Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13709] 
3.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her earlier statements that she had “checked the file” and conducted “extensive searching of the available records” in relation to complaints about medical examinations at the Glenelg Health Camp prior to answering oral and written questions about the role of the ministry and the Minister; if so does she stand by her answers to those questions? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I do. But as I advised that member in answer to question for written answer 6779 the department is currently searching archives for any material that would assist me to provide a full answer to that written question. The following further documents have so far been located. In February 1988 there was a ruling by District Court Judge McAloon against allegations of sexual abuse by Dr Espie. In November 1988 there was a circular letter from Parents Against Injustice Society (NZ) (PAIN) received by the then social welfare Minister Dr Michael Cullen after being sent to the Prime Minister calling for a ministerial inquiry. In April 1989 there was a letter from the then social welfare Minister Michael Cullen to PAIN advising that he had asked for an independent review of a case where allegations of sexual abuse were disputed. Subsequently on that day there is a press release issued by Michael Cullen confirming that concern caused by the inadequacy of evidence in a number of cases had led him to ask Judge Ken Mason to conduct an independent inquiry into them and to make recommendations as he saw fit. In November 1989 there was the first report from Judge Mason setting out his review where his findings had been based solely on the papers and stating that the present series of complaints did not constitute grounds for a ministerial inquiry. In January 1990 there was a letter from the then Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer stating he did not believe a ministerial inquiry was appropriate. In October 1990 there was a further letter from Judge Ken Mason to Michael Cullen updating his previous report and stating that he had received and reviewed further information and had met with complainants. He stated: “… my tentative view is that in these cases also there is no cogent evidence to justify ministerial intervention.” In 28 October 1990 there is a letter to the then new Prime Minister Jim Bolger asking him to initiate an inquiry which was transferred to the then social welfare Minister Jenny Shipley. On 7 December 1990 there is the official second report by Judge Ken Mason to Jenny Shipley stating: “I have given anxious consideration as to whether a formal ministerial inquiry should be initiated. In my view … no grounds exist which would justify that course.” There is a letter at the end of January 1992 from former Prime Minister Jim Bolger to PAIN stating there was no evidence of inappropriate action on which a ministerial inquiry should be based. He reported to the Government that nearly all the cases had been subject to thorough scrutiny by the courts and it was difficult in the light of that to justify an inquiry on the scale that was suggested. At the end of January 1993 there is a further letter from the then Prime Minister Jim Bolger stating: “I cannot justify holding an inquiry of the kind you would like.” 
 I will be seeking leave at the end of this question to table those documents with the exception of the first one: the District Court judgment which I understand is still subject to the leave of that court. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why has the Minister miraculously found all this information which has been asked for over a period of some months and will she confirm to the House that when she told us that she had “checked the file” and that there had been extensive searching of the available records she had not actually checked the entire Glenelg Health Camp file; and if not why did she not check the entire file at the time? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can confirm that I have not personally opened any of the boxes in which this material has been found but I can repeat my agreement with both that member and Deborah Coddington who has also been asking questions on this issue that as any further information comes to light it will be made public. This is the first question I have been asked in the House and I have provided all the information. Further information may well come to light following today. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister asked her to clarify whether she had checked the file as she told us in the House. She did not answer that question. I am interested in her comment that she had “checked the file” and whether she had done so because it would appear that she had not and that she has misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought that the Minister did address the question. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seemed apparent to me—and I am sure to many other members—that the Minister was prepared to respond to the point of order raised by Katherine Rich and I wonder whether she should be allowed to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it was a point of order. That is very different from a question. If the Minister were prepared to respond to a question I would allow her to do so. That was a point of order and I did not need any further assistance on it. I took advice and accepted it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What were Judge Mason’s recommendations following his review? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Judge Mason conducted two reviews of the alleged sexual abuse cases. After the first review completed in November 1989 he concluded that the present series of complaints did not constitute good grounds for a ministerial inquiry. However he said that the complainants should have the opportunity to elaborate or expand on their complaints. After considering that additional information and meeting with the complainants he issued a second report in December 1990 again concluding that no grounds existed that would justify a formal ministerial inquiry. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement to the House on 13 May when she said: “I have looked very carefully at the very issue raised by the member in her question because I am aware that the alleged abuse occurred in 1987. The first incident that is reported within the Ministry of Health system is 1993.”; and if she now concedes that that answer is not correct will she withdraw her answer correct it and apologise to the House? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That was a question in relation of the Ministry of Health’s files and is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. Today I am answering questions as the Minister responsible for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and I am not able to answer on behalf of the Minister of Health in this instance. