Rich Katherine: Budget Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Rich Katherine: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I will concentrate my Budget speech on Vote Child Youth and Family Services and the half a billion dollars that this country spends on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in a given year. 
This department has been in the news constantly in the last 12 months. I am not suggesting that running the department is an easy task or that solutions are easily implemented but I will say that this Government has not managed the department well and in the last 12 months we have seen the Minister struggling with the job and making mistakes regularly. There have been some high-profile problems and mistakes. One that members will remember was the Minister releasing over a thousand names locations and caregivers of over 1000 children in the department’s care. That was just one mistake— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This has been subject to a personal explanation in the House. The member is now doubting the Minister’s word which was given to this House as part of the personal explanation. That is a breach of the Standing Orders. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Speaking to the point of order I was not doubting what the Minister had said but I think it is a statement of fact to say that the information surrounding the names locations and caregivers of over 1000 children in the department’s care was released. That is a statement of fact. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Minister took it as an inference referring to him. A personal explanation has been made so we will move on. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Making changes to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is not just about pouring more money into the department; it is about providing a clear vision for the department and that is where this Minister has failed. Over a period of time a pattern has developed in the way Ruth Dyson has handled her portfolio. The pattern is one of deceit mismanagement and—I suggest—cover-ups. An issue was raised by my learned colleague Deborah Coddington— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To say that a Government is following a pattern of deceit is a reflection on all members of the Government and is clearly out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thought the member was referring to the department. Were you referring to any member in this House? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I was referring to the Minister. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will simply ask you to withdraw that comment please. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I withdraw that comment. What I will lay out over the course of my speech is something that relates to that statement. I think that what we are seeing is a pattern of mismanagement and cover-ups and I think that is a debating point. It is not a breach of the Standing Orders I would have thought and I seek your clarification. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is fine. You may proceed along those lines but words like “deceit” you will not use. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: An issue was raised by Deborah Coddington relating to the Glenelg Health Camp. Ms Coddington was concerned about some interventionist medical procedures that were conducted on some of the children in that health camp during the years 1983 to 1985 so she started to do quite a bit of homework on that subject. Those girls were examined without their parents’ consent and they were extensive and invasive examinations. The Minister was repeatedly asked questions about that particular case and repeatedly she has either refused to answer those questions or in a rather cute fashion has been technically correct in some of her answers but somewhat economical with the truth. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One cannot accuse a member of being economical with the truth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. It is tantamount to accusing the member of lying so please withdraw. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Regardless of the fact that that statement has been used a number of times in this House I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Just withdraw. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I withdraw. The Minister has not been forthcoming with the full information relating to the Glenelg Health Camp. Ms Coddington did her homework on the subject. She made Official Information Act requests and asked questions. From Annette King she was given documents from only 1993 onwards. Funny that because allegations were raised about this case starting from at least 1989. 
When I asked a question of the Minister the Minister came back and said the question would take quite a bit of collation and answering and she refused to do so. She would not ask the department the question because frankly I suspect she did not want to know the answer. It is quite a compact subject and would have been on the file and—as far as I know—the department does not keep its files in Antarctica even when they are archived. They are easy to get at and refer to. But the Minister did not want the department to do the work because she knew it would uncover the fact that her own colleagues had an involvement in this sorry tale. 
Ms Coddington also made an Official Information Act request of Ruth Dyson on 16 March seeking documents relating to Glenelg. To date she has had no response to that request at all. As far as the Government is concerned the Glenelg complaints did not exist prior to 1993 and Ministers have done all they can to point the finger at National during its time in Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Ruth Dyson stood in this House and told members that. 
 On 20 May I asked the Minister some questions. She went back and said that she would at least look at the archives this time but that was 1 month ago and still we have had no answer to any questions relating to the Glenelg Health Camp. I stood in this House and asked the Minister when the former Department of Social Welfare and its Minister first became aware of the allegations regarding medical examinations without parental consent of children at the Glenelg Health Camp. It was a pretty straightforward question I would have thought. 
The Minister looked smug and said: “According to the available files …” it was in National’s time. I then asked another question about whether any recommendations had been received by the former Department of Social Welfare about the ethics of carrying out these internal examinations on girls without parental consent having been received. The Minister said: “… despite extensive searching of the available records …” there was nothing. 
I then asked a further question about whether the former department and Minister had considered any recommendations that allegations that staff presumed that every child had been sexually abused should be investigated. The Minister said: “The only record of correspondence … that has been made available to me …” was a letter from—surprise surprise—a National MP in 1993. The Minister firmly stated: “I have checked the file.” and she stuck by her assertion that the first allegation was when National received the complaint in 1993. Apparently as far as it was aware the Labour Government had nothing to do with the Glenelg Health Camp. 
On this side of the House we think those carefully worded answers about seeing records that were “made available” are an attempt to hide the real situation. The Minister has tried to be cunning when she should have told the real story. She might argue that her answers are technically correct but they are not totally correct because Labour was in Government when those first allegations were made. I can only conclude that she is covering up for her senior colleagues because guess who was the Minister of Social Welfare at the time the first allegations were made? 
Opposition Members 
: Who? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Dr Michael Cullen. And guess who was the Minister of Health at the time those allegations were made? 
Opposition Members 
: Who? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Helen Clark. At the time when overly zealous Christchurch health workers were diagnosing sexual abuse all over the place two key people in Parliament—the Minister’s own colleagues—were in charge. The Minister knows full well that the first complaint did not come in 1993 to a National Party Minister but to a former Minister of Social Welfare Dr Michael Cullen and no amount of mealy-mouthed duplicity will get the Minister off the hook. National does not believe that the Minister— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The word “duplicitous” has been ruled out of order on a number of occasions in this House and my view is that the expression the member used is so close to that as to be the same. 
John Carter 
: If the member had referred directly to a member then the Minister who raised the point of order would be correct but it was a general comment that has been accepted on many occasions and it should be allowed to stand. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. Mr Carter is quite correct—that is the way I take it. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: National does not believe that the Minister is not aware that the first complaint was well before 1993. We do not believe that the Minister is not aware that the first complaints were handled by her own colleague Dr Michael Cullen and we do not believe that she has not been told of or at least had hinted to her Labour’s involvement in this sorry tale. It does not make sense. Allegations were made about children treated between 1983 and 1986 and the Minister did not check to see whether Labour had any involvement while in Government? Come on that just does not make sense! 
The Minister has some explaining to do. After first telling Opposition members that she was not prepared to get the Department of Child Youth and Family Services even to look at it she has now had it at least look over the archives. But it is now 1 month down the track since we had the answer to that written question and still we have not had our questions answered. One cannot say that the Minister has not had enough time to look at the files—it was 1 month ago. 
We know that Ruth Dyson is covering up for her colleagues. She knows full well the Labour Government received those first complaints. She knows full well it was the Minister of Social Welfare Dr Michael Cullen who received those first complaints. How she cannot have asked for a full brief on the Glenelg Health Camp case is impossible to imagine. No Minister being asked questions in this House about the Glenelg Health Camp in the last few months or so would have stepped in without asking for a full brief. 
She may think she is being particularly clever with her answers by saying that she has looked at available files. Time and again she has said that she has extensively checked the files and checked records that are on those files. If she has done that she will know that the first complaint was not in 1993 under a National Government but in 1989 when two of her senior colleagues were in charge of quite significant portfolios. She does not want to answer those questions because she knows now that she has painted herself into a corner and that she will have to backtrack from previous comments she has made in this House.