More DBP lies
November 30th, 2005 at 7:13 am by David FarrarDavid Benson-Pope seems to be subscribing to the school of thought which is “Why tell the truth, when a lie will suffice?”
Last week he cowered away from the House, and said it was because he did not think there would be any questions for him – a claim not even a moron would believe.
And now this week he is still cowering away, so timid and scared that he can’t even face a select committee. And his reason for not fronting up is because he claims it is the Chief Executive’s job.
As G-Man has pointed out, it is not just normal practice for the Minister and the Chief Executive to front up, it is almost unheard of for the Minister not to be there.
UPDATE: Some readers have made the point, which is not unreasonable, that when it is a financial review, not an estimate, it is less common for a Minister to attend. Standing Orders do not clarify that this is the case. Of course DBP could still choose to front and get the issue dealt with. Instead I am sure his Chief Exec will just have to fend off all the questions by themselves on his behalf.
UPDATE2: The Dominion Post reports that Benson-Pope’s predecessor, Steve Maharey, did attend the Select Committee with his Chief Executive for two of the last three times.
Related posts:
- Most questions this session
- Operational Matters and PQs
- Hypocrisy and lies on state sector CEO salaries
- Lies, damn lies and more lies
November 30th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Can one can assume he is acting with the benefit of advice received from his party?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:10 am
He seems to be making the best choice to me.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:11 am
Oops, I meant “the Labour party”. See, even got me confused
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 10:03 am
I think this is great – Benson-dope is the new Hawkins – he is setting himself up to be punched from every angle, and all the while Clark will be proclaiming he is a hard working and competant minister.
Eventually the kidney punches will tell and he and the labour party will be urinating blood. – Ditto on all above for Winston as well.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 10:49 am
I agree with Peter McK, if DBP was as innocent as he claims to be, he could manfully front-up to the questions. This tactic is just going to make the sharks hungrier.
Maybe the MPs need to force him into the committee room and tape his hands down.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:05 am
Muldoon would not behave like this. What I liked about the old bastard is that he may have been nasty and looked terrible but one never doubted his courage to front up. BP seems to think the best plan is to avoid it, well he will do nothing for his long term political reputation through this behavior.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Prehaps he was playing tennis.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Get your facts right Farrar. It is normal practice for Ministers not to attend financial review hearings. Financial reviews are where departments account for how well they are delivering the outputs that have been purchased. CEs are responsible for that and front select committees. You and G-man are talking out of your arses.
Estimates hearings are where ministers front up to select committees to account for their portfolios.
try having a look at the little green book with the standing orders in it some time and wipe the dribble off your chin.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Phil Bell, you’re exactly right. These stupid right-wingers are just throwing mud in a pathetic attempt to damage Labour’s reputation. G-man talks a load of shit, his posts are full of things he would like to believe are true but with no evidence. David Farrar links to anything that accuses Labour of being bad because it makes his blog more popular. Asking David Benson-Pope to waste his time going to the debating chamber and select committee is absolutely stupid, and Margaret Wilson was obviously correct not to accept Rodney Hide’s pathetic request, which would just have given the Right more to wank over.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
I’m backing Phil and John here. David, having worked on select committees I can also say that Financial Reviews are for departments, as they cover the financial review of the department, and Ministers never turn up. Estimates would be where you would expect a Minister to turn up. Maybe you should check the facts and check your linking, Gman does not know what he is talking about. If I were you I would correct my post to avoid looking like a twit.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Phil and John, really? imagine what a dreadful waste of time it must be asking a member of Cabinet to actually attend Parliament. In fact why not go further and agree that having elections is a waste of time too when it is self evident that the right people are running the country.
These are busy and important people, they shouldnt have to demean themselves by having to account to the little people.
incidentally DPF, I wander off for a while and your comments section seem to be acting as flypaper to every lunatic lefty in NZ, its a bit sad that they have to come here to have their opinions heard. Maybe we can publish a synopsis of their thinking in their own words just before the next election to continue the “what is mainstream” debate
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
the deity formerly known as nigel6888 – well question time is one thing. But Phil is absolutely right. FR’s are not for Ministers to attend they are for CE’s.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Phill, John and Matt are correct. It is extremely rare for Ministers to turn up to financial reviews — those are reviews of the annual performance of departments. you must be confusing them with Estimates reviews, which happen later in the year.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
It is not a question of what BP HAS to do. It is a matter of whether he has the guts to front up and clear his name. He choses to walk away and be potrayed as a coward. All the Opposition has to do is provide these opportunities and if he wants to ignore them and have the lefties chorus go into bat for him then so be it. The right is winning and BP will NOT have a stellar political career with this cowardly behavior.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Tim, its not a case of what he has to do, it is a case of what is normal, what is expected and what the job at hand is. FR’s are not for quizing Ministers, its for quizing CE’s because they are the people responsible for the FR and the operational management of the Ministry. Also, you’ll often find Ministries have a number of different responsible Ministers and different vote Ministers. If FEC want to quiz DBP why don’t they initiate an inquiry? Anyway, did FEC actually invite hime to turn up? I doubt it.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Sorry to comment twice in a row, but I just read your update. I think you should make it stronger than that, it is not ‘less common’ for a Minister to attend FR’s than Estimates, it is uncommon or rare for them to do so, as it is the CE’s who are responsible for operational matters and for the Dept’s FR. Also, does anyone know if FEC actually wrote to DBP and invited him to attend?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
actually, if FEC hasn’t invited him, it would be rude for him to attend, even if it was common to do so. but Ministers don’t attend financial reviews. the opposition should be a bit more clever and use its other avenues to question him. i don’t understand this fixation on the financial review process – it’s born of ignorance, possibly.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Eventually the kidney punches will tell and he and the labour party will be urinating blood.
