Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8194] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am sorry to observe that the member who has just resumed his seat Tony Ryall has only one line when anything goes wrong. It is to find a scapegoat—never a solution never a new idea just a scapegoat. This member makes his living by demanding that others be sacked. Whatever the problem that is his one line. Members should contrast his actions with those of his predecessor and colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. They should go to paragraph 91 of the judgment where Justice Asher describes the letter Dr Hutchison received from Dr Bierre that asked for a letter of support and see how in response Dr Hutchison alerted Mr Brown for the first time to the fact that Dr Bierre was commercially active. He said that Mr Brown did nothing which tells me that he has not read the court judgment. 
First and foremost my attention and the attention of the three Auckland district health boards must be on ensuring that a contract is in place to deliver reliable community laboratory services to the people of Auckland from 1 July 2007. My confidence in the three Auckland district health boards hinges on their ability to secure such a service. 
I have of course spoken to many people in the 25 or 26 hours since the decision came out. I am happy to advise that right now there is a strong and cogent commitment from three district health boards and from others to ensuring that the 1 July services will continue. There is no contract as we speak so no assurance can be given. But I assure the House and the people of Auckland that I am committed to getting the services running beyond 1 July—as is as far as I am aware everyone who is working with or for the Auckland district health boards. That is our first job. That is where the focus must be. All other matters are less important—all of them. This matter the reliable delivery of community laboratory services for the people of Auckland from 1 July comes first. There are plenty of politics in this. I will leave those politics to one side. My colleagues may pick them up later in this debate. But I will say that that is where my focus lies. 
The judgment is instructive. It is the first of its type under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2000 which is now 6 or 7 years old. Although the plaintiff failed on a number of counts the plaintiff won on two clear counts—one of consultation and the other of conflict of interest. 
On the issue of consultation there are lessons to be learnt. Over time these lessons will need to be assimilated and if appropriate tested or perhaps codified. These are matters for the future because they are matters that require reflection. On the issue of the conflict of interest the judge found in paragraph 158 that the actions taken by the three Auckland district health boards to address Dr Bierre’s serious conflict of interest were “entirely inadequate”. Those are strong words. That is a clear finding. The judge has considered the conflict of interest issue at length. He said that all of those involved in the three district health boards and on the evaluation panel acted in good faith and he found no bias. He detailed the measures that the three district health boards took in order to avoid the conflict of interest including the legal advice they received and he said they were OK. However the judge having listened to the evidence found that the conflict of interest did exist and he found so clearly. 
The judge went on to describe as I just have the role of many people in this saga including that of Dr Paul Hutchison. What we now know is that after receiving Dr Hutchison’s letter Mr Brown went to Dr Bierre and demanded to know whether a conflict of interest existed. In response Dr Bierre said that his commercial interests had been mothballed. It was not clear until later that this mothballing was temporary that he took them out of mothballs and that at that point he left the Auckland District Health Board. By the time he resigned however the judge found that the conflict of interest was already material. 
Paragraphs 197 and 198 of the judgment remind me of an earlier time and an earlier gentleman who used the words “first mover advantage” and we know what happened there. Let me quote paragraph 197 where Dr Bierre describes himself to his business colleagues as being in a position to provide “excellent lines of communication by information; and being a major influence in the restructuring model for pathology services provision.” It is no particular surprise that the judge therefore found a conflict of interest now that all of this has come out.