Parliament
February 28th, 2006 at 1:50 pm by David FarrarHeh the EU has a delegation visiting today. What a day to be here. Hope they are not scared off.
DBP was not given leave to make a personal statement. I slighly disapprove but of course Labour did the same to Shipley in 1999 so hung by one’s own petard.
DBP hiding behind nothing he did was not outside school policy at the time. And now Wilson saying he can’t answer. Oh and Winston is coming out to defend Benson-Pope.
DBP says conduct as a teacher was never inappropriate but apologises to any former students who think otherwise.
Collins asking why as Welfare Minister he doesn’t have to live up to the same standards of honesty as beneficiaries do.
Cullen is saying that convention is for Ministers to make personal explanations not make ministerial statements when correcting previous statements. The former can not be debated while the latter can. Cullen is hypocritical as he was Labour Deputy Leader when Labour denied leave to Shipley.
Clark now saying DBP answered to the best of his recollection. This is a farce suggesting he could forget a formal complaint in his last two years of teaching.
Peters is saying a MP should not be railroaded through a trial by media. Godoness the poodle turns. Very ironic as Peters has conducted mroe trials by media than any other MP.
Maharey shouted down as he claimed the complaints have been investigated by the Police. Of course these ones have not been – which he knows.
Maharey says Benson-Pope is an honourable member and he accepts his word. I doubt many in the press gallery do.
All over now. Well until tomorrow or until the next set of allegations.
No tag for this post.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Can anyone else say wasted Nat opportunity?
Vote:I hope no right wingers wasted their time going down to Parliament for that boredom fest
February 28th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Any UK Tories in the delegation? I imagine they would have been surprised by the fuss over the whole affair – controversies over women’s underwear usually involve them wearing it!
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
This is wonderful news.Its all adding up to the Divine Heavenly One being surrounded by sleaze and stench,And even better she who is a feminist having to defend the behaviour of BP.The sisterhood must be seething. And theres still Field to come with the tame QC trying to find a way to whitewash the matter and struggling which is why its all taking so long.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
It’s been a while since I’ve watched question time, but those asking questions should really stop referring to ministers, in the first place, by pronouns.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I think you
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
I thought Benson-Pope had no choice but to resign – but I didn’t take into account what a feeble and worthless collection of oafs the opposition are, while clearly he did. What a crappy day for parliamentary debate.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
“Peters is saying a MP should not be railroaded through a trial by media. Godoness the poodle turns. Very ironic as Peters has conducted mroe trials by media than any other MP.”
and two wrongs make a right, so burn the witch.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Way to get your one liners from NewstalkZb Adam.
I’m just trying to think of five people I would want sticking up for me LESS than this collection.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Murray…huh??
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
we need to ask the question “why is clark protecting him so?” and by definition margaret wilson and the rest of the team – anyone got ideas or analysis?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
That I can’t figure out either, other than on principle. However principle has never gotten in the way of politics in the past, so I don’t know why it would now? Maybe they know even more than us ultra-informed lot.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
peter, I think it’s called loyalty. Parties that execute their own on every public allegation trumpetted by the opposition don’t survive long. But look deeper by all means.
I’m personally surprised that jokes haven’t been flowing that the lesbian sisterhood found bursting into the girl’s showers perfectly understandable
.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Maybe he’s decided that he wants to be miniseter “or else” – if they demote him, maybe he’s threatened that they either support him or he resigns, forcing a by-election?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
The only reason why clark would defend him must be the numbers in parliament – her own polling of leftie lapdogs must show that even they think he should go. Maybe with everything else on the horizon she thinks it may be a risk she is not prepared to take.
From my perspective – great – shows she is devoid of any credibility (I have felt that for years anyway – but oviously not the masses)
it will be interesting to see Jordan’s blog on this if he ever makes a comment again.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Exact same thing was said on talkback about 20 min before you posted it.
Must be telepathy
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Reason is quite simple – Winston Peters is on side at present, one sniff of this thing getting traction he’ll be sitting at the backbencher giving press conferences as to how “he always thought DBP was a dodgy bastard”.
