Ryall Tony: General Debate 
Ryall Tony: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8412] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I have only one comment to make on Mr Goff’s contribution—that is I look forward to the day that is coming very soon when John Key is by far the most preferred person for Prime Minister of New Zealand. I will tell people one thing for free: accountability is on the way back. That party opposite is not prepared to deliver any accountability for the fiasco involving the Auckland laboratory contract. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member knows he cannot call another member or party corrupt or a liar. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I didn’t. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member used the words “corrupt and lying” and he cannot do that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I was referring to those members’ good friend who is not a member of Parliament but is a lying corrupt person who has deceived the Auckland District Health Board. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: “A lying corrupt person”. Well why did the Minister’s mates sign the contract with the lying corrupt person? That is what Trevor Mallard has called Dr Bierre. He said he was a liar and corrupt. But the Minister’s mates signed the contract knowing that he was lying and using insider information. His mates signed the contract. Wayne Brown Pat Snedden and Kay McKelvie were all appointed by the Labour Party. They are all the Minister’s appointees on the district health board. They knew Dr Bierre used insider information—first mover advantage—to get the lead in the laboratory contracts in Auckland. That Minister’s mates signed the contract knowing that. 
Where is Mr Mallard now? He used the words “lying and corrupt” but it was his mates and the appointed hand-picked chairman of the district health boards in Auckland who signed the contract with Dr Bierre. That is the reason why this contract has been ruled out of order by the High Court of New Zealand. A judge said that it is inexplicable. He said that it cannot be comprehended that the Auckland district health boards signed a contract with one of their own members after they had discovered that he had used the information he had gained as a member. They went and gave him the contract. It is incredibly serious and as Mr English says they could do it again—and I am going to get on to that. 
What has happened here is that Dr Bierre was involved in shaping all the thinking of the district health boards on the Auckland laboratory contracts. He knew how much savings they wanted to make. He knew the way the tender would be run. He knew what the expectations of the board were in the contract and the board told Diagnostic Medlab something completely different from what it was actually thinking. Dr Bierre put in the tender and the Government’s hand-picked district health board chairman appointed by the Government signed off on that contract. 
Those board members knew that Dr Bierre had been intimately involved in the terms and conditions of that contract. They knew that they were at a meeting only a month or two before the contracts came in when Dr Bierre briefed the district health board chairman on how they should handle the contract. The Government’s hand-picked appointees went ahead and signed the contract and a judge of the High Court said that that was wrong and should not be allowed to stand. Since that time the Prime Minister has described Dr Bierre as duplicitous and the Minister of Health has said that Dr Bierre broke the law yet neither is prepared to say that that sort of person should not be allowed to contract with the public health system in New Zealand. 
Where is the accountability I ask the Minister. This is the most unprecedented action taken by the High Court. It has overturned a half-billion-dollar contract—$500 million—because the Labour Government’s appointees did not follow the basic principles of conflict of interest. They knew Dr Bierre was intimately involved in the terms and conditions of this contract yet they signed the contract. What is their cover? It is: “The Audit Office said it was OK.” Well the Audit Office said it was a very very narrow interpretation that it gave. So that cover is blown. Then they said that their lawyers gave it the OK. Their in-house counsel gave it the OK. It sounds to me as though the people on the Auckland District Health Board were looking for some cover to allow them to give this contract to Dr Bierre—a man they had been involved with from the very beginning in setting up this deal. It is absolutely appalling.