4. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Who from his office supplied parts of the police files involving historic allegations against him to the Herald on Sunday, and did he authorise that action by his office?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
It is clear from my press release of 4 December that I authorised my press secretary to give a briefing to the Herald on Sunday.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question was put down on notice, so the Minister had some considerable time to look at that question, but that was not a complete answer to the two parts of the question that were asked. I suggest to you that, to have some discipline in question time, a question on notice should be answered.
Madam SPEAKERWhere did the Minister’s staff member get the police report from, and what instructions did the Minister give his staff member about the release of that material?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
The report came from the CD-ROM that we had obtained from central police in Wellington. Although I was not aware of any restraint placed on me with regard to the files in my possession, in hindsight I recognise that releasing details was not the wisest course of action.
At what point on Sunday did he learn that his office had misled the media about the leak of the police file, and why did he not issue a statement clarifying his position as soon as he realised that selected parts of the report had been leaked?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
At some time on Sunday afternoon, as soon as I was made aware of that issue, I had it corrected. As the Prime Minister commented earlier, the staff member involved was in error, and it is now a staff disciplinary matter.
Was the Dominion Post report of Saturday, 3 December correct when it stated: “Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope has asked police to withhold parts of a report into allegations that he bullied pupils while he was a teacher.”; if so, what was the nature of those deletions?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
As part of an Official Information Act process, I have every right—as does any other individual when a report is being considered for release—to ask for material to be deleted. The only material that my lawyer or I asked to be removed was to do with matters that were completely irrelevant to the investigation.
Does he understand why people might think he is deceitful, when he states that the release of the police report is in the hands of the police, then his office leaks it; when he states he is not available for comment, yet he releases selected highlights that favour him; and when he says he is no longer restrained in speaking to the media, then refuses all invitations to do so; if not, does he accept that the people of New Zealand can no longer have any confidence in him as a Cabinet Minister?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Can I stress that the analysis that was released was in no way selective. I do—[ Interruption] I will happily request leave to table that analysis at the end of this question time. Can I stress that I believe I have acted in a perfectly upfront way in all matters, and have not been deceitful.
Does the Minister agree that by his actions he misled the media, he misled the public of New Zealand, and he has misled his parliamentary colleagues, and will he now simply do the decent thing and resign?
I seek leave to table an excerpt from the police report. This is the report from Detective Sergeant Inglis. It has 10 pages, and it is the report that the Prime Minister did not have time to read.
I seek leave to table a document that was handed out by staff from Mr Benson-Pope’s office in the press gallery yesterday, entitled The Weaver File: New Evidence. These are the excerpts.
I seek leave to table a transcript of the Radio New Zealand Morning Report interview that the Prime Minister has today referred us to in relation to so-called legal advice from Mr Benson-Pope’s lawyer.
In light of the police report released yesterday on CD-ROM, does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on 12 May, where he said: “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.”, and: “I am quite happy to confirm”—[ Interruption] Well, Mr Peters can sit on the side and try to chip. He has done it three times, and I actually look to you, Madam Speaker, for some protection. I am entitled to ask a question without interruption.
There is always too much chatter when people are asking the questions, so I ask members to keep their comments to themselves. I ask Mr Hide to please repeat his question.
My question—[ Interruption] He has just done it again. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has just done it again despite your advice that he should not be doing it.
I did not even hear the interruption, and I apologise for that. I ask the Minister to please refrain from any comment, and I ask the member to complete his question, please.
In light of the police report on the CD-ROM that was released yesterday, does the Minister stand by the statements he made in this House on 12 May in respect of the two claims of assault that “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.”, and that “I am quite happy to confirm, and repeat, my statement earlier that I have not been guilty of, or involved in, any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher.”; in light of the police report, if he does stand by these claims, why does he?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I am pleased to confirm that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened.
Which statement does the Minister stand by: his one to the House on 12 May 2005, when he said in respect of the tennis ball allegation: “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.”, or the statement he made in a press release a day ago: “I have no recollection of these events, and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” And is his softer tone a result of nine former pupils saying that it did happen, and the police believing them, not him?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I must repeat for the member that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We actually have ourselves now in a very difficult situation, because the Minister has actually changed his answer without personal explanation. What he told the House on 12 May was that it did not happen. He did not say that once, he did not say it twice, and he did not say it three times; he denied it categorically four times, in no uncertain terms.
What he is actually trying to say now in the House, to avoid having a breach of privilege raised against him within time, is that he cannot recall. If that is going to be his answer, he needs to correct his original statement to the House. The Minister is quite entitled to make a personal explanation, and he needs to be clear about what he is saying. Is he denying the charges categorically, as he did on 12 May, or is he now telling the House that he cannot remember?
I thank the member for his point of order. The Minister is required to address the question. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of that reply; that is for others to do. The matter that the member has raised is, of course, a debatable matter, and could be refuted in the context of the debate. I would remind not only that member but all members who are raising points of order that question time is not the time for debate, and that the Speaker cannot reopen question time that took place in May, when that matter was, in fact, debated.
The Minister does not have ministerial responsibility for his teaching at that time. He is responsible only for actions as a Minister. Maybe the member would like to rephrase her question.
Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House on 12 May 2005 that the incident did not happen, or are the nine people who say it did happen lying?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are again getting into the situation where Ministers burn up supplementary questions from this side of the House by failing even to address the question. I think three or four supplementary questions were asked and the Minister did not address them. This is a very, very important point in this House. The Minister was asked whether he stood by his statement, and had those nine people committed perjury. It is an important point because either they have committed perjury, or the Minister has misled the House and the three former students who are supporting him have committed perjury. This is a very important point.
I thank the member for repeating a previous point of order. The Minister did address the question. The answer may not have been satisfactory to members; that is for others to judge. But he is perfectly entitled, as all Ministers are, to repeat an answer to a previous question. That is addressing the question, when the question that was asked was similar to the one before.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you not simply ask the Minister to give a straight answer to a straight question, instead of this mucking around?
The member knows that that is not a point of order, and it is not for the Speaker to take that responsibility. It is for members to ask questions, and it is for Ministers to respond to them in the context of the Standing Orders. As members know, and as has been repeated many times, it is not the Speaker who is the judge of the quality of the questions or the answers.
Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on 12 May 2005 concerning the tennis ball incident that “I find such allegations ridiculous, and I refute them.”; can he please give us a straight answer?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
For the member’s benefit, I repeat that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events, or do not believe they happened. Furthermore, I would add that the police made the decision not to prosecute, and that is where the matter lies.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does he see any connection between the leader of the National Party’s inability to remember a conversation with senators a matter of months ago, and the Minister’s inability to remember something that happened 20 years ago?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I do not believe I have responsibility for the memory loss problems of the Leader of the Opposition.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is why you would ever allow that question to be asked in this House, when it was clearly out of order. We sit here trying to get a straight answer, yet that member can put an incorrect question that does not comply with the Standing Orders—it was clearly outside the Standing Orders. I was actually waiting for you to rule it out. It was clearly out of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Surely the point at issue is the question of someone’s memory. All I am asking is if someone cannot remember a conversation he had with such senior and august people as senators from the United States a matter of months ago, is it fair, by comparison or by way of connection, to liken that to someone who cannot remember what happened 20 years ago?
Thank you; I thank members. That was not a point of order. As members know, and as has been ruled upon before, members are entitled to ask hypothetical questions. That question was hypothetical, and a response was given. But I would say to members that there are times when perhaps such questions would be better not asked. We shall now move on.