Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:472] 
3.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What specific evidence was the Ministry of Social Development referring to on page 22 of its latest annual report which stated: “Evidence shows that positive adult outcomes are built on positive childhood experiences and poor child outcomes can be difficult to overcome as children become adults.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I have been advised that the evidence referred to in the Ministry of Social Development’s annual report includes findings from both New Zealand and international studies. They include the development and evaluation of the Early Start programme Professor David Fergusson’s 25-year longitudinal study the Krueger study from Princeton University in New Jersey and the Leonard Masse and Barnett study from New Brunswick. 
Judith Collins 
: Is it Government policy that abuse against children is still abuse and totally repugnant whether it occurred today or many years ago; and does he support that policy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes and yes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the Minister have any evidence of any New Zealand programmes that have had success in building good child outcomes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have been advised that the evaluation of the Early Start programme in Christchurch shows that it has been very successful in lowering the incidence of behavioural problems raising early childhood attendance and reducing the numbers of Child Youth and Family Services notifications. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister think the police finding that there is a prima facie case that he assaulted at least two boys in his care might undermine his ability to be the Minister for Social Development and Employment which has amongst its central purposes to ensure the protection and safety of children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member should be aware it is entirely inappropriate for any Minister to comment on police findings in that way. 
Tariana Turia 
: How will this Minister address the fact that 250000 children who are living in poverty will not get any direct benefit from the Government’s in-work payment nor will they benefit from the raising of the threshold for family support and the reduction in the rate at which it abates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member raises a very valid issue and I am personally—and I am sure I am joined by my colleagues—very proud of the significant reduction in child poverty that we have made in New Zealand over the last 6 years and am committed to continuing those policies. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that grandparents who are lovingly raising their grandchildren in an effort to provide positive childhood experiences are important; if so why does the State fail to support those families by refusing kinship caregivers the same financial support as foster-caregivers currently receive? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I most certainly agree with and share the value that the member as indicated in her question places on grandparents who are raising their grandchildren when the children’s own parents are not able to do that. However for a long time New Zealand society has not accepted the fact that family members should be paid in the same way as non - family members for providing that sort of support. But we have made significant progress and will continue to make progress in providing more appropriate support for grandparents in that position. 
Judith Collins 
: Is he aware in his role as Minister for Social Development and Employment that often children who are victims of violence do not tell trusted adults at the time of the abuse because of the trauma fear guilt and embarrassment associated with abuse; if so would he now like to take this opportunity to apologise to his former students? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes and no. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister Trevor Mallard should not call his fellow Minister a scumbag and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not hear any comment of that sort because of the amount and level of noise in the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: My colleague did use an unparliamentary term. It was not about the Minister obviously but about the member. He should be required to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Judith Collins 
: Might a poor child outcome result from taking a motherless 14-year-old child who is living in a troubled home that is affected by family violence then subjecting that child to having his hands tied to a desk and jamming a tennis ball like this into that child’s mouth while a classroom of other children look on; if so would he now like to take another opportunity to apologise to his victim? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure that you know what the point of order is going to be. The question assumed that the Minister was guilty of that offence. The member might care to demonstrate whether it is a physical possibility by putting the tennis ball in her mouth right now—it is one of the bigger ones around the House. 
Judith Collins 
: The Acting Prime Minister has asked that I demonstrate that this ball can be put in a mouth. Here is the ball. He might like to show us by putting it in his mouth. It is a deflated tennis ball. It can be done and it was done. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is utterly outrageous particularly from somebody who ripped off the Casino Control Authority in respect of her expenses overseas. The Minister is entitled—[ 
Interruption 
] We can always make accusations in the House can we not under parliamentary privilege. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As you know there are meant to be no interruptions during anyone’s points of order and there were interruptions when members from both parties were making their points of order. The members have raised very valid points of order in terms of the nature of the question. I rule however that the member can ask the Minister that question. Just to clarify I rule that a hypothetical question can be put to a Minister. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question asked the Minister to apologise to the victim. That assumes that the matter occurred. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The hypothetical question has been put. There is an assumption in that question. The member has made that assumption. That can be addressed in the answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you explain to me what is hypothetical about the assumption that the Minister was actually guilty of the offence? I know there was an “if” at the start but if the question was: “If the Minister of Finance had taken $5 million out of the public accounts and put the money into his private account would he now care to apologise for that action?’’ well I have not done it which is pretty obvious given the nature of my clothes. 
Rodney Hide 
: I actually rise in support of the Hon Michael Cullen. Of course a hypothetical question cannot be asked in this House but the question actually was not put as a hypothetical question. Michael Cullen was making the point that it is not possible to put a tennis ball in a student’s mouth. That is actually not true; it is not easy but 19 students—in fact the entire class of that day—told the police that it did happen. The question was not hypothetical; it was an actual question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker you have now ruled on this question twice. You have given your ruling and the Leader of the House keeps challenging it and that is challenging your authority and the objectivity of the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance in this matter. A question can be phrased in hypothetical terms. It cannot be stated however as a question of fact. I ask the member so that we have total clarity on this in the House to re-ask her question in those terms. 
Judith Collins 
: Might a poor child outcome result from taking a motherless 14-year-old child who is living in a troubled home that is affected by family violence then subjecting that child to having his hands tied to a desk and jamming a tennis ball into that child’s mouth while a classroom of other children look on? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would like to make two points in relation to that question. The first is that the member should know had she read the relevant police report that those alleged events are the subject of—and I quote the words of the district commander—“conflicting evidence”. The second point is that poor outcomes for children and adults are contributed to by a number of factors including poverty insecurity in housing and lack of access to primary health care. That is why it has been a priority for our Government to reduce those factors and to support children young people and families to develop the resilience to overcome such situations. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Might a poor outcome also result from suddenly being subjected to continual bullying at school as for example a number of people were by Aaron Tasker Phil Weaver and most of all Gordon Anderson—three of the people who were responsible for those accusations against the Hon David Benson-Pope? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can absolutely confirm that that is correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Question No. 4 Jeanette Fitzsimons. [ 
Interruption 
] I remind members that if they wish to remain in the House for the rest of the session when a question is called it is heard in silence please.