Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

I have had discussions with the Minister of Health regarding the number of drug-resistant TB cases found in New Zealand. I am informed that 16 cases of multidrug-resistant TB have been diagnosed in New Zealand since 1995. Of those cases, I am advised that 15 were contracted outside New Zealand, and one was contracted on shore from a close family member who was already infected.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned about the incidence of this deadly multidrug-resistant tuberculosis known as MDRTB—the number of cases of which have doubled since 1995—and that most cases are brought in by immigrants infected overseas, when, in fact, the provisions of our law would prevent that from happening?

Yes, I am concerned about that, and that is why the Government has toughened up the screening programme.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Immigration Service website state that generally an application is declined if a person has active TB or is taking TB drugs, when this deadly, infectious disease, known as MDRTB, is 100 times more expensive than normal TB to treat, with no guarantee of a cure, and New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research describes it as “a horrible, horrible disease to treat”; and why has the Government not done something to ensure we have blocks in place to prevent it from happening in our country?

For a start, as I said to the member before, advanced screening is being done now. The reality is that it is a deadly disease—there is no question about that—but it is not incurable. There are ways of resolving it; it just takes more time. The reality is that people will not get entry into New Zealand, if they are diagnosed as having TB.

💬 Nanaia Mahuta: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from catching TB from people entering this country under our immigration rules?

TB screening for quota refugees, who are all from high-incidence countries, was introduced during the 2002-03 year. The new TB-screening rules already apply to all student applications received on or after 1 April 2004. That means that all students who come from a high-incidence country, and who intend to be in New Zealand for more than 6 months, must be cleared before entry. From November this year, that requirement will be extended to visitors and workers from high-incidence countries, as well.

Child, Youth and Family Services, Department—Monitoring of Critically Ill Child

9. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Was the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services monitoring the care of the 6-week-old baby boy reported to be in Starship Children’s Hospital in a critical condition, and had the department been doing so since the baby’s birth?

The baby’s two siblings are in foster care, and therefore when the baby was born a new assessment was automatically initiated. The identified risks to the baby did not indicate that his immediate removal was necessary. His mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. The factors that caused her other children to be taken into care were not their physical or sexual abuse, but were due to the detrimental living environment she was in at the time, and that situation had changed in the intervening time period.

💬 Katherine Rich: Given that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services had deemed that mother to be unfit to look after her two children because of her neglect of them, why, suddenly, was she deemed able to look after a baby?

The mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. I am sure that in this instance, as in any other instance, the considerations are very difficult for social workers to go through. But they identified the risks to that baby, and did not decide that immediate removal of that child was necessary.

💬 Sue Bradford: Can the Minister advise on what improvements have occurred in the department’s social work practice, as a result of the employment of around 90 or more additional social workers and the expenditure of up to an additional $127 million by the Government?

Yes, I can report a number of very positive moves that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has been able to initiate with the recent employment of over 90 social workers, and with a further 56 coming into the department from 1 July, including a reduction in the number of unallocated cases on the department’s case list, despite record numbers of notifications over the last 6 months.

💬 Judy Turner: Why has the department ignored the lessons of the Aplin, Jetson, and Burrows cases, where reports on those deaths stressed the vital importance of assessing the danger to other children in at-risk situations, or is the department still stuck in the dangerous mode of having “a single incident focus” that was lamented by the baseline review team?

In the particular instance raised in the primary question, I do not think it is fair at all to say that the lessons of the Aplin and Jetson case have been ignored. In my view, this would have been a very difficult decision for the social workers concerned to make. But it does reflect what I am sure all members of this House would want the department to be working towards, and that is not a situation whereby whenever a parent who has been neglectful in the past says he or she is now trying to be a good parent we say no, that person will never be a good parent. We will try to do everything we can to improve the parenting skills of those parents, and to change and improve their lifestyles, so that they can be good parents in the future.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: In light of section 39 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, which enables the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services to remove a child if there is any likelihood at all that the child could suffer from harm, what investigation is under way to determine what went wrong in this case, and when will the results be available?

As I said, the initial assessment of the potential risk to the baby was initiated as soon as the baby was born, due to the fact that his two siblings are already in foster care. Monitoring was then undertaken in collaboration with the nursing staff from the local hospital. Two social workers visited the baby at his home on the day after he arrived home. A nurse also visited the baby on that day at a different time. She visited again 3 days later, and reported to the social worker that the child appeared well. It was when the nurse visited a third time—8 days after he went home—that the injuries were seen and arrangements were made immediately for his admission to Starship Children’s Hospital. As in all these cases, a report on the incident and the practices concerned will be delivered in due course.

