English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17214] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I have such a strong ethical framework that I am deeply concerned about anybody who has a conflict of interest.”; if so is he satisfied with the way Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology has managed conflicts of interest? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 This is the subject of a report by the Auditor-General undertaken in response to requests from both the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology itself and Mr English and tabled in the House today. The report does not find that anything unlawful occurred and it commends the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology for having conflict of interest policies in place. It finds that it would have been prudent for Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology management to have excluded Ms Buck from anything other than the most peripheral involvement in the COOL IT programme and to have declined to consent to her appointment to the joint venture committee as a representative of Brylton Software. The report emphasises: “… there is no evidence that Ms Buck acted to misuse her position.” I accept the conclusions of this carefully considered report and recommend that not just the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology but all tertiary institutions read it carefully. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister’s ethical framework mean that he now accepts that Vicki Buck had a conflict of interest because she personally was marketing the COOL IT course on behalf of the polytech at the same time as a company of which she was a director and a shareholder collected over $6 million in 3 months; does he accept the Auditor-General’s conclusion: “… CPIT allowed Ms Buck to be put in a position which gave her the opportunity to use her CPIT-funded time resources and position to enhance the value of her private financial interests in BSL.”; and does he care that the enhancement to that private financial interest was $6 million of public money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is known for raising his voice to try to emphasise what he sees as an outrage but I say to the member that on this side of the House—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the House that what I have to do as the member himself has to do is to accept that both the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and the member having asked the Auditor-General for a report the Auditor-General has produced a report that says it can find no misuse of position by Ms Buck and can see no grounds for it to do anything other than to suggest to the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology that it review its procedures. Nothing criminal happened and nothing unlawful happened. If it had the member would not need to ask this question; we would be acting. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What lessons for the future can the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and other institutions take from this report? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The report’s recommendations in relation to conflict of interest policies cover such issues as their application to independent contractors having procedures in place to assist with their implementation and coverage of passive interests such as shareholdings. The report also emphasises that because conflicts of interest can present political or representational risks for an organisation they are a legitimate matter of concern at governance level. There are lessons that have applicability to the whole of the tertiary education sector and I urge those organisations to read the report and take those lessons into account. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General that Vicki Buck’s conflict of interest raised a “serious management issue” and with the Auditor-General’s statement that the office does not agree with this approach in the public sector; and given that he said that nothing unlawful had happened can he tell the House whether he believes anything unethical happened—because the Auditor-General certainly believes that something unethical happened? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member should talk to the Auditor-General’s staff themselves; I have and that seems to me to be an important step for the member to take because he asked for the report. What he will find is that the Auditor-General made it clear that nothing unlawful had happened that Ms Buck did not misuse her position that the Auditor-General’s office was concerned— 
Hon Bill English 
: Was it ethical? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the member will stop yelling I will answer the question. The Auditor-General’s office was concerned to convey to the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology that although it had conflict of interest policies in place the governance process should have been one that was more active and the office is urging the institute to do exactly that. 
Hon Bill English 
: What confidence does the Minister have in the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology council and its chief executive officer John Scott who marketed a course and enrolled 18000 people in it 603 of whom completed that course; who have refused to pay back any of the $13 million of taxpayers’ money that they collected; and who allowed a senior employee to market the course at the same time as her own company benefited from it to the tune of $6 million? Is the Minister now telling the House that he believes that all of that is ethical and nobody will be held responsible? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My approach to claims that are raised in this House is always to allow the process to work its way through. The member made a complaint and I know he is unhappy that he did not get the report he wanted so now he has moved on to the next issue. I say to him in answer to that that he knows that the organisation has now paid back around $83000 in relation to one issue and that it is currently subject to an investigation in relation to the very issue he is raising. I suggest he waits for that too. I know he is disappointed today but that disappointment should not lead to the silly anger he is undertaking now. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member might take the opportunity to correct his answer to the House. The $83000 repayment was totally unrelated to this particular investigation. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I said so. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Minister say so? OK I will accept that. I asked the Minister a question: does he believe it is ethical and will someone be held accountable? He has refused to answer either of those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has not been a point of order raised. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not a point of order. I did not rule that to be a point of order. It was a debating point. 
Hon Bill English 
: No I asked those questions specifically in my supplementary question and the Minister did not answer them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address that question. 
Hon Bill English 
: No actually the Minister did not address them either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the Minister did address that question.