Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:645;Page:14820] 
3. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Will he undertake to ensure the release of version 1 of the director-general’s report into conflict of interest allegations at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No I cannot give the member that assurance; the release of any draft copies of the report is entirely a matter for the director-general and the review panel acting on advice from Crown Law. The member is clearly attempting to discredit a time-honoured natural justice process. There is no version 1 of the report. There are draft copies of the report as are required of any such inquiry process. I repeat for the record: I have neither seen the draft copies nor been briefed on them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister understand that unless he can give an assurance that this information will be released it will be in the public interest for this information to be made available so that the public can draw its own conclusions from this sorry mess of an inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is very difficult to understand how the member could leap to judgment about an inquiry the results of which he says he has not seen and he cannot legally have access to. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the Minister aware of claims that a draft copy of the report “largely exonerates the board” as the member claimed yesterday? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes—by the member Mr Ryall. But of course that begs the question of how he would know and why he will not repeat the claims outside the House. It is very clear to me that the member opposite is trying to undermine and discredit an independent review process and he is also undermining the integrity of the neutral public servants who are responsible for that process. I repeat that there is nothing unusual or secretive about a review process such as the one being followed. For example I draw the member’s attention to the report of the Ombudsman Mel Smith into aerial spraying in west Auckland which followed exactly the same process of circulating an initial draft for correction of any factual errors. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What does the Minister say to the allegations that the director-general’s review is one big cover-up and that the draft copy of the report is being suppressed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat categorically that there is no cover-up. Those allegations impugn the integrity of the public servants conducting the review. This is an independent report to the Director-General of Health by an independent panel and I draw the attention of the member opposite to the statement made in 2001 by Chief Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood. In commenting on draft reports such as this one he said: “it must be remembered that decision-makers are accountable for the advice they act upon and not for early drafts generated …” which they have not seen. He went on to say: “However if the end result of disclosure of drafts is to prejudice the quality of the reports … then the wider public interests of effective government administration would not be served.” Mr Ryall should reflect on Sir Brian’s words. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister consider it an independent inquiry when the Director-General of Health investigated these matters in 2006 and concluded that there was nothing remarkable in Mr Hausmann’s behaviour; and given that the director-general would look a complete idiot if the facts in version 1 were set out publicly can the Minister see why the director-general is himself so keen to suppress this version? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have confidence in the director-general and I have confidence in the independence of this review process. The member might care to take notice of the comments of his colleagues who have been banging on at the Labour Government for the last few months about preserving the neutrality of the public service—something that the member is doing his best to undermine. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can it be an independent inquiry when this is the same director-general whose ministry according to Annette King said it was OK to appoint Mr Hausmann when he was already working on a $50 million deal with the very district health board he was being appointed to; and can the Minister see why the Ministry of Health is using a suppression order to prevent the release of information that will further demonstrate that his ministry was stupid or incompetent? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I draw the member’s attention to the following brief quotes: “Public service neutrality must be fiercely guarded.” That was said by Gerry Brownlee. John Key said: “Democracy can only suffer when appointments are made for political reasons rather than the person’s ability to do a good job.” What a shame it is that the National Party does not apply the same standards to junior journalists or to a director-general’s independent review panel. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why on earth did Annette King appoint Mr Hausmann to the board when there was clearly a massive conflict of interest that should have alerted Mrs King the director-general and everyone else that this was a bad idea? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member cannot have it both ways. He is freely admitting that any potential conflicts were disclosed that mechanisms were put in place to deal with them that the appropriate independent advice confirmed that that was satisfactory and that Minister King has publicly released to the National Party and the news media all the relevant Cabinet documents. How much more transparent can one get? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can it be an independent inquiry when at the core of the inquiry is the appointment of Mr Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board on the recommendation of Annette King and the Ministry of Health which is apparently leading this inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have said before in the House the member seems to be labouring under the impression that I carry some kind of torch for Mr Hausmann which I do not. My decision around the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was that there was a board squabbling amongst itself and with its own management team—a situation of chaos that could not continue. But I will judge the members of the board without fear or favour on the basis of the evidence that is produced by an independent process. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister expect the review panel report to comment on the role of management and the chief executive in the conflict of interest issues at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; if not was it not management conduct which allowed Peter Hausmann to get away with what he did that was the very reason for the review? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although the draft review and the final review are I am told a matter of governance the relationship between a board and its senior management team is no doubt relevant. The member sorely sorely tempts me to disclose some of the many pieces of information that the good people of Hawke’s Bay have sent to me since I made my decision.