4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Will the director-general’s inquiry into the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board cover the role of management in dealing with conflicts of interest; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) Link to this
For the information of the member, I was asked the same question yesterday by Heather Roy, to which I replied: “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.” None the less, I fully expect the member to continue his desperate attempts to undermine an independent review.
Would the Minister be concerned to hear that leaked findings of the review team’s version one report say: “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann, on the other hand, knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper, which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted.”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Of course, the difference between the member and me is that he thinks he has the report and I do not, because he is violating Speakers’ ruling 32/4, which says that he should exercise his privileges only in exceptional circumstances, not to protect his cronies.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is unacceptable that a Minister can get up and say that a question is outside the Standing Orders. If it is outside the Standing Orders, he should take a point of order and ask the Speaker to rule. That was not an answer to a question.
Madam SPEAKERThe Minister made reference to a Speakers’ ruling, and I have made reference to that Speakers’ ruling in the past on matters related to this one. For the benefit of those who are interested, I advise it is Speakers’ ruling 32/4. Of course members’ rights to freedom of speech in this House are not curtailed, but members are reminded in the Speakers’ ruling that it is only in exceptional circumstances that they would go against a court order. However, it is, at the end of the day, in the judgment of the individual member as to what he or she says or does.
Hon Bill EnglishI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned that your ruling may have given the impression that a member has gone against the court order. That is not in fact the case. In fact, the court order concerned quite explicitly says it does not cover the fair reporting of statements made in Parliament. So there is no question here of an MP using privilege to breach a court order; the court order does not apply in this circumstance.
I thank the member. I was not making that implication, at all; I was merely reiterating to members a ruling that has been made before. It is for members to decide whether it applies.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister should answer the question without reference to the cover of your previous ruling, which does not apply in this case.
Well, if he wishes to. I think he had two parts to his answer, as I recall it. But does the Minister wish to readdress the question?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Continuing from the previous answer, I was asked the same question yesterday, and I said then in my answer that the report, I am told, was on matters of governance but may include the relationship between the board and the management team. I would invite the member, if he is confident that his material does not breach a court order, to read the same material out in the corridor after question time.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his previous answer the Minister made a remark that I believe is unparliamentary. He alleged that a member of Parliament was using the privilege of the House to “protect his cronies”—those are the words he said. I believe those words are quite unparliamentary. I have never heard that allegation made before. The member is not actually using privilege, in any case, and the Minister should be required to withdraw that allegation.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I think this particular line of questioning over some weeks has been accompanied by direct statements from that member, and certainly from other members on the National front bench, about the protection of cronies and, indeed, other people. It is a little rich to now raise the issue when somebody on this side has used the phrase.
It was the Minister’s allegation that a member was using privilege. Now, the use of privilege in this Parliament is something that we all take seriously, and I will repeat what I said before. I have not heard the accusation made in this Parliament before that an MP is using privilege to protect his or her cronies. In fact, the statement is wrong; the member is not doing something that requires privilege. The Minister should be asked to withdraw his allegation that privilege has been used for some kind of self-interest.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Everything said in this Parliament is subject to parliamentary privilege. If one cannot say that, then one cannot even use the phrase “protecting cronies” in regard to almost anything else. The fact is that what is said in this House is privileged, and members use that on occasions to say things that, if they said them outside the House, they would be subject to legal sanction for.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Madam Speaker, we are in great danger here, if you are to accede to Mr English’s request, of so restraining the rights of members of Parliament as to in fact end up with an abuse of our rights, which we have had since 1688. Just because Mr English is sensitive about some things, that is no reason for you to tighten the Standing Orders. But, more important, Mr Ryall has been invited countless times to go outside this House and say what he has said here. The fact that he does not do so might add some substance as to whether we should believe him.
I thank members for their contributions. I shall reserve my ruling on this matter, because it is obviously one of some importance to everyone. Now, can we proceed?
Sue MoroneyIs the Minister concerned by continuous attempts to undermine the independent director-general’s review?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Yes. I am aware that yesterday some former board members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board attempted to undermine the director-general’s report by falsely stating that I would be in breach of no less than the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if the review were released without giving them 7 days to review it. I will soon seek leave to table advice from Crown Law relating to this matter. That was a clear act of desperation from a group of individuals who first sought to slow down the process by taking out an injunction, and who are now attempting to further delay the release of the independent report. I am also aware that yesterday the National Party claimed that a draft of the report exonerated the former board. Why, why, why are members across from me working so hard to undermine this review? What are they afraid it will say?
