Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13912] 
2.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her statement that the “mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children.”; if so does she still believe that the case of the 6-week-old boy in Starship Children’s Hospital was “correctly assessed” by the Department of Child Youth and Family Services? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Any situation where a child is abused or injured is totally unacceptable to myself the service and I am sure all members of this Parliament. I am advised that in this case this was an outcome that could not have been professionally predicted. However the incident and the department’s review of it will give us an opportunity to learn from this tragic situation and reduce the likelihood of such an event recurring. 
Katherine Rich 
: That was all very interesting but my question was: “Does she stand by her statement?”. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services had previously investigated and confirmed that the mother of the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital had beaten her 6-year-old stepson in her care leaving him with a black eye; did the Minister know this at the time she answered her previous oral questions? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am advised that the Tauranga police have requested that the details in this particular case should not be put in the public arena because a police investigation is under way. Charges have been laid. Any further comments could affect the trial. I also want to make the point that there is a concern over protecting the privacy of the children concerned. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker —[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not having any interjections during points of order and that is the only warning the member gets today. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about the awareness of the Minister when she had previously answered oral questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said he was not prepared to go into that detail because there was something before the courts. That addresses the question. It might not please the member but that addressed that particular question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it may also be worth pointing out to members who have not had experience in this area—which has been raised fairly extensively but some time ago—that there is not an obligation on a Minister to answer a question at all if the member judges that it is not in the public interest to answer that question. I think that Mr Speaker in giving some advice to my colleague is probably saying that in a rather indirect way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard raises a very interesting point that I think in many ways gives weight to the plea that Katherine Rich made to you. If the Minister knew prior to giving the answer in the House that there were matters that perhaps should not be discussed then the option that Mr Mallard suggested should have been taken. Instead the Minister chose to give the House a view of events that was quite unrelated to the way in which those events truly transpired. So we are simply saying that in giving that answer the Minister is leaving the situation open to the allegation that the House has been misled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did not refuse to answer. He chose to be circumspect in view of the legal proceedings and that is his choice. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was his choice and I am not having any further argument on that matter because I have ruled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: All right. If the Minister was choosing to be circumspect in the question that was asked by Mrs Rich today what is different today from the day on which the original question was answered? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debatable point. 
Sue Bradford 
: What percentage roughly of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services social workers now have professional qualifications and does the Minister feel that the rate at which the Department of Child Youth and Family Services front-line caseworkers are being brought up to a satisfactory level is happening quickly enough? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am satisfied that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is making good progress. There are 90 more social workers now. Fifty-seven are about to start. The Government has invested $127 million extra into it. A great deal of effort is going into improving the quality of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and good progress is being made. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services had decided previously that the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital would join his two siblings in foster care but that that decision was overruled by a senior staff member after the baby was born and that some Department of Child Youth and Family Services staff argued vigorously about the final decision to send that baby home with his mother; if not what questions has the Minister asked officials about this case? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That question goes into some of the details of this particular case and I ask the member to respect the request of the Tauranga police that those details not be put in the public arena because an investigation is under way. There is a right to a fair trial— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to have another think about the exchange that is going on here. Questions are being asked about the performance of the Minister. For the Minister to reply: “Please don’t ask that question because the Tauranga police don’t want details of this case made public.” is an utter nonsense. The questions are about the times dates and places at which the Minister became aware. The Minister can answer that surely without affecting the outcome of a court case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can address the question in any way he chooses as long as the question is addressed. The answer has not satisfied the questioner but that is the answer that has been given. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services knew of a psychiatric report that described the mother of the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital as “high risk”; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not prepared to confirm those details because they may give substance to the claims but I am concerned to ensure that the police are able to conduct their investigation in a way that does not prejudice the trial. I can advise the member that many questions will be asked about this case because we want to learn from the details of it so that we can avoid any similar repetition in the future. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is the Minister satisfied that she is being fully informed by her departmental officials; if so how does she explain her statement yesterday in the House that she was not advised of the appalling harm inflicted on the two older children by the mother? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not prepared to confirm the last statement. I am prepared to advise the House that the Minister has been fully briefed and I can confirm that I have received some good briefings myself. People are well abreast of the situation. We want to ensure that there is a fair trail. We want to ensure that we learn the best we can from this situation so that we do not see a repetition of it in the future. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Maybe you could help here. The Minister was asked about a statement that was made in the House yesterday. He states that he is not prepared to confirm that that statement was made in the House yesterday yet it is on the public record. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does the Minister remain so confident that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services assessed the risk to the baby correctly when the mother had been evaluated as being high risk and when the department had previously dealt with her over the beating and blackened eye of her 6-year-old stepson the neglect of her 4-year-old child and the near starvation of her 2-year-old child? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The department has to make judgments on each individual case. As I said in my primary answer to the member the outcome in this situation could not have been professionally predicted. 
Katherine Rich 
: Given that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services knew that the mother of the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital was high-risk that she had previously beaten and blackened the eye of her 6-year-old son seriously neglected her 4-year-old and left her 2-year-old on the verge of starvation does the Minister accept that New Zealanders are struggling to see how she could think the risk to the baby had been correctly assessed? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because a member says things it does not necessarily mean that they are true. What is important here is that there is an investigation under way charges have been laid they will go to court and the truth of the matter will come out.