Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8313] 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How were the Auckland district health boards hoodwinked by Dr Bierre as stated in answers on his behalf in the House last week? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In Justice Asher’s judgment there are many many references to Dr Bierre’s behaviour. For example in paragraph 230 the judge says: “Dr Bierre should have declared the conflict of interest arising out of his ADHB membership and his desire to bid for ADHB funding for his own laboratory at the outset of his ADHB membership and certainly from the end of December 2004 … The necessity to disclose became even stronger when he applied for ADHB funding in March 2005 and stronger again in November 2005 …”. By the time the judge reached paragraph 330 he had concluded that Dr Bierre had breached two statutes. The faults certainly do not lie with Dr Bierre alone but had Dr Bierre behaved as one might have hoped there would not have been a conflict of interest. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the district health boards were hoodwinked and misled why would they give Dr Bierre the contract even after they found out they were hoodwinked and misled? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the words of the judge were that a serious process error was made by the district health boards. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is one of the parts of the judgment the Minister accepts absolutely the judge’s ruling that on becoming aware that Dr Bierre might be involved in a bid in December 2005 the district health boards should have refused to entertain any bid involving him given Dr Bierre’s involvement in the district health boards’ strategy and matters relating to the whole process; if so why did the Minister’s appointees Wayne Brown Kay McKelvie and Pat Snedden sign the contract knowing of what the Prime Minister has now described as a duplicitous conflict of interest? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes; and part of the reason I suspect they did is that they had from the Audit Office a written opinion to say that all was well and from their own lawyers a written opinion to say that all was more than well. 
Maryan Street 
: Whose responsibility is it to manage conflicts of interest on district health boards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In law the answer is that it is the responsibility of the boards and the membership comprising the boards. The new National Party members on the Auckland District Health Board in December 2004 were given a presentation on conflicts of interest soon after the election along with other board members. The presentation was prepared by Richard Westlake a very experienced member of many boards. Dr Bierre and Jackie Blue could not have been in any doubt of their obligations. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he consider that making a scapegoat of Dr Bierre who was only taking advantage of a golden opportunity to feather his own nest is an adequate response to the lab-test debacle; if not what steps is he taking to ensure that such a fiasco cannot reoccur? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member asks a very good question and the answer is that he is certainly not the only person who has made errors. He did however manage to breach two statutes. The issue of whether it happens again is the one that is prime in my mind but before I address it I will be addressing another issue which is to ensure that a contract is in place for the people of Auckland for reliable quality community laboratory services from 1 July this year. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If as the Prime Minister says Dr Bierre may be guilty of criminal behaviour and given her questioning why the board persevered with the contract in the face of conflicts of interest should the district health boards involve themselves in any future contracts for laboratory services involving Dr Bierre in light of the Prime Minister’s description of him today as “duplicitous”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One of the important findings of the judge was that the very process of the court case rendered equal the playing field for all players which had been unequal prior to that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister saying in the House today that it is OK to award a contract to someone who has used inside information and whom the Prime Minister says may have been involved in illegal activity; and is that the new form of accountability in public life that this Government promised? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am making a related point which is that the judge in his judgment found that the very process of disclosure in the court case meant that any advantage that anyone had is now gone.