|
|
Moral Panic - Child Sexual Abuse |
|
|
|
|
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. 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. 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 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 sent 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. |