The Frau who must be obeyed has made no bones about it, she doesn’t want this Maori any closer than she has to. This is why each of the plebs she has at hand are so valuable in her eye’s.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Peters is fully in the team now even getting supplementaries transferred because the Labour Party find him quite handy in debate. Not part of the Government huh?? I feel the Ambassador to Washington is beckons, he has the trophy wife in tow, no messy by-election will be necessary, the old duffer can simply shoot through. But not yet, it will be late in the term of this Government before Peters gets offered that job.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
National was a lame today. Their main problem was repeating the 2005 statement in full. They should’ve dropped the first part about the behaviour itself and just restated the ‘unaware of complaint’ part. Restating in full just made it so easy for Labour to pull out the line about it being OK with school policy at the time… ignoring the bigger issue of lying to parliament.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
God dam that was the National party at their lamest!
Vote:How much more ammunition do the Nats need before they can claim a scalp?
Weak, ineffective and incompetent
February 28th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
There seems to be some confusion about whether Benson-Pope did anything illegal.
Yesterday The Briefing Room posted the possible charges relating to the school girl assaults (there were two cases):
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archives/2006/02/possible_crimes.html
Because of the repeal of s59 relating to teachers, the Crimes Act specifically forbids any defence to an assault charge being raised by a teacher.
Investigate has spoken to Dunedin police who feel at face value there could be an investigation if any of the women choose to complain. They felt they may also be able to take a look at the walk through the dorms as “offensive behaviour”.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
National have got to realise they are not dealing with normal people.
They are dealing with pathological liars.
They need to stop and think about it. DBP is merely a pawn. But a valuable pawn to Helen because if he goes, she will lose total control over her caucus and her internal opposition will start to get into cabinet. Who else could go in DBP’s place? Certainly not one of the 5-6 ex-ministers who have been let go so easily before.
National need to go for the throat and say in Parliament that Helen is worried because DBP is the only thing holding her total power over Labour in place. They need to seize the opportunity and get her angry – make her lose her rag. And behave all the time that this assertion is true, because it is.
And then remind Dr Cullen that Christ’s College in Christchurch has let girls in but the best they got out of her was Minister of Finance….
If they don’t do this now, they are dead in the water. They need mongrel…NOW.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Today, the governing Labour Party managed to dismiss the stories about Mr. Benson-Pope as bizarre tittle-tattle – all in the space of 20 minutes. While doing so, they also made larger fools of Mr. Brash and his team, and of the NZ media.
A very poor performance by Ms. Collins and Mr. Brash. Neither one has a big future in this country’s public affairs. Mr. English looked embarrassed, as did Mr. Key.
Under Mr. Brash, the National Party keep harping on ‘sin & retribution’ themes. These are not themes on which elections are won, ever. Nor even tactical gains. The entire Benson-Pope episode has taken on the appearance of a Salem witch-hunt circa. 1692. It’s going to be used very effectively by Labour against National in the next election, and devastatingly.
In contrast, Labour appeared secular, united and as stronger defenders of justice for everyone in NZ. All NZ voters prefer that … over National’s ‘witch-hunt’ methods – no?
Again, National do not look ‘fit to govern’.
Again, Mr. Brash looked like a vapid namby pamby fumbling at the trigger. The guy couldn’t hit water if he fell out of a boat. The National Party must get rid of Mr. Brash …. and very soon. So, today:
NZ Labour Party 44, NZ National Party 0.
Mr. Benson-Pope: cleared and free.
And the New Zealand public who bought into this puritanical inquisition? … very very small-town, colonial, and spiteful in that uniquely kiwi/english way….
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
So good to see New Zealanders focusing on such critical issues. Makes the AWB revelations pale in comparison. Jesus there might even be a meltdown happening in Iraq but hey let’s all wet our collective pants over Benson fucking Pope.
You really do have to wonder.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Ian Wishart says: “Investigate has spoken to Dunedin police who feel at face value there could be an investigation if any of the women choose to complain. They felt they may also be able to take a look at the walk through the dorms as “offensive behaviour”.
I have spent some time on another thread arguing that the allegation relating to the walking through the dorm is an allegation of illegal conduct (as you say, offensive or disorderly behaviour in breach of s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act), however, that is as far as it goes. The allegation is one of potential illegal behaviour, but it cannot go any further – as a summary offence the police would find themselves up against s 14 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957:
“14 Time for laying information
Except where some other period of limitation is provided by the Act creating the offence or by any other Act, every information for an offence (other than an offence which may be dealt with summarily under section 6 of this Act) shall be laid within 6 months from the time when the matter of the information arose.”