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very interesting reply. The Minister seems to be saying that if she gave an answer on behalf of another Minister that is demonstrably false she has no responsibility for correcting that answer or apologising. That seems to be to be an interesting situation because I suspect that the Minister of Health does not feel that she is under any obligation to correct an answer that is wrong. The whole House now realises that the answer has to be wrong because we listened to the long answer that went back to long before 1993. I would like to know whether the responsibility that Speakers have said is on Ministers to correct answers falls only upon the principal Minister or whether it falls upon the Minister who stood in the House and gave the answer because one or the other of them ought to be correcting the record. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The first answer given by the Minister related to a search of the health files. It was accurate in terms of the search at that point. The Minister has ordered further work to be done since then investigating the social welfare files. Confusion may arise because of course the Glenelg Health Camp operated under health or did at that point whereas the issues of sexual abuse operated under the then Department of Social Welfare at that time. I thank the Minister also for allowing me to see the documentation to remind me about something I had completely forgotten about in the intervening 15 years. A little bit has gone on in that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say to the member that it is a hypothetical point that he is raising. I do not think that was what the Minister was actually saying. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister made the statement to the House: “I have checked the file.”—not officials—and that there had been “extensive searching of the available records” what does she say when she has read correspondence that shows that Michael Cullen then Minister of Social Welfare wrote a formal ministerial directive to the then Director-General of Social Welfare on 25 October 1989 asking him to commission Judge Ken Mason to review some Glenelg Health Camp cases that the Minister said had “disturbing features” which the Minister “wanted checked out”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can confirm that on that date after extensive searching of the files of the former Department of Social Welfare and of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services all the information that was made available to me was outlined in this House. The earliest one was 1993 and I did then and subsequently assure the House that if any further information was made available it would be made public. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister received any information or indeed reports on how the then National Government of the day responded to Judge Ken Mason’s reviews? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The then National Government took no further action in response to Judge Ken Mason’s second report stating that he did not think a ministerial inquiry was justified. In January 1992 former Prime Minister Jim Bolger wrote to one of the complainants stating that there was no evidence of inappropriate actions by an agent or official on which a ministerial inquiry should be based and nothing to justify such an inquiry. A year later he repeated that view in a letter to another member of Parents Against Injustice. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why does the Minister keep repeating that as Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) she has only just started searching the file when she has refused to respond to my Official Information Act request of 16 March requesting all the information going back to 1983 regarding complaints about Glenelg Health Camp and to my repeated requests on 14 May for the same information; or is it just that she is involved in a cover-up of two senior Ministers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I did not ever say what the member alleged at the start of her supplementary question. As I said the archives are still being searched. Further information may well become available. What I have provided to the House is all the further information that is available to me up until this date. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that at the time a press statement was issued by myself as Minister of Social Welfare and that media interviews were given; if so is it not a bit late to engage in a cover-up? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am sure that members of the public at that time found both the content and the way in which the Minister of Social Welfare at the time presented the information as riveting as we currently do with his media interviews. 
Katherine Rich 
: If media interviews were given at the time press releases were issued and there is now apparently a lot of information that has turned up from the archives why did the Minister continue to maintain that the first allegation was in 1993 under National’s time in Government; and why did she continue to ignore the Labour Government’s involvement if it was not to cover up for senior colleagues who she knew received the first allegations? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member has missed the point entirely. I provided the House with the information that I had available to me at the time. If I had known of any other correspondence or any other Minister’s involvement regardless of whatever party political affiliation that Minister had I would have provided that information to the House at the time. I seek leave to table the documents I outlined in my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table all the documents referred to. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an important point to clarify. Obviously we would not want to block leave for those documents to be released but we do know that recently in a similar situation with a written question on the Minister’s other portfolio responsibility a number of names of persons that should not be released were attached and we had to send it back so that those names were not released. Could we have an assurance from the Minister that in the correspondence she has on her desk ready for release there are no names of persons who are adversely affected by this case? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I would certainly think that is sensible. I would just raise the point that that would not include the name of former MP Jim Gerard who quite properly brought this matter to my attention confidentially. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table a ministerial directive from Michael Cullen to the then Director-General of Social Welfare pointing to disturbing features about the Glenelg Health Camp case. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.