Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11784] 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does the Provider Information for the Maori Youth Contestable Fund dated 14 September 2001 list the first primary outcome expected from Whanau Service Plans as “Reduced re-offending by young Maori who attend the programme;”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did she answer emphatically “No.” to my question yesterday giving the clear impression that no such computer was purchased for that young offender? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The computer was purchased to help the girl to learn and to contribute to improving her personal situation not as a “‘carrot’ for not reoffending.” It was not provided at the cost or in the circumstances reported. My response was accurate. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Why does the Department of Child Youth and Family Services provide funding for young offenders to buy such things as computers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As part of an individual plan the Department of Child Youth and Family Services may provide equipment for young people who have offended in order to support their learning opportunities and thereby to improve their chances of moving into further education or employment. That may occur for young people in residential care in family homes or in this case in the Maori Youth Contestable Fund programme. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister stand by her comments in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that “She didn’t get the computer as a carrot to stop reoffending. The purpose of the fund is to provide rehabilitation services … so they get all sorts of things.”; if she does can she tell the House firstly whether she believes that the editor of  
Police News 
 Mr Steve Plowman who wrote the article is less informed on police issues than she is secondly the numbers of other teenage offenders who have likewise been given computers thirdly how many of those computer recipients have likewise continued to offend and fourthly what sort of other goodies they receive as part of the “all sorts of other things” package? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were five questions there. The Minister may comment on two of them. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not pretend to be more informed about police matters than the editor of  
Police News 
 nor have I claimed to be. But I can confirm to the member that the computer which cost $1200 was purchased to help the girl learn and to contribute to her personal situation not as a carrot for not reoffending. Therefore my response was accurate. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Now that the Minister has admitted that that young offender received a computer why did she give the House the clear impression on two occasions yesterday that the offender did not receive a computer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I answered the question yesterday accurately as I have just reassured the House again today. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since her excuse was that the computer was not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member start his question with an interrogative word? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does the Minister explain her excuse to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the computer was not offered as an incentive to stop reoffending after her confirmation to the House this afternoon that the primary objective of the fund is to reduce reoffending by young Maori who attend the programme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I answered for the  
New Zealand Herald  
a competent question from a competent journalist—unlike the question that that member asked yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I want the Minister to address the question that the member asked. She can comment on it in her own way but she must address it. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I have explained to the House I answered the question accurately yesterday. The computer was not bought for the price or in the circumstances outlined in the report—which was directly referred to in that member’s question yesterday. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Speakers’ rulings 145/1 145/2 and indeed about three other rulings on the matter. The first ruling is one of your own where you state:“The House and public opinion arbitrate on the quality of an answer to a question. It is not the Speaker’s role.” That is so but you have another ruling the next one part of which states: “It is incumbent on Ministers to treat questions in a manner that is consistent with their constitutional responsibilities.” We are in a situation where the Minister did not have to say “Yes” or “No”. She actually said “No” in a way that any person would have interpreted as meaning that a computer had not been supplied. I suggest to you that I am concerned about Speaker’s ruling 145/1 as it is at the moment and I believe that you ought to add to that ruling of yours. Yes it is a matter for the public to arbitrate on whether the Minister was misleading us but I think you should also say that Ministers ought not to deliberately give answers that mislead the House. I am not saying that it was a breach of privilege but we have a situation where the Minister clearly gave an answer that misled the House. In fact if the  
New Zealand Herald  
had itself not asked some questions and if we had not read in the newspaper that when the Minister said “No” she actually meant “Yes” the whole House would have thought that that young lady had not received a computer from the prison service. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. I will have a look at the issue as he has asked me to do.