Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak to this annual review in the health theme and I too want to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee and fellow members who made our way through our delegated tasks. I want to focus across several topics but I want to start initially by focusing on the National Oracle Solution programme of which we heard a lot and received a lot of information from the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG).I want to lead off by just focusing on one particular part of the Office of the Auditor-General's concerns that were flagged to us. It reads as follows: The NOS project has experienced delays and changes in scope. The original budget was $87.9 million which we understand has been exhausted. NZ Health Partnerships are currently waiting on ministerial approval to obtain additional funds from DHBs to be able to complete the project."—one small snippet of what the Office of the Auditor-General provided amongst other information to the annual review on this topic. Here's what we know from the annual review from the Office of the Auditor-General and other sources. The National Oracle Solution programme—it's a nationwide procurement solution. I want it to work. I want it to get over the line. We want it to get over the line. I think there are truly benefits to be made.Now it started around 2010 under Health Benefits Ltd and in 2015 it was taken up by NZ Health Partnerships Ltd. The Minister agrees and tells us it's challenged and needs an independent review. Here's what we know: over the life of the project Deloitte have been advisers to the project. Deloitte own the company Asparona who have been implementation partners and Deloitte have been paid to deliver the project. The summary statement then is this: Deloitte have been paid to deliver a failing $90 million IT project and then they're appointed as independent reviewers. How can it not be that Deloitte has a conflict of interest? They have to have a conflict of interest surely.Secondly let's look at that further. What else do we know? Well we know from the annual review several things. First of all what did the Minister do to ensure independence? He talks about the conflicts of interest statement the declaration. He says that the declaration includes Asparona's involvement and here's the key point the quote: "I have been assured that no individual who had anything to do with Asparona's involvement in the National Oracle Solution project has any involvement in the Deloitte review." That's really important.So I'm going to make two predictions in this offering. The first is: I'll predict that statement will come back to haunt the Minister. Does he really believe that declaring a conflict of interest removes the conflict of interest? I don't think so and neither does the sector because what the sector's telling me is that this is the fox looking after the chickens. So if the sector is believing that what sort of credibility is this report going to have when it eventually comes out?The Minister also said there'd been compliance with "all-of-Government procurement processes and conflict management procedures". What are they? Where are they? Can you point to us them? Can you give us a document a manual a page number maybe? If they're there great; we'd like to look at them. I'd like to look at them. It would help us understand the process. The whole process actually gets a bit murkier because I asked the Minister: has he updated the Prime Minister on issues in his portfolio? He told me he already did that. I actually made a small error of judgment then because I talked about the independent reviewers that'd he appointed—in fact the ministry had appointed so he wriggled out of that question.But I think the question stands because I've got a suspicion here. I think he truly has kept his word and updated the Prime Minister on the Deloitte appointment. I think the Prime Minister does know and I think the Prime Minister's also involved in the appointment of Deloitte as an independent reviewer and that David Clark has drawn the Prime Minister into this difficult mess—that's what I think.Let's look at the scope of the conflict of interest. How big is it? Is it insignificant? Well I'd suggest that Deloitte have probably been paid up to $20 million and if we look through the amount of work that the OAG is suggesting in the annual review it's probably up to about that amount. That's 20 million conflicts of interest and I think what we really need is we need to know how much they've actually been paid. So let's get to what needs to happen next. I think we need to see the conflicts of interest declaration I think we need to know how much Deloitte has been paid and I do still think that we need to refer this to the Office of the Auditor-General.I said that I had a second prediction. Here's my second prediction and final statement. I think that if I ask David Clark to give the names of the independent reviewers with Deloitte he's going to decline. I don't think he's going to tell us who taxpayers are paying to fund this independent review. I'll make that a prediction. I will ask the Minister: name the reviewers—not just Deloitte but name the reviewers that taxpayers are paying for the independent review of the National Oracle Solution project. And I'll make a prediction here that he will decline. He will not name them because he knows they're conflicted—he knows they're conflicted. If they're not conflicted name them. Make it the fourth statement. Name the reviewers to the independent review. Thank you Madam Chair."