Social Development and Employment, Minister—Complaints

Does he accept that complaints asserting that he acted inappropriately as a teacher were made against him, and that his then headmaster, Bruce Leadbetter, had conversations with him about those complaints; if not, why not?

Had the House allowed me to make my personal explanation, I would have discussed and traversed those matters, but I can tell the member that I do not believe that anything I did was outside the school policy at the time.

Would the Minister now like to take this opportunity to revise his statement on 12 May 2005 when he asserted that he was not guilty of any inappropriate behaviour, and that he was not aware of any complaints made against him?

I think that question, from listening to it, asked the Minister to respond to a matter for which he is not responsible at this time, but for which he was responsible in a previous capacity. Would the member like to reconsider it?

Peters Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister referred to the statement of 12 May 2005 in the answer he gave to the previous supplementary question, so I think that if you consider my question, you will find it is in order.

The problem with the proposition put to you, Madam Speaker, by the member from the National Party is that Mr Benson-Pope is now being invited to do what National members denied him leave to do. That is totally inappropriate and it trivialises the proceedings of this House. Why did they oppose leave in the first place?

That is not a point of order. The Minister may answer. But the question as I heard it—and maybe the member would like to repeat it—was in an Associate Minister of Education capacity, which the Minister does not have at the moment. I ask the member to please redirect the question, so that there is direct responsibility for it.

Does the Minister accept that the complaints that he denied on 12 May 2005 are such that they would affect his ability to carry out his job as the Minister for Social Development and Employment?

No, and I remain convinced that my conduct as a teacher was not inappropriate. However, I do accept that the concerns of some former students were genuinely held, and to them I offer an apology for any upset.

Can the Minister understand why many are sceptical that he has no recollection of complaints laid against him, when the former principal of Bayfield High School states that he had discussed the complaint with him and school policies were actually changed as a result of those complaints about his behaviour?

I think that the member is again going back to matters for which the Minister is not responsible now. Would she like to comply with the Standing Orders. The Minister is responsible for matters at the moment as the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

Does the Minister agree with the views of John Armstrong, writing in today’s New Zealand Herald that: “Beneficiaries are obliged to be straight about their personal circumstances in their dealings with Work and Income.”; and, later: “… Mr Benson-Pope has lost all power of moral suasion in the portfolio.”; if not, why not?

No, and had I been able to give my personal explanation I would have traversed a number of those matters.

What is so special about this Minister that he does not have to meet the same standards of honesty as those expected of beneficiaries?

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

I do not know what is special about this Minister, but I do believe that I am a hard-working and an honest Minister.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice during that question exchange the Minister expressed the desire to make a statement to the House. Mr Peters suggested that it was our problem that he did not. The reality is that a Minister can make a statement to the House at any time. We would certainly not block the Minister from making a ministerial statement now.