You’re about 7 and a half years too late to arguing this…
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
If Taito Philip Field and Benson Pope get striped of their ministerial responsibilities is there anyone left in the Labour caucus competent enough to replace them?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Graeme Edgeler
Yes, Summary Offences Act has a limitations problem. Crimes Act doesn’t…all the potential charges I listed remain viable until 2007
Ian
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Ian – I hadn’t initially looked at your own post, and was just taking issue with the statement you reported from the police regarding offensive behaviour. Crimes Act assault for any offence in 97/98 etc. certainly isn’t time-barred.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Benson-Pope has repeatedly dodged, evaded and outright lied.
Vote:Exactly WHAT does Benson-Pope actually have to do before he gets sacked?
February 28th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Philip Field is another problem for Labour. But that one could blow open the entire way the Labour Party operates in South Auckland. Cannot wait for that one. But DBP will do for this week, he has certainly got a lot of protection. Perhaps he has threatened a by-election if he does not get it. With 1 seat majority that threat is a very real one.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
We’re all bagging Brash for a lack of mongrel – me included – but I just had a thought about that. Maybe it’d be nice to have a PM who isn’t good at performing in the house. Someone who gets on with running the country instead of someone who is good at lying, making others look stupid, etc. Still, it’ll never happen because all the others will keep lying and making him look stupid.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
We have been seeing quite a lot of mongrel in Don Brash and there will be more. Politics is a rough house game and Don can play by those rules when needed. But Judith Collins will do me, I think she is neat but I would not like to get into her bad books.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Isn’t the phrase “HOIST by one’s own petard” ? Petards are bombs. They don’t hang things.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
I get the uneasy feeling there are people posting here who don’t work on the assumption that politicians are lying bastards with monster egos who’d sacrifice their firstborn for a shred of power. Perhaps this is preventing them from recognising why Benson Pope is still at the Cabinet table. Let me spell it out: if a TV crew was to come across DBP up to his balls in a sheep, he’d most likely still see no reason why this unfortunate indiscretion should adversely affect his career. His Parliamentary colleagues are cut from the same cloth. On both sides of the house. Nothing to see here folks, move along there.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
With no election in sight (if they can help it) no way, no how will BP go down.
Like I said and predicted this morning, BP is bulletproof.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 5:49 am
Say it aint so?! Did the Nats look that bad at attacking Benson Peep??
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 6:35 am
Ian Wishart writes
“[ ] has spoken to [ ] who feel [ ] at face value [ ] there could be [ ] if any choose to [ ] felt they may also be able to [ ]”
feelings, suppositions, conditionalities, contingencies …wanderings … feelings…
Why write this way? It cannot be to persuade, much less to inform. For what purpose then?
…because it all feels true …??
Perhaps our ‘what if/felt?’ contributor can explain?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 7:00 am
Charlie Tan: “Hoist with one’s own petard.”
“For ’tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar” — Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv. “Hoist” was in Shakespeare’s time the past participles of a verb “to hoise”, which meant what “to hoist” does now: to lift. A petard (see under “peter out” for the etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning
fuse. If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military engineer; Shakespeare’s “enginer”) who planted it would be hurled into the air by the explosion. (Compare “up” in “to blow up”.) A modern rendition might be: “It’s fun to see the engineer blown up with his own bomb.”
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhoistw.html
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 7:08 am
Why would politicians lie if it wasn’t want the voters wanted? The only reason a politician lies is because it seems the voters throw out truthful Governments. They want magical promises…
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 7:56 am
Professor Bill Hodges, Auckland University was just on RadioNational and said that both DBP & HC had mislead parliament, let down the public of NZ, and should resign.
Quote: HC lied when she said she believed DBP.
This is a univeristy professor of constitutional law.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:01 am
Tim:
Brash is an unelected Liability
Mr Brash will go, and soon. He does not win elections. He has never won an election. Yet he is at the helm of an electioneering party. His presence at that helm is shadowy yet obstructive – obstructive to national electoral success and to any appearance of his opposition caucus prevailing in the House. There are better men and women in National – many of whom are democratically elected representatives.
Politics is not a charity. Nor a joint-stock company. Nor a religion or monarchy.
