6. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Has he seen the finding of Justice Asher that the Auckland regional district health boards had a duty to provide “an informative and explicit outline” of proposed changes to diagnostic laboratory services in the region as a basis for consultation with affected parties, and what explanation has he been given for their failure to do so?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
Yes, I have seen paragraph 289 of Justice Asher’s judgment, in which he concluded that the district health boards are not able to present self-imposed time problems as an excuse for a compromise consultation process.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
When did the Minister become aware that behind the district health boards’ public assertion that they could make $15 million in cost savings was a plan to, in fact, cut services—for example, the plan to change the turn-round time for results of routine lab tests from 12 hours to 48 hours; and does he approve of the board’s contracting for changes of that sort without telling the public?
It is important that district health boards, or any Government agency, undertake consultation in the manner that has been established. It goes right back to the loss of Air New Zealand v Wellington International Airport, which set out how consultation ought to be undertaken. Those principles are established in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Crown Entities Act 2004, and it is the Minister’s expectation that consultation will be carried out in the manner that has been established.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
When did the Minister become aware that part of the $15 million in alleged savings under the lab test proposal involved a plan to shift 50 percent of tests to general practitioners and primary health organisations without compensation—a plan the primary health organisations were unaware of—and does he approve of boards embracing changes of that sort without telling either the public or the affected professionals?
It is clear from the judgment that the board had an obligation to ensure that it consulted properly. However, in terms of the member raising issues around cost cutting, and so on, it certainly has been one of the issues in terms of the price of services, to the extent that his colleague Dr Hutchison said on Morning Report that having two contracts would actually keep the price down. So price obviously is an issue for members of this House and taxpayers.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
How could directors appointed by the Minister have decided to change the turn-round times for results for a routine lab test from 12 hours to 48 hours, and tell one of the bidders for a half-billion-dollar contract so that he could pitch his tender accordingly but not tell the other bidder?
Hon Dr Nick Smith
Madam SPEAKERThe member will please be seated. We will now hear the questions and the answers in silence. This chipping backwards and forwards across the Chamber means that the rest of us cannot hear. Would the Minister please address the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While you were on your feet giving that ruling, Nick Smith interjected again. I would just ask how we can be expected to obey your rulings when he will not even listen to them in silence.
If the questions and answers on this question are not heard in silence, members will be leaving the Chamber.
To continue—I said no, I was not able to answer the question the member has raised, at this point. But I am sure the Minister of Health would be happy to answer it next week, the week after, or whenever the member puts it down.
Hon Murray McCully Link to this
Does the Minister accept that just as the High Court has found that the district health boards had an obligation to be honest and factual in telling the public about plans relating to their laboratory services, the Minister too had an obligation to ensure that the public was treated honestly in those matters; and can the Minister explain how the Minister, having had that information, failed to share it with affected members of the public?
I am not aware of any Minister of Health who may have information regarding a contract—whether it is a contract to build a hospital or a contract to provide services—who would go out and disclose information when it was not the Minister’s right to do so. The contracting of services is not done by the Minister of Health, and I cannot think of any occasion when that member was a Minister of any sort where he went out and disclosed a contract that rightly belonged to an agency that should be disclosing it.
Dr Jonathan Coleman Link to this
Does the Minister have confidence that the same Government appointees who have presided over this massive conflict of interest will suddenly be able to fix this mess and deliver a functioning laboratory service for 1.5 million Aucklanders by 1 July?
I will be looking at what the three boards come up with and my confidence in those three boards will hinge on the ability to provide a reliable service by 1 July.
Dr Jonathan Coleman Link to this
Does the Minister agree with his appointee Wayne Brown when he stated in the Dominion Post today: “I’ve done nothing wrong. … I’ve had the most exceptionally successful career … I’m certainly the most experienced in the country.”; and was that the level of assurance that the Minister accepted to satisfy himself that the conflict of interest was being dealt with appropriately by the district health board?
No, it is quite obvious from the judgment that that is not what Mr Brown accepted. He accepted the word of an elected member of a district health board, Dr Tony Bierre, who—
I said that this question and answer was to be heard in silence. All those members who were shouting out and making comment, please rise and leave the Chamber. Thank you.