Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12544] 
5.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Why did she breach the privacy of more than 1300 children in the care of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services by releasing their names their caregivers’ names their locations and their ages to the public? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Minister she did advise me that her answer was a little longer than normal and I have accepted that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 The information to which the member refers was inadvertently included as an Excel attachment in the electronic response to a written question from the member. It was not part of the hard-copy version that I signed off for submitting to that member. The inclusion of the information was discovered only after the Clerk’s Office emailed the response to the member’s office and the member alerted both the Clerk’s Office and my office to the attachment. The question was immediately retrieved from the Clerk’s Office. I have accepted the member’s public assurance that she has deleted this information from her system and I appreciate her alerting me to its inclusion in order to protect the privacy of the children concerned. I offer my unreserved apology for this incident. 
Katherine Rich 
: If Celia Lashlie lost her job for allegedly releasing personal details about one child does the Minister think that she should keep her job after releasing the personal details of over 1300 abused children in the department’s care; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Had I known of that breach and had it been deliberate yes I do believe that that action would have been appropriate. But I neither knew about it nor considered it appropriate when I learnt of the information’s release. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Minister doing to ensure that this kind of incident will not happen again? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have received an absolute assurance from the acting chief executive of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services that Excel spreadsheets which can have attachments that are not immediately obvious will not be used to provide any information—supplementary or otherwise—for answers to written questions. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can the Minister remain a Minister when a Work and Income New Zealand staff member who released names accidentally or deliberately would lose his or her job and possibly face criminal charges and end up in jail? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in my answer to the previous supplementary question I was not aware of the inclusion of the information nor was anyone else who provided it to that member. It was not done with any consideration it was not deliberate and I sincerely regret the incident. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that although children’s privacy is an important issue the bottom line has to be children’s safety; and in light of this why has it taken the discovery by undercover detectives in the Hawke’s Bay of children smoking P and of babies as young as 2 weeks old living with users for police and the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to decide that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services should be notified in these cases as proposed by United Future? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That does go very wide of the original question. I think that in that circumstance although I am prepared to allow the Minister to comment very briefly she cannot be expected to have that information because it is wide of the original question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Department of Child Youth and Family Services is tragically not aware of the individual circumstances of every household in New Zealand. However in the instance that Mrs Turner referred to in her supplementary question I was very pleased at the way that the protocol between the police and the Department of Child Youth and Family Services was put into action to ensure the safety of those children. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why did the Minister not read the electronic version of the question and is she telling the House that it was not she but somebody else who affixed the electronic signature to the question before it was sent back to the Clerk’s Office? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can confirm that I did not read the electronic version of the question and answer—I never do. I always require a hard copy to be printed off and I sign the hard copy which is then transmitted through the electronic system. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister also agree that although the release of these children’s information is a regrettable mistake this kind of disingenuous whining on side issues misses the real issue which is the need to develop constructive solutions to the massive issue of child abuse such as that proposed by United Future last month; and can she confirm that she has received no similar positive proposals from that member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That once again is very wide of the original question. The first part is out of order; the second part can be commented on. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can confirm that I have received a number of very constructive proposals from the member who asked the supplementary question in comparison with not one single one from the member who asked the primary question. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the Minister not aware that it is she and she alone who has the responsibility for affixing the final electronic signature to parliamentary questions and is she telling the House that it is a staff member who carries out that task of affixing her signature to all her electronic questions? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not think that there was any doubt at all in my answer to the previous supplementary question. I sign the hard copy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer to the last question by the Hon Ruth Dyson raises an interesting question about who can sign out electronic ministerial questions. It appears from what the Minister has told us that a staff member does it on her behalf and that the Minister signs out a hard copy. I suggest that even if she were to sign out a hard copy it would indicate that there was an attachment. It would seem to me that a Minister on top of his or her job might ask what that attachment was. I do not think it is appropriate for a Minister to answer a question in the House in a way that attempts to dodge full responsibility for this appalling breach. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised an interesting question. Of course we now have a slightly different age from when for example I was a Minister and answered questions. There was none of this electronic nonsense at all. [ 
Interruption 
] It was not all handwritten—I could type occasionally. I will come back to the member and the House with a proper ruling on that tomorrow. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee in his point of order just now implied that in the written hard copy of the question that I signed I would have been aware of an attachment. I made it very clear in my answer to both the primary question and the supplementary that that information was not attached nor was I aware of it until the member who raised the primary question alerted my office to that fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is partly a debating point but I will certainly take account of what the Minister said when I make my ruling tomorrow. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that you will make a ruling but I would just point out that when I receive parliamentary questions signed by a Minister there is a place showing on the hard copy that says “attachments” and it lists them. So perhaps everything could be cleared up if the Minister were prepared to table the hard copy that she signed. It clearly is still in her office because it certainly was not sent to us. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table the hard copy which I signed. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.