Mr. Brash’s initial appointment to our country’s parliament was undemocratic.
It begs the question: might he have made it into parliament on his own??
Too many New Zealanders feign support for Mr. Brash in a way that reminds me of those forced kiwi smiles for a Royal Visitor.
Something is not right in NZ while he remains no. 1 in a once-great party.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:06 am
I think a modern Kiwi version of,”Hoist with ones own petard”,is, “Fell backwards in his own shit”.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:10 am
James wrote:
Brash is an unelected Liability
I reply:
Vote:Really? Sounds like another person on the right who needs to get out of denial mode and admit MMP (which I didn’t support, FWIW) is here to stay… Oh, and I find it rather amusing that you have the same tired old faces who apparently want you to believe that Don Brash had precisely nothing to do with National’s recovery on Spetember 17th from it’s worse election spanking in the party’s history.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:23 am
I hate to break it to you lot, but people don’t care about this DPB storm in a tea cup. Good grief, TV3 led with another complaint about DBP last night… What was it? A father didn’t like the way DBP spoke to his son over needing a shave. Lord, spare me! In the court of public opinion DBP is largely unscathed. IMHO, people are divided into two camps, those that think he was probably a martinet who was a bit of a prick and those that think he was just an old fashioned teacher using old fashioned methods. His pupils certainly appear divided along those lines.
More to the point, this type of witch hunt makes EVERYONE over about 40 shuffle uneasily on their feet as they turn over the trivial (and not so trivial) in their own past that they are not so proud of and they think, “there but for the grace of God…” There this quite a reservoir of unspoken sympathy for the man.
I have have been struck by the absence of Wayne Mapp in all this! Surely this muck raking witch hunt of flim flam and trumped up charges is a perfect example of political correctness gone mad?? But really, it perfectly sums up the difference between Labour and National. From National this week – faux hysteria and gross hypocrisy over DBP, more cynical attempts from Billy Bunter Brownlee to stir race division by treying to politicise the census (for God’s sake man, get a grip!), an incompetent display in parliament and carping about the road funding, which only serves to highlight an area National was truely abysmal in when in government.
And from Labour? A rise in benefits coming up soon, good news from Kiwibank, Kiwisaver being launched, and working for families being rolled out. Real money in the pockets of real New Zealander and real outcomes being delivered.
Do you guys really think you can win election with a tired economic platform of corporate economic cronyism and a social policy built around the needs of a spiteful provincial minority?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:33 am
TomS:
Gee, Tom, great news for those of us who work, aren’t breeding like rabbits, already own our own homes and aren’t on welfare.
Then again, perhaps some of us don’t think it’s trivial that educators and social service providers actually meet standards and have some real leadership that isn’t suffering from selective early onset Alzheimer’s. Never mind, Tommy, go back to sleep and stay there.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:48 am
TomS –
Vote:To call lying to parliament “a storm in a teacup” or “trivial” is disingenuous. Your going to excuse that because Cullen has introduced a ‘voluntary’ super-tax?
March 1st, 2006 at 8:58 am
“Gee, Tom, great news for those of us who work, aren’t breeding like rabbits, already own our own homes and aren’t on welfare. ”
I’m not sure you need any great news, given the above would give you more disposable income to enjoy than the vast majority of the population. Why not just enjoy your own life instead of being bitter on everybody elses?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:04 am
On a scale of trivial 1 to 10 I would say one politician lying to another is pretty close to 1 (being at the trivial end). As has been pointed out many times Don Brash had no compunction about lying to electors last year when it came to the wire. He is even on record as suggesting that lying is a politcial necessity. Of course all that was different and not at all the same as what is being discussed here (don’t quite see how but I’ll take DPF’s word on it ’cause he is such an honest observer).
The fact is DBP is being painted as an abuser and child molester and for some strange reason he dares to deny the charge – go figure.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:05 am
Craig:
Re: Why Mr. Brash is still an unelected Liability
With respect to MMP versus FPTP, nothing’s permanent in this country’s politics.
It is the case that the NZ National Party achieved a substantially poorer result at the 2002 Election compared to the 2005 Election. In the 2005 Election, the NZ National Party lost .. again … under someone different this time (his name is Mr.Brash).
What proportion of the Party Vote: National and Constituency Vote nationally would you argue is attributable