6. Question No. 6—HealthJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—HealthJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Mr Speaker—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Louise Upston you have one of your own members asking a question and continuing a debate when that happens is not a good thing to do.6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the answer yes absolutely" given on his behalf yesterday when I asked him "Do Ministers including him have any responsibility to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately managed by the chief executive of the department that reports to them when that chief executive was involved in a district health board that was under review and an audit was being provided to that individual as Director-General of Health"; if so what action has he taken to ensure all conflicts regarding the Beattie Varley review into the Counties Manukau DHB were appropriately managed?Mr SPEAKER: I have been warned that this as with a supplementary later is going to be longer than might normally be allowed.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. The member's question assumes that there was a conflict to be managed. As the member heard in the House yesterday my office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). As the member is fully aware the State Services Commission is looking into the matters that member has raised in this House. If the member has any evidence to back up his claims I urge him to provide it to the commissioner as he has been requested to do.Jami-Lee Ross: When he confirmed on 16 December that Beattie Varley were to proceed with the interview process was he aware that part of Beattie Varley's terms of reference was to review the remuneration and additional allowances of a former DHB senior executive?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not seen a draft of that review. I have been assured by officials that there is an appropriate process in place and that they will report back to me at the appropriate time.Jami-Lee Ross: When he confirmed on 16 December that interviews were to take place did he apprise himself of the fact that remuneration and additional allowances were part of the audit that was being reviewed?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was assured by officials that an appropriate process was in place. I don't see it as the role of the Minister to interfere in an appropriate process and so I did not interfere.Jami-Lee Ross: Did he read the memo to him dated 15 December 2017 from Dr Lester Levy which specifically referenced inappropriate activity around the "authorisation of salary increases allowances and benefits" which were the subject of the audit that was being reviewed by Beattie Varley? Did he read the memo?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member should not be playing politics while this matter is being looked into by the State Services Commission. If he has any evidence to back up his allegations he should provide it to the commission as he has been requested to do.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked if he read a memo. I gave the date of the memo and the author of the memo and some subject matter of the memo. He didn't address anything to do with it.Mr SPEAKER: And it wasn't answered.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can't recall the exact contents of that memo. I tend to read the memos that come through my office and I am aware that there have been allegations of financial mismanagement at the Counties Manukau DHB. I've also been assured by officials that an appropriate process is in place to work through those allegations and that they will report back to me at an appropriate point in time.Jami-Lee Ross: Was he aware that the internal DHB audit being reviewed by Beattie Varley audited in part transactions dating back to 1999 a time period covered by Stephen McKernan as CEO?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the member heard in the House yesterday my office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau DHB.Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister when he's learnt about the Beattie Varley review—and according to answers given yesterday on his behalf he's confirmed an interview process was to proceed—taken any steps to learn about the audit understand what issues were involved and ensure all conflicts of interest were managed appropriately given the time period dated back to when the acting director-general was the CEO of that district health board?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I contest that. My office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau DHB. If the member has any evidence to back up his claims I urge him to provide it to the commissioner as he has been requested to do.Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a memo to the Minister of Health from Dr Lester Levy regarding financial issues at Counties Manukau DHB dated 15 December 2017.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a document which has been redacted to remove the name of a senior executive subject to review. The title of this document is Salary and Allowance Validation as part of investigation notes from a regional internal audit dated 7 May 2017.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave for the document I just tabled entitled Salary and Allowance Validation to be published under the authority of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Well that is in my understanding a matter for me or a matter for standard arrangements. I want to make absolutely clear that documents worked in a proper manner get the protection of the House with regard to matters of defamation. What I'm not prepared to have is to have the Clerk put in a position of publishing a document as a result of this House taking a decision to publish a document unseen which might subject the Clerk to defamation from which he is not protected by the privilege of the House. So the answer to that is I'm not going to put that question to the House.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did take steps to investigate this matter yesterday. It is my understanding that if the House grants leave for a document to be published under the authority of the House then privilege does cover that document and the Clerk of the House.Mr SPEAKER: My suggestion on this one is that the document is tabled and we take a decision tomorrow—when members have been able to see it and I have been able to consider the privilege matter carefully—as to whether or not it should be published. Do members have a problem with that? Normally you'd stand up rather than put your hand up. Jami-Lee Ross: I didn't want to be knocked down again Mr Speaker. Could I ask you to give consideration if not publishing under the authority of the House to giving this document to the State Services Commissioner? Mr SPEAKER: Well—Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: No the member will resume his seat. As a former Minister of State Services I know where the place is. Something could be delivered to the State Services Commissioner. I don't think it's the role of this House to privilege that member with documents being given to the State Services Commissioner. If the member has documents that he thinks the State Services Commissioner should have—[Interruption] Order! Grant Robertson will withdraw and apologise. Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise. Mr SPEAKER: If the member has documents that he thinks the State Services Commissioner should have he should give them to him directly. If something has been tabled in the House and we take a decision to publish it tomorrow then it will in that way be available to the State Services Commissioner. But can I just say that I don't want without proper notice this House being used to protect members in matters which might otherwise be defamatory except as has normally been the case with debates. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order are we in some difficulty now though because the House has considered—has the House considered the leave? I think it has. Mr SPEAKER: I think we've got—it's tabled but that's not published. If the Clerk takes a decision around the further—where it goes. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is a tabled document not public? Mr SPEAKER: The short answer to that is it's certainly not published. It's the publication that causes the defamation which is my understanding although I know that there are people sitting not far away from the member who might have a better understanding than I do. Hon Christopher Finlayson: $500 an hour like Winston. Mr SPEAKER: $5000 an hour I thought the member—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order I think it's a relatively important point—Mr SPEAKER: It's a very important point. Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and it's one that might need a little bit more consideration because as I understand it once a paper or anything gets tabled in the House it becomes publicly available. Mr SPEAKER: No. Hon Gerry Brownlee: No one can—people can't go into the Bills Office and ask for it? Mr SPEAKER: I'll just make that point absolutely clear. It has been my experience that Clerks of the House have taken decisions not to make publicly available documents that have been tabled. Hon Gerry Brownlee: And is that the case here? Mr SPEAKER: Sorry? Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well look I think the sensitivity here is clearly that the member who has just sought the leave of the House to table it does not want to put himself in a position where he can be muzzled by some legal action. Quite clearly he has tried to do something that he believes—and I certainly believe—is in the public interest but it would be unfortunate if in trying to do that the procedures of the House put him into a position of some difficulty with some potential legal action being brought against him which could see at least a muzzling of this issue for a time and a closure of any discussion of it for a time. We'd like to know that the process that you've outlined which is that it is tabled today and then considered for publication tomorrow which would grant the member a certain amount of—well it would grant privilege. Can we just make sure that in the intervening 24 hours it's not going to be a problem? Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: No I want to deal with—I think there are two matters that are here that I want to deal with. The first one is to make it absolutely clear that the member tabling a document here is protected by the privilege of the House but the further circulation by any person is not protected. I will refer members to Speakers' ruling 146/1. I'm not going to read the whole thing out but I'll read out the important part of it: "Therefore the Clerk's Office will not make a document tabled by leave available other than to members where it contains material that is known to be the subject of a court suppression order; the purpose of which is clearly and primarily to defame; that is pornographic; or that is confidential to a select committee. Ideally the House would not allow such documents to be tabled by leave in the first place. If they are the member has the option of clarifying the status of the document in order that the Clerk's Office may safely release it or the member can take responsibility for its release himself or herself."—146/1. All right. Mr Hipkins did you have another point of order? OK. I think we've—and does the member have any further supplementaries? Right."