and is showing his normal diplomacy in repeatedly calling out unparliamentary language across the House about Mr Ryall. I think and ask you that he should be required to withdraw and apologise for what he said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what was said because there was so much interchange across the House. Did the member make an unparliamentary comment? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I was paying attention to my colleague here and rightly ignoring Mr Hide. But if I did say something unparliamentary I apologise. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has the Minister seen that express confidence in his decision to replace the board with a commissioner? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have received a number of messages and seen reports from people in Hawke’s Bay. Some of these comments include an editorial in the  
CHB Mail 
 which states: “The  
CHB Mail 
 has battled issues of transparency with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for the last 3 or so years and it believes it is about time that the board was revealed for its discrepancies.” Comments from concerned citizens include: “I believe on the balance of the evidence to date your decision regarding the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was the correct one.” Another comment was: “What the public needs to know about is the level of inappropriate expenditure by the board. I am sure my situation is only the tip of the iceberg.” My personal favourite is: “In central Hawke’s Bay well known for voting National it is said ‘If you put a monkey up with a blue ribbon they will vote for it.’ ” No offence is intended to Mr Tremain. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would it surprise the Minister to know that the review panel has indicated it will not be dealing with the district health board management’s involvement in the conflict of interest nor will it be dealing with the whistleblower’s concerns so what sort of inquiry can the public expect to get when neither of those vital issues is being considered? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In respect of the second part of the question I previously tabled in the House a settlement document from the whistleblower which says her retrenchment had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the member’s question. In respect of the first part of the question yes I probably would be surprised because I have not seen the report and I advise the member himself to wait till next week. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the Government design an inquiry that would not look at the actions of the district health board management because if Mr Hausmann was allowed to write the board paper then someone in management let him do that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have repeatedly told the member the whole point of the inquiry is that it is an independent inquiry and therefore the Government does not control how it is done. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise the public is not going to buy his argument about an independent inquiry because the people know that he tried to shut down the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board from criticising his jack-up inquiry and that that is the reason it got the chop? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The reasons the board got the chop were that it could not manage a spiralling budget deficit that it had virtually the entire senior management team on the point of walking out and that it thought the way to manage a relationship with the Crown was through the pages of  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
. The management is not responsible for the persistent breakdowns in the governance process and I invite the member to choose his words carefully so that he can do it on the basis of evidence that I will put in the public domain next week.