💬 Katherine Rich: Did the department regularly monitor the baby’s care since birth, given that the department had already removed two siblings from that mother because of serious neglect, and how many times did a social worker personally visit, see the baby, and view its care?

For the first 6 weeks or so of the baby’s life he was in hospital, because he was born prematurely. He was discharged home 8 days prior to his admission to Starship Children’s Hospital. He had visitors from social workers on the first day after he arrived home. A nurse also visited on that day at a different time. She visited again, as arranged with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, 3 days later, to ensure that both the medical needs of the premature baby and the assessment of the risk factors for the mother were considered, and the nurse reported to the department’s social worker that there appeared to be no difficulties in the parenting arrangements that were in place. The nurse then visited for a third time 8 days afterwards. The social worker was scheduled to visit later that day, but in the intervening time the baby was admitted to hospital.

💬 Sue Bradford: Can the Minister advise what kinds of systems, if any, are in place for Department of Child, Youth and Family Services social workers to advise, support, and perhaps educate parents who have had their children removed into statutory care, and prior to them having another baby or taking on the care of another child?

I frankly think that is an area in which we do not have enough strength in the department. Of course, it is not the department’s primary responsibility to deliver such services itself, but I believe that better engagement with other social service agencies that do provide parenting programmes and support is warranted.

💬 Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that had the 26-year-old mother in this case had access to the full range of voluntary and community services that would have been provided through a family support coordinator, as proposed by United Future’s proposal to reform the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, then at least those voluntary agencies might have picked up on the risks to the 6-week-old when her department failed, and these tragic events might have been avoided; if not, why not?

It does seem as though additional support was warranted. It is very difficult to assess the impact that additional support would have had if it had been provided, but obviously any engagement with organisations that are providing parenting support, education, and advice is a good idea.

💬 Katherine Rich: Will the Minister rebut concerns that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has made a huge mistake in allowing this baby to be cared for by a mother who has already had two children removed due to serious neglect, and that it should have removed the child under section 39 of the Act or, at the very least, kept the baby’s care under constant supervision over the 8 days it was in the mother’s care?

On the information that I have to date—and obviously a fuller report will be coming to me eventually—it does appear as though all the risk factors were correctly assessed, and the risk to this child was not considered such that his immediate removal from the family home was justified.

Tyres—Disposal

10. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to protect the environment from the growing problem of discarded used tyres?

New Zealanders get rid of 3 million to 4 million tyres a year. Often they end up in our rivers and gullies or in dangerous heaps in the countryside. The Motor Trade Association and I this morning launched Tyre Track to reduce the risk of old tyres being dumped illegally. This is a great example of the Government working in partnership with industry to keep our environment clean—no legislation, no taxes, and the problem on the way to being retired!

💬 David Parker: How is the Government helping to ensure that more old tyres are reused or recycled instead of just ending up in the landfill?

A number of businesses are already turning old tyres into anything from playground mats to erosion control walls. Matta Products Ltd in Ōtaki is an excellent example. The Ministry for the Environment is working with recyclers and companies large and small to ensure a steady stream of tyres are reused or recycled instead of just being landfills.

💬 Mike Ward: What is the Minister proposing, to address the issue of tyres being imported either new or used, on cars or off cars, and why has she opted for a voluntary scheme when dealers were asking for a mandatory scheme?

Over half a million used tyres are imported into New Zealand annually and many more come in on used vehicles. It is possible that these imports account for up to half our waste stream. Tyre Track will help to provide us with some statistics about this issue that can be used to determine a way forward with industry. It may be that they can all be reused.

Prisoners—Rehabilitation Programmes

11. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Corrections: What analysis has been done on the effectiveness of the Public Prison Service’s rehabilitation programmes on repeat offenders?

Extensive analysis has provided ample evidence that treatment programmes provided by the Department of Corrections significantly reduce reoffending. For example, studies of the department’s Kia Mārama and Te Piriti sex offender programmes have consistently shown that those programmes halve the rate of reoffending in terms of sex offences against children. Programmes to reduce violent offending have been shown to reduce violent offending by approximately 17 percent over a 2-year period. Although, of course, not all repeat offenders will be rehabilitated, these results show that the department’s rehabilitation programmes are helping to reduce reoffending.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Minister so convinced, when official information from his department now shows that over one-third of all violent inmates are serving at least their third stretch in prison; and does that not convince him that the parole system is not working?