Heather RoyWhy was it, when I asked exactly the same question as the primary question yesterday, that the Minister said I sorely—sorely—tempted him to disclose some of the many pieces of information that the good people of Hawke’s Bay have sent to him since he made his decision; and why does he not put on record the information he has, and who supplied it, that makes him think he is so right when the good people of Hawke’s Bay think he is so wrong?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The member’s question is an important one, and it is precisely because I am seeking to ensure the independence of the director-general’s review report. I am therefore unwilling to put in the public domain any material that I have independently received, lest the two be confused.
Would the Minister be concerned if the leaked findings from the review team say of Annette King’s appointee: “Peter Hausmann did not provide adequate disclosures to the board of his interest in the community services initiative.”, and in particular that “He assisted in drafting both the RFP itself and the board paper that recommended that the initiative should be adopted.”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
In the sense of neither my decision to replace the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, nor, as I have previously said, any relationship I may have with the board in my position as Minister of Health, in no case am I seeking to protect Mr Hausmann. Mr Hausmann is accountable for his actions in exactly the same way as all other members of the board will be.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Why does the Minister not ask Mr Ryall to table the information from which he is reading—which is clearly improperly obtained—so that all the rest of the members of this House and the public can know what on earth he is talking about; would he simply ask that question now and seek leave for that to happen?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
For the information of the member, I tell him that I have previously asked the member opposite to declare what information he has received and how he has received it, and, further, to restate his questions outside the House. I do not think he has been straight enough with the public to do so.
Why did Annette King appoint Mr Hausmann and say that his conflicts would be well managed, when it is clear that this Government appointee was drafting board papers and amending tender documents; if that is “well managed”, what would a badly managed conflict of interest look like?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
One report I can refer to is the Auditor-General’s report on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, which goes to the year ended 30 June 2007, and which in sections 4 and 5 goes through large numbers of governance failures at the board. I think that that speaks for itself. All I can say is that I look forward very much to making public the independent report of the director-general, whatever it says about whomever it says it.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs is unwell, and is showing his normal diplomacy in repeatedly calling out unparliamentary language across the House about Mr Ryall. I think, and ask you, that he should be required to withdraw and apologise for what he said.
I did not hear what was said, because there was so much interchange across the House. Did the member make an unparliamentary comment?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I was paying attention to my colleague here and rightly ignoring Mr Hide. But if I did say something unparliamentary, I apologise.
What reports has the Minister seen that express confidence in his decision to replace the board with a commissioner?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I have received a number of messages and seen reports from people in Hawke’s Bay. Some of these comments include an editorial in the CHB Mail, which states: “The CHB Mail has battled issues of transparency with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for the last 3 or so years, and it believes it is about time that the board was revealed for its discrepancies.” Comments from concerned citizens include: “I believe on the balance of the evidence to date your decision regarding the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was the correct one.” Another comment was: “What the public needs to know about is the level of inappropriate expenditure by the board. I am sure my situation is only the tip of the iceberg.” My personal favourite is: “In central Hawke’s Bay, well known for voting National, it is said ‘If you put a monkey up with a blue ribbon, they will vote for it.’ ” No offence is intended to Mr Tremain.
Would it surprise the Minister to know that the review panel has indicated it will not be dealing with the district health board management’s involvement in the conflict of interest, nor will it be dealing with the whistleblower’s concerns, so what sort of inquiry can the public expect to get when neither of those vital issues is being considered?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
In respect of the second part of the question, I previously tabled in the House a settlement document from the whistleblower, which says her retrenchment had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the member’s question. In respect of the first part of the question, yes, I probably would be surprised, because I have not seen the report, and I advise the member himself to wait till next week.
Why did the Government design an inquiry that would not look at the actions of the district health board management, because if Mr Hausmann was allowed to write the board paper, then someone in management let him do that?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
As I have repeatedly told the member, the whole point of the inquiry is that it is an independent inquiry, and therefore the Government does not control how it is done.
Does the Minister not realise the public is not going to buy his argument about an independent inquiry, because the people know that he tried to shut down the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board from criticising his jack-up inquiry, and that that is the reason it got the chop?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The reasons the board got the chop were that it could not manage a spiralling budget deficit, that it had virtually the entire senior management team on the point of walking out, and that it thought the way to manage a relationship with the Crown was through the pages of Hawke’s Bay Today. The management is not responsible for the persistent breakdowns in the governance process, and I invite the member to choose his words carefully so that he can do it on the basis of evidence that I will put in the public domain next week.