12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
What action, if any, did he take to investigate claims there may be conflict of interest concerns over the Greater Auckland district health boards’ consideration of changes to community laboratory services, and when did he take that action?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
I became aware in July last year that there might be a conflict of interest, when Dr Hutchison asked me a parliamentary question. I then sought advice—advice from the Auckland District Health Board informed the answer. That advice said that Dr Bierre had stood down from all board business 6 months prior to the issuing of the community laboratory request for a proposal. However, I now know from Justice Asher’s judgment that Dr Bierre actually stood down on 21 December 2005, effective from 14 January 2006, only shortly before the issuing of the request for a proposal. I might also note that I now also know that Dr Hutchison was aware of the conflict of interest and, indeed, promoted it 13 months before he told me about it.
Who in the Auckland District Health Board misinformed the Minister, and does the Minister now regret that he did not make more active inquiries surrounding these conflicts?
The Auckland District Health Board informs the Ministry of Health generally, which drafts answers for my consideration. I have, however, today received advice from the chief executive of the Auckland District Health Board, apologising for the error back then in July 2006 and saying that the advice should have read “6 months prior to the community laboratory contract being let.”
Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s description that Dr Bierre is duplicitous, and her questioning that Dr Bierre’s activities may be illegal; if he does, is this the sort of person with whom this Government is prepared to allow its appointees to do business?
Dr Bierre is a National Party member on the National Party ticket for the Auckland District Health Board. I find it interesting that in the space of 18 months—
Madam SPEAKERI ask for order. I assume that the Minister is trying to address the question. He has a long preamble, but would members just give him the opportunity to answer so that we can all hear.
—National’s spokesperson on health can go from supporting this fellow, to wanting him run out of town. The long and short of it is that the judge has found that not only did Dr Bierre break two laws but also that the whole process of advantage has now evaporated. Therefore, I agree with the Prime Minister.
Can the Minister confirm his answer he gave earlier in question time, that he would be happy for his appointees to sign a new contract with a company associated with Dr Bierre; despite Dr Bierre’s illegal use of insider information, his misleading comments, and the Prime Minister’s description of his activities as potentially illegal, is he prepared to trust multimillion-dollar laboratory contracts to a man whom his own Prime Minister, and he himself, has labelled as duplicitous?
The gentleman has broken the law, and his contract has been struck down. In the striking down of the contract, a judge of the High Court said that it is now a level playing field because of the process of the court proceedings.
Can the Minister be absolutely clear that he is prepared for his appointees to enter into a contract with a man who not only has acted illegally but also has used inside information, and is duplicitous—in the Minister’s own and his Prime Minister’s words—and that that is the sort of person whom the Minister is prepared to enter into a contract with through his appointees?
A quick reminder—the man whom this member of Parliament now so strongly dislikes was his buddy’s mate a year and a half ago, and his buddy went to the Auckland District Health Board and tried to extract public money from him. In fact, his buddy got Dr Bierre to write to him, so that he could go to the Auckland District Health Board. We want to be careful about who is being duplicitous around here.
Gerry BrownleeI appreciate that it would have been difficult. Part of the difficulty arises from the implied allegation from Mr Hodgson that because somebody in our party had a previous knowledge of or knew Dr Bierre, somehow a blind eye should be turned to his poor behaviour. That is not the case from the National Party, and never has been. That is why the questions are before the House today. It is objectionable that Mr Hodgson should want to progress along those lines. It is worse that he is not prepared to answer the simple question as to whether he will sanction public money finding its way into this man’s hands again.
That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. It was extraordinarily difficult to hear, so I have assumed that the Minister has addressed the question.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. The fact is I did ask the Minister a very clear question, because it goes to the issue of acceptable standards in public life in contracting. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister have described Dr Bierre as duplicitous. The Prime Minister has suggested there may be illegal activity. The Minister did not answer the question as to whether he was prepared for his appointees, the people he chooses to do the business for him, to sign a contract with a man whom even the Prime Minister has called duplicitous.