Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8258] 
2.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When did he first become aware that there may be conflict of interest concerns over the greater Auckland district health boards’ consideration of changes to community laboratory services and what action did he take? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have at least pleased Dr Smith today! The Minister of Health became aware that there might be a conflict of interest in terms of the Auckland laboratory tender on 16 July 2006 when Dr Paul Hutchison asked him a parliamentary question. He was advised by the ministry which had spoken directly to the Auckland District Health Board that Dr Tony Bierre an Auckland District Health Board member was a shareholder in Labtests Auckland. He was also advised that Dr Bierre had stood down from all board business 6 months prior to the issuing of the community laboratory request for proposal. The Minister provided that advice to Dr Paul Hutchison. However Justice Asher’s judgment states that Dr Bierre actually stood down on 21 December 2005 some 18 days before the issuing of the request for proposal. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What other action has the Minister taken to satisfy himself as to the handling of the conflict of interest? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Minister relied on the information that was provided at the time by the Ministry of Health. He believed in good faith that the information provided was the correct information. What the Minister could not bargain on was that Dr Tony Bierre was prepared to mislead not only the chair and deputy chair of the district health board but all members of the district health board in terms of his actions. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement in his letter to me dated 19 July 2006 regarding the tendering of laboratory services: “Those processes need to be transparent and open.”; if so why did he steadfastly refuse to do his job and take proper oversight of the tendering process in Auckland a process that he knew on 16 July—3 days earlier than that letter—was an inside job riddled with conflict of interest? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of course the Minister believes there ought to be transparency in tenders. That is what is expected but it is just not possible for the Minister of Health to oversee 16500 contracts or tenders. No Minister of Health whom I am aware of has taken personal responsibility for tenders and contracts. Those Ministers did not do so under a National Government and they have not under a Labour Government. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister now regret defending to the hilt last year the new provider in light of the huge public disquiet at the time about both Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest and his proposed slashing of Auckland lab testing services such as when the Minister told Parliament in October last year that the new provider was “building a high-quality laboratory service for Aucklanders”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Minister regrets that the appropriate processes that he believed ought to be followed were shown by the judgment not to have been followed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What assurance or advice on the conflict did the Minister seek from each of the three district health board chairs in Auckland Mr Brown Kay McKelvie and Pat Snedden? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Minister received information via the Ministry of Health which contacted the Auckland District Health Board to ask about the allegations made in the question by Dr Hutchison. The Minister was then assured that the conflict of interest had been dealt with. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that a conflict of interest was evident when the chairman of the Auckland District Health Board made very disparaging remarks towards the staff of Diagnostic Medlab; if he does accept that then why does he not take a leaf out of Dr Cullen’s book and advise the chairman that ethics won he lost so he should eat that and that Wayne Brown should be the recipient of his own advice and go and drive a taxi? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member is being a little harsh in terms of decision making. There are more people than Wayne Brown on the district health board. Responsibility rests with the board for the decisions it has made—that is not with just one member but with the board. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Further to my previous supplementary question is that all the Minister did? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Until the Minister was made aware of the conflict in the High Court judgment that came out he believed he had received the appropriate information from the Ministry of Health. However if he had received the copy of Dr Hutchison’s letter that was provided to Mr Brown he may well have been a little confused. I happen to have the letter that Dr Hutchison wrote to Mr Brown. It states: “I enclose a copy of the letter from Dr Tony Bierre a pathologist for whom I personally have great respect. Dr Bierre is well respected nationally. Clearly he has a conflict of interest in being a member of the Auckland District Health Board. Nevertheless I would be grateful if you would look at this letter carefully as I believe having choice is very important. The service is to be tendered on an open-book basis. Thank you for your consideration of this application.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister saying to this House that conflicts of interest were raised not only in a written question on 16 July but also in a question in the House later in July that there have been numerous newspaper reports of concerns about a conflict of interest in this case that the Minister has received a large amount of correspondence on this issue and that all he did to satisfy himself was to ask his ministry officials to make a phone call? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No there was not a question in this Parliament on 16 July. On 16 July a written question was received from Dr Hutchison. A reply was received and given to him on 20 July and the Ministry of Health provided that information from the district health board. It was a year after Dr Hutchison wrote the letter that he actually asked the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is the Minister telling the House that Dr Paul Hutchison knew of a conflict of interest yet despite that instead of recommending to the board that it did not accept any approach from Dr Bierre passed that approach on and supported the good character of Dr Bierre? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly can confirm that. In his comments Dr Hutchison has made it clear he is the good guy in this because he said that clearly there was a conflict of interest. However he did go on to say: “I would be grateful if you would look at this letter”—Dr Bierre’s letter—“carefully as I believe having choice is very important. The service is to be tendered on an open-book basis.” Now Dr Hutchison was in fact writing in support of the letter that was attached to his letter which I also happen to have and I am prepared to table both. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So now that the High Court has turned over a half-billion-dollar contract and has found that her hand-picked district health board chairman disobeyed every common principle of handling a conflict of interest is the fact that 1.25 million people have no certainty of lab contracts all Dr Paul Hutchison’s fault? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously it is not all Dr Paul Hutchison’s fault. In fact Dr Paul Hutchison is a very honourable member and he would have written that letter in good faith for his very good friend Dr Tony Bierre. The point I am raising is that there is more to this than has been put out by the National Party which is prepared to play politics with pathology services in order to make a few political points. For example in National’s singling out of Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan members would think those two men have never received appointments from a National Government. In fact both of them were appointed by National when it was in office to high positions. That included Ross Keenan who was made a director of Counties-Manukau Health in October 1999. He was good enough to be appointed by a National Government but suddenly those two men have become Labour Party lackeys. How did that happen? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Having read the judgment of the High Court does the Minister think that Mr Brown Kay McKelvie and Pat Snedden should have signed the Labtests Auckland contract knowing that Dr Bierre was actively involved in the formation and development of so much of this process and in light of the High Court saying that that contract should never have been signed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Minister stands by the judgment made by the judge and released earlier this week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If in future members of Parliament are aware of this sort of conflict would the Minister of Health prefer that the matter be brought to his attention rather than be covered up? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Contributions across the floor are getting out of hand again and we cannot hear what is being said. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes the Minister would prefer that to happen. However it took Dr Hutchison a year from when he wrote the letter to Mr Brown—which I will table in a moment—to raise a question. I also have to ask what knowledge Dr Jackie Blue had because she was also a board member elected on the same ticket as Dr Bierre and Dr Bierre has said he was a close friend of Dr Jackie Blue. I would be interested to know what knowledge she had and what she passed on to the National Party in terms of knowing about that conflict of interest when she became a member of this House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What action does the Minister think Wayne Brown should have taken upon receipt of Dr Hutchison’s letter and does she agree with the High Court that Wayne Brown did not take the appropriate action and should never have allowed Bierre to make a bid in this area? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Minister believes that Mr Brown at the time took the right action. He in fact wrote a letter on 8 July to Dr Tony Bierre in which he stated: “I must record my disappointment”—and this is in the judgment—“that this letter is the first time I was aware that your company was involved in negotiations with ADHB. I am advised that you should now be excluded from considerations on lab testing and the current regional process. I draw your attention to the obligations under the Crown Entities Act. Both Acts—the Public Health and Disability Act and the Crown Entities Act—set out very clearly the handling of conflicts of interest.” Mr Brown wrote that letter to Tony Bierre who then said he was mothballing any laboratory project he had. He did not do so and continued to mislead Mr Brown. I do not understand why the attack from the National Opposition is against Mr Brown and National is very carefully shielding Dr Tony Bierre. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister explain why after the tender process had been approved Wayne Brown said that Diagnostic Medlab staff “can either work for the new company … or drive a taxi.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot explain the words of any person. That would have to be explained by the person himself. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the High Court judgment in this case which states: “If Mr Brown had checked he would have found that Bierre had not abandoned his attempts”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table Dr Paul Hutchison’s full letter to Mr Wayne Brown. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the letter that Dr Tony Bierre sent to Dr Paul Hutchison seeking his support and a letter that was forwarded on by Dr Hutchison to Mr Brown. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table Mr Brown’s letter to Dr Tony Bierre where he sets out that he was very disappointed to find out for the first time that Dr Bierre’s company was involved in negotiations. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson Minister of Health to myself dated 19 July 2006 in which he said it was important that laboratory tendering processes were transparent and open—that was 3 days after he knew there was a blatant conflict of interest in Auckland. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
report that quotes Wayne Brown as saying: “They can either work for the new company … or drive a taxi.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the ruling from Justice Raynor Asher in which he points out that the letter I sent to Wayne Brown was both clear and careful. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. I am really tired of members intervening on points of order as I cannot hear above the normal chatter in the Chamber.