Not at all. The reality is that the repeat reoffending the member has mentioned has been around under Governments over many, many years. What the department is doing now, particularly with violent-offending programmes, is actually reduce reoffending rates. I am confident that, with more effort, more reductions will occur.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Can the Minister detail to the House what success the Department of Corrections is having in preventing offenders from recycling back into prisons?

The Department of Corrections does good work in this area. The percentage of released inmates returning to prison within 2 years of release was over 37 percent in both 1999 and 2000, around the time that the member opposite was in Government, but reduced to 34 percent in 2001. I am currently developing a coordinated reintegration programme that is designed to reduce even further the number of ex-prisoners returning to prison.

💬 Ron Mark: What does it say about prison rehabilitation that 60 percent of the new inmates entering prison this year have been there before; and in the light of the revelations now, does the Minister now accept that his integrated offender management system is failing, and it is time to implement New Zealand First’s legislation of “three strikes and you’re out”?

In response to the second part of the question, no. In response to the first part, of course it is not just the prison or corrections system that is responsible for people returning; there is a much wider responsibility than that. The reality is that the programmes the member criticises have been quite effective in helping to reduce reoffending. I would hope the member would support those programmes, rather than bagging them all the time.

💬 Stephen Franks: Can the Minister guarantee to us that the three criminals referred to in the report recently released from the ministry who were returned to prison after more than 20 previous prison sentences were not out on parole at the times of their latest crimes; and how many second chances, after 20, should a criminal get before the Government learns that it ought not trust him or her on parole again?

In answer to the first question, I cannot guarantee that, because I am not sure. In answer to the second question, under the guidance of the Minister of Justice the length of time that people are serving in prisons has increased, which is why I, as the Minister of Corrections, have had to find $600 million for four new prisons.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: If rehabilitation and parole have not worked once, twice, three times, or even 21 separate times, when will the Government realise that these repeat offenders should not be getting parole, which they are violating upon release?

The department does its best, but the reality is that if that member wants to lock up everybody, he will need a whole lot more prisons—presumably, in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, where the member lives.

💬 Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a series of questions put to the Minister regarding an evaluation report of the integrated offender management system—a report that he is now refusing to make available to the public.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Are those parliamentary written questions?

💬 Ron Mark: Yes, they are parliamentary questions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those questions. Is there any objection? There is.

Human Rights Act—Political Parties

12. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does the Government have any plans to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to allow political parties to discriminate on the basis of religious belief or sexual orientation; if not, why not?

No, there has been no call to date to amend the legislation in this respect.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware of the situation of Dipra Ray, who was reportedly discriminated against in the selection of a youth MP, on the grounds that he was Hindu and not Christian, by a member of the United Future party; and what is her view of such discrimination?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as it relates to the Minister’s portfolio, she may answer.

Yes, I am aware of the article. Any further action to be taken would be up to the person concerned through the Human Rights Commission.

💬 Darren Hughes: Could a potential candidate take a complaint against a political party to the Human Rights Commission because of non-selection based on either religious belief or sexual orientation?

Yes, he or she could. But it would depend on the particular details of the case. It must be pointed out that political parties are not explicitly covered in the Act, except in relation to their employees or the provision of goods and services—just like any other organisation.

💬 Marc Alexander: Does the Government have any plans to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to accommodate the views of political parties such as the Green Party, which debated at a conference several years ago whether our domestic pussy cats have rights; if not, why not?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: So far as it relates to the Minister’s portfolio, she may answer.

As a lover of cats I say that no, there is no call to date to amend the legislation in this respect.

💬 Metiria Turei: Has the Minister seen any reports that suggest that the desire to discriminate on the grounds of religion is associated with the desire to discriminate on the grounds of sexual preference; and is she concerned that some political parties may want to send New Zealand back to the 19th century when such discrimination was widely practised and tolerated?

The grounds that prohibit discrimination under the Human Rights Act do not, in fact, include political parties except in relation to employment. Any other matters or views relating to the actions described would be personal.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with 16-year-old Dipra Ray when he said: “You expect that, in a country where you preach about equality and all that stuff, that you will be able to at least practise it.”; and does she have any concerns about the state of human rights in New Zealand when an Auckland teenager seems to have a better grasp of human rights than some political parties?

One can understand his intense disappointment after having assumed he was going to come as part of the Youth Parliament. Undoubtedly from this experience he will know that there is a Human Rights Act, and that there is the possibility, if that Act needs to be changed, of a process through which that can happen. It will be a matter for this House to determine, ultimately.