Baygate revisited
8. Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Confidence
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
8. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; if so, why?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) : Yes, I have confidence in that district health board, under the commissioner.
Craig Foss: Can the Minister confirm that documents released under the Official Information Act show that he advised officials in December 2007 that he wished to appoint Sir John Anderson as commissioner at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, which was months before he expressed no confidence in the previous board and issued his ultimatum to the board demanding that it justify its continued position?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No. All I can say is that my final decision was not made until the afternoon of 27 February. The member is referring to a factual misunderstanding concerning a mistake made by the Ministry of Health in the release of papers, some of which were incomplete. This will be explained in court proceedings, and I can comment no further on it.
Jill Pettis: What progress has the commissioner made since he was appointed?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A great deal. He has moved quickly to appoint three deputy commissioners, worked with management on a recovery plan, and maintained close liaison with clinicians. Reports are that this process is proceeding very well indeed.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister advise us whether it is a fact that Sir John Anderson has been a one-time guest speaker at a National Party caucus and an oft-times nominee of the National Party for various jobs, and that he is a totally appropriate person to be looking into the problems of this district health board—which those members all know?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that I have never inquired of Sir John as to his personal political affiliations or previous political meetings, but I hear tell that he is not a member of the New Zealand Labour Party.
Craig Foss: Can the Minister confirm that documents released under the Official Information Act show that an email from the Ministry of Health dated 18 February 2008—9 days before he sacked the board—lists the appointments of Sir John Anderson as commissioner, and Brian Roche as deputy commissioner, to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am aware of that suggestion, which is based on a factual misunderstanding, and once again I absolutely refute the inference that has been drawn. This matter is to be ruled on by the courts, and under Standing Order 111, as the member already knows, neither he nor I can comment further upon it.
Craig Foss: Does the Minister stand by his statement in this House on 21 February 2008 that “no decision has been made, in that I have given the board a week to justify its position.”, when documents released under the Official Information Act show that preparations for installing a commissioner demonstrate that the 1-week consultation was a facade and an abuse of natural justice?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me state again to the member that my decision was not made until the afternoon of 27 February.
Craig Foss: Can the Minister confirm that he ignored Crown Law’s recommendation against appointing a commissioner to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—in particular, Crown Law’s view that “It is Crown Law’s advice that the situation is not so severe—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I have noted, under Standing Orders 111 and 112, members are prevented from answering questions that may bear upon matters of potential prejudice in relation to judicial proceedings and especially in relation to documents that are privileged.
Gerry Brownlee: These are documents that are in the public arena; they have been released under the Official Information Act. To say that they are somehow privileged is an utter nonsense, and the Minister should not try to hide behind the facade of what he would say is a “factual misunderstanding” in order to dodge answering questions.
Madam SPEAKER: I have been listening very carefully, because I am now aware that the matter is before the courts, as I understand it. The member’s questions so far, I think, have been within the Standing Orders, but we are at the edge of them. So if I may, I just ask him to restate his question. Thank you.
Craig Foss: Thank you, Madam Speaker; I will restate the question. Can the Minister confirm that he ignored Crown Law’s recommendation, as shown in documents released under the Official Information Act, against appointing a commissioner to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—in particular, Crown Law’s view that “It is Crown Law’s advice that the situation is not so severe that it displaces the principles of natural justice.”
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No. I confirm that I took account of a range of advice, but did not make my decision until the afternoon of 27 February.
Chris Tremain: When will the Minister apologise to the people of Hawke’s Bay for his total lack of regard for natural justice in sacking our democratically elected district health board?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The matter to which the member refers is now a matter that is before the courts.
Craig Foss: I seek leave to table three documents. The first document I seek leave to table is the story in the Dominion Post in which the Minister comments on the sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Craig Foss: I seek leave to table a second document, released under the Official Information Act. It is a Ministry of Health email dated 18 February, listing and naming the appointment—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Craig Foss: I seek leave to table a third document, a Ministry of Health document released under the Official Information Act and dated 19 February 2008, advising against sacking the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
