1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health?
Who is to be held to account for the bungling of a half-billion-dollar contract and putting essential health services at risk for 1.5 million New Zealanders—the boards that awarded the contract, despite an obvious conflict of interest; the Minister who appointed the leadership of those boards; or, as has always been the case previously under her Government, nobody?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The board is clearly responsible. I also point out that there was a clear conflict of interest. Notwithstanding that, Dr Paul Hutchison, National MP, asked the board to consider contracting him.
If the Prime Minister thinks that the boards are responsible, can she confirm whether she has confidence in the chairs and the various deputy chairs of the Auckland regional district health boards?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have declined to express that confidence until I see the outcome of this matter.
Hon Annette KingDid the Prime Minister hear the comments made by Dr Tony Bierre on Radio New Zealand this morning when he claimed that he had always disclosed his conflict of interest, even before he was elected to the Auckland District Health Board in October 2004, and has she seen any evidence that Dr Bierre told the voters of Auckland that he intended to pursue a contract for his company if he was elected?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Absolutely not. I believe that Dr Bierre’s behaviour was quite duplicitous. I note that his Citizens and Ratepayers colleague Dr Blue has described him as a very charming and intelligent individual and that a National MP actually advocated for him to get a contract from the board.
Judy TurnerIs it not true that knowledge of Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest was in the public arena long before the contract was awarded, and who does she hold accountable for the amount of time that went by with no effort made to address this?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Indeed, it is true that the member of the board Dr Bierre was asked to stand down in December 2005. I am told that when he was asked to stand down he said he would not do it until he took the advice of his good friend Dr Jackie Blue. He did stand down, it was in the public arena, and the board carried on.
Sue KedgleyDoes the Prime Minister have concerns that if the Auckland district health boards allow Labtests to re-tender for the Auckland laboratory contract, the message to public servants will be: “Conceal your conflict of interest, use your public position for private gain, and your company will not suffer.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
This contract was struck down by a court. That shows how serious the conflict of interest was. It was not serious enough to stop a National MP asking the board chair whether he would give a contract to Dr Bierre, but it was serious enough for a court to strike it down.
If the Prime Minister’s statement is that Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest was “very obvious”, why does she still have confidence in her Minister and in the members of the various Auckland district health boards when the facts of life were that it was blatantly obvious to everyone before the contract was even signed?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
If the member had listened to my earlier answer he would have heard me expressly decline to express confidence.
Hon Pete HodgsonIs the Prime Minister aware that the letter that was written by Dr Bierre to Dr Hutchison on Friday, 24 June 2005 concludes with the sentence: “Your suggestion of a letter to Wayne Brown would be greatly appreciated.”, and does that throw any new light on the role of Dr Hutchison?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
We know that letter was written, and we know that as a result of receiving that letter Dr Hutchison wrote to Mr Wayne Brown and said: “Please consider giving my friend a contract.”
How can the Prime Minister have confidence that the new lab tendering process will be fair, given the district health board’s record in turning a blind eye to an absolutely blatant conflict of interest?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The first matter to be addressed is to get services clearly contracted from 1 July, before the board looks at the longer-term issues.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister how she could have confidence that the new lab tendering process would be fair. I wonder whether she could address that question, given the blatant conflict of interest of the district health board.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
There are two issues here: the first is to secure services from 1 July; the second is for the board to take a longer-term look at how it deals with contracting for these services. Clearly, the process would have to be a lot better than that supported by National Party MPs in the past.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Brown’s assessment of his own performance last week that he had “done nothing wrong” and that he was “exceptionally successful”; if not, why not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Wayne Brown—who was first appointed to many positions by a National Government—has been a successful chair of many bodies. The matter now is to look at why the board proceeded to offer this contract, knowing what it did about the conflict of interest.
How does she explain Dr Bierre’s press statement made last Thursday evening: “At no time did I mislead the board …”, with the finding in paragraph 330 from the judge that “Dr Bierre’s actions breached two statutes.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I personally find the court’s finding compelling. I do not think there can be any defence of Dr Bierre’s actions. The only people who have defended them are two National Party MPs.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that the country is rapidly starting to see her as a commentator who is surprised and shocked at every issue that goes on, but unlike a Prime Minister she does not take responsibility for anything whether it is Auckland health, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, or the Department of Corrections?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I get concerned when someone described as a very charming and intelligent friend of a National Party member gets awarded a contract like this. That is why the matter needs to be looked at.
Peter BrownIs the Prime Minister in a position to give the House an assurance that no matter what the final contractual arrangements for lab tests in Auckland become, the dedicated staff who currently work at Diagnostic Medlab will be treated with the respect they deserve and not told by anybody, privately or publicly, that if they do not like the arrangements they can go drive a taxi, and if she can give that assurance how is she going to achieve that with the current bully-boy chairman in charge of the Auckland District Health Board?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
What anyone would conclude from looking at that court judgment is that those who come forward to tender for contracts for services must be on a level playing field. End of story!
Has she seen the judge’s comments that Dr Bierre had “limited concern about conflict of interest that he demonstrated throughout”, and does she agree with the judge that Dr Bierre was asked to stand down rather than doing so voluntarily, as he continues to claim?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Absolutely, and he was asked to stand down. Of course, he needed advice from Dr Jackie Blue before he did that, but eventually he went.
When did the Prime Minister first learn that there could be a potential conflict of interest in respect of Dr Bierre, and what did she do about it—did she ask the Minister, did she ask anyone on the board, or did she just come back from overseas and decide to wing it again with another commentary piece?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I think that “winging it” would be a good description of the member’s own behaviour last week, quite frankly.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister a very serious question about when she found out. It was quite clear in the newspapers for months beforehand that there was a potential conflict of interest. There were many, many articles written on the issue. The Prime Minister must have known prior to that. If she is a dutiful, responsible Prime Minister, I am sure she will have asked her Minister to investigate. Maybe she can tell the House when she first had concerns.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can say that this dutiful and conscientious Prime Minister did read what was in the newspapers and did raise the matter with the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health reported back on the advice of the ministry, which has been the same all along—that it did not see a problem. I think we need to look at the quality of that advice.
If the Prime Minister did ask the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health said there were no issues, why was it totally obvious when she came back from overseas?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The development from the time I went away was a court judgment that struck down a contract of a National Party friend.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
I seek leave—again—to table part of the ruling made by Justice Raynor Asher where he described a warning from me to Wayne Brown regarding a conflict of interest, as careful and clear.
Madam SPEAKERI seek leave to table the full letter from Dr Hutchison. He continues to exclude the part that does not suit him, which shows that he was promoting his friend Dr Bierre.
Is the Prime Minister convinced, then, that the Minister of Health did a good enough job of actually looking into the conflict of interest, given that he must have known it was a very significant issue because a judicial review had been lodged, and did not some bells go off in the Prime Minister’s head that when a judicial review has been launched there may be a conflict of interest and therefore an issue to look into?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Yes, of course, but the advice the Minister received was that it was not an issue. I might say that when a National Party member of Parliament writes letters, thinking it is not an issue, one is surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is now carrying on like this.
Why is the Minister of Health—[ Interruption] Actually, I am not the one in the gun; that member is. [] Oh yes, the member is.
Please be seated. We will hear the question in silence and we will hear the answer in silence. If anyone interrupts, that member will leave the Chamber.
If the Minister of Health gives such shonky advice to the Prime Minister or does not bother digging deep enough when a judicial review is ordered, and then the Prime Minister comes back and relies only on the judgment and does not do some investigative work beforehand, is she now surprised the people of New Zealand think that her Government is responsible, even if she does not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
What the member will never get a chance to learn is that Ministers operate on advice. The advice was that there was not an issue—[ Interruption]
I say to those members who interrupted that the question was heard in silence, and I wish them to leave the Chamber. I said that the question was to be heard in silence, as is the answer. Please leave the Chamber.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I gave an answer. It is a little impossible to remember, in the turmoil that followed, what the question was and what then followed.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Throughout the exchange covering that question there was a lot of banter from both sides of the House. Very, very provocative statements were made by the Minister Trevor Mallard, which did bring some rebuke from you, but not a mention of his name, nor an expulsion from the House. You made a request, and a large number of National Party members accepted that they were outside your ruling and left the Chamber, but I note that a number of those members have questions on the Order Paper today. It would be unfortunate, I think, if the Government’s behaviour incited a response that in return meant the Government could not be questioned because those members were subsequently expelled from the House. I ask you perhaps to consider whether those members might be able to return to the House to ask the questions they have lodged on the Order Paper.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Although that practice has developed over recent times, it has been a relatively recent one and I do note that even as recently as last Thursday a Minister who was about to answer a question was required to leave the House, which required another Minister, who was relatively new to the topic, to stand and answer on his behalf. I think, at the end of the day, if that rule is applied in the way the member requests, there is not much point in your issuing those kinds of warnings, if what it says is that anybody who interjects now, except for those who might have a question on the Order Paper, will be required to leave the Chamber.
Ron MarkIn the interests of consistency and fairness, Madam Speaker, I point out also that last week, when you asked a number of members who had interjected after your warning to identify themselves and leave the Chamber, a number of honourable members did so, and I was one of those members. I also had a supplementary question that I wanted to ask and was unable to ask, and that was my own fault. I also note that, despite your request, during that question there was a large amount of noise from behind me in the cross benches of National’s caucus, yet not one person from that area stood up and left the Chamber. If I had been watching, I would be able to tell you the names. All I know is that there was a lot of noise, you asked those people to leave, and no one left from that quarter. I ask you to consider that in ruling on Mr Brownlee’s request.
I thank members for their comments. There had been a vigorous exchange across the House from all parties. It was when that started to get out of hand, to the level of creating disorder, that I took the somewhat unusual step of asking for both the questioner and the Minister answering to be heard in silence. When the question was asked it was heard in silence, but the answer, almost immediately it started, was not. That was a flagrant breach of the ruling I had given, in the circumstances. So I am sorry, but in the interests of consistency, somehow or other we have to maintain order in this House.