Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13289] 
12.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: On what date did the Ministry of Education first become aware of serious allegations of sexual abuse against the principal of HatoPaora College? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The acting principal on behalf of the board of trustees formally notified the Ministry of Education on 3 August 2007. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the ministry in fact knew 2 days earlier that the serious allegations had surfaced because of media calls received by a senior media adviser in the ministry that gave a full detailed account of these allegations; and if his ministry’s first priority is as he has told the House to seek immediate assurance that the students of the school are safe why did the ministry passively wait 2 days for the school to call—why did no one pick up the phone? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am advised that the ministry was asked two questions by the media on 1 August. Firstly it was asked whether it was aware of allegations of misconduct against the principal which it was not. Secondly it was asked whether there is a requirement on schools to report such allegations to the ministry—which again there is not as these are employment matters that are properly the preserve of boards of trustees. The ministry is able to offer advice in such cases but it was not asked for assistance in this case. Schools are obliged as I have repeated many times in this House in the last 2 weeks to report such allegations to Child Youth and Family and the police which HatoPaora College did. 
Dianne Yates 
: Did the school the Ministry of Education Child Youth and Family and the police follow the 1996 inter-agency protocols for child abuse management in this case? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes. I am advised that allegations were made to the school on 23 July and it conducted its employment investigation and reported it in writing to Child Youth and Family on 30 July. Child Youth and Family received and logged this advice on 1 August and reported it to the police as it is required to do on 3 August. The school also reported the allegations and the outcome of its inquiry to the Ministry of Education on 3 August even though this was not required under the 1996 protocols. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm then that the date the Ministry of Education first knew of these allegations was not 3 August but 1 August? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that a call was lodged with the Ministry of Education by a journalist. I would also like the House to be aware that calls to the ministry concerning complaints about teachers are very common. On 3 August the ministry was officially informed by the board of trustees—which it was not required to be. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the House conclude that there has to be a formal complaint not just a heads-up from the media or a call from the public—that the ministry will sit there twiddle its thumbs and do nothing until the school makes a call—and can the Minister tell the House what would have happened if the school had never made that call? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is astonishing how this story keeps changing all the time. The bottom line is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a serious matter. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is a very serious matter involving very serious issues with children and a school. The protocol signed in 1996 during a period of National Government and adhered to ever since provides that a board of trustees is required to inform Child Youth and Family. So it is not the ministry that is required to do so but Child Youth and Family. In this case it did. Child Youth and Family was then required to inform the police and it did so. The police then reviewed the evidence that the board of trustees had looked at and it said that the board had come to the right conclusion. New evidence came later. The member keeps trying to hook the Ministry of Education into this. The Ministry of Education is not part of this. It offers support to schools and it has been doing that with this school. The school was not even required to inform the ministry but it did so on 3 August. The school has been providing support but this is business between the board of trustees Child Youth and Family and the police. It is also a case that is before the courts and it should be allowed to go its course without interference from headline-seeking politicians in this House. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can we conclude from those answers that if the ministry becomes aware of serious sex offence allegations made against the principal of a school by whatever means the ministry is not obliged to do anything—it is not obliged to pick up the phone or ensure that the school puts the complaint in the hands of the police—and that the ministry basically can just sit there gather the information and do nothing even though it is the leader of education in this country? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Once again the member is trying to twist this into something negative against the ministry. Protocols in place since 1996 give boards of trustees a clear responsibility to carry out a series of actions. The ministry checks that boards have those protocols in place. At HatoPaora College they were checked and they were in place. The board did all the right things that it was supposed to do. Rules that have been around since 1996—since that member’s party was in Government; they are good rules—had been well followed. The matter was acted on promptly. It is not— 
Katherine Rich 
: It was not—it was 10 days later. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member is still yelling out. She is not listening. I would like to assure the member that the rules were followed and that the case was done correctly. Let us let this case stay before the courts to get this sorry business resolved.