Eeewww … is this metaphor indicative of the way you think?
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 30th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Kidney punches can win a match but you usually have to endure a lot of head shots to get it there. So whilst Labour is pissing blood, National is punch drunk. We’ll all see if they have the endurance to avoid the KO and get the tedious TKO they are after.
That’s why I like the K1 over boxing, personally. At least a knee to the head is quick and final. That said, a leg kick TKO is always pretty gruesome to watch. That would probably be the Nat’s preferred strategy, but I don’t think their legs are really hard enough for it.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
“What I liked about the old bastard is that he may have been nasty and looked terrible but one never doubted his courage to front up.”
Untrue. The Pig was a bully who used a sick man (Peter Allen) to cover his arse. One to one, he always folded – unless drunk, which was often the case.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Come on David, admit it, your post is inaccurate and relies on the ravings of an idiot to back it up. Have you checked if FEC invited DBP? Have you asked anyone who would know (eg. not Gman or Tim Barclay) if FR hearings usually involve Ministers? I can tell you they don’t and I know a lot of people with specific experience who agree with me. So, I challange you to back it up better or stand, withdraw and apologise.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
It is not a question wether FEC hearing usually involve Ministers. BP has an opportunity to answer some serious allegations about his credibility to the House and he is refusing to attend. To be fair the statements to the House he made are not really an issue that would involve FEC. The committee could summons the Minister and put him on oath. That has been done to Max Bradford when he was a Minister.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Tim, wtf? The financial review being conducted by the Social Services Committee (not FEC), is a review of the operations of the Ministry of Social Development. It would be completely inappropriate for DBP to be questioned about the tennis ball thing in that situation. ABSOLOUTELY AND UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE. Do you really want to see tax payers money wasted on this dead political issue, rather than on a careful and thorough review of one of the largest govt departments with one of the largest budgets?
But I’ve seen that you have a parrot approach to the issue. If DBP was reported as turning down the opportunity to speak to a charity or something you would still wheel out the “he had an opportunity to blah blah blah”. Try thinking a bit and maybe coming up with a new rote phrase to type into every blog in miles.
And David I’m still waiting for you to admit that your post is inaccurate and wrong.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
it would be beyond the terms of reference of a committee considering a financial review to summons a Minister to answer questions about tennis balls.
Obviously so.
Standing Orders would not allow it.
maybe the Opposition could try working within Standing Orders rather than fixating on this irrelevant storm in a teacup.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Whatever the finer points of this particular issue are, most of NZ have inferred from his own actions just exactly what sort of man DBP is. Probably 80%+ would rate him as a complete tosser. It really speaks volumes that he’s one of H1′s favs.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
fair point, reid. i guess some people are quicker to judge him on the basis of those allegations than others, and some politicians have made capital out of them.
frankly, i don’t care one way or the other, but i don’t hear many teachers decrying him, especially given that the events happened so long ago. and i would bet a LOT of good money that if you asked Gerry Brownlee, who is, as you know, also a former teacher, whether he thought that the alleged behaviour was unacceptable, he would be very hesitant about condemning David Benson-Pope.
i think the concern of many posters on this thread is that G-Man and DPF have made an accusation about Benson-Pope lying that is based on a complete misinterpretation of the facts. At least DPF has slightly qualified his earlier post, but his reluctance to correct himself fully is a testament to his lack of balance.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
all i want to see is a bigger photo of you david! i dont want to have to beg but it would be lovely if you could.
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 6:05 am
I like the way you Labour folk find all sorts of picky excuses to justify Benson Pope’s cowardice to face parliament on why he mislead it. The point is Rodney Hide was forced to withdraw his allegations against Benson Pope on Benson Pope’s word about the allegations on the assumption Benson Pope is an Honourable member. He forced Hide to do it. Now Hide is fully entitled to have Benson Pope’s word as an Honourable member tested. Benson Pope is being offered many opportunities to do that. Instead is is taking the coward’s way out. So be it, frankly he is more use to the opposition as the walking wounded, long may it last.
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 9:56 am
Isnt it wonderful how the Left can always find arguments to justify the behaviour of their own kind where they would righly condemn the same behaviour of anyone else. TYhe words Two Faced Morons spring to mind
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Haydon Dewes is wrong. Minister for Social Development did not appear before the SS committee last financial review. read the report.
gd — that’s an interesting comment. we should remember it for future reference. we should also remember that Judith Collins has said she would condemn the same sort of behaviour as Benson Pope has been accused of no matter who was accused of it. were you thinking of anyone in particular who had bullied schoolboys?
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 2:06 pm
correction — haydon dewes is right. minister didn’t turn up last time, but turned up the previous two times.
however, remember that this is a financial review, so questions about tennis balls would be out of order in any case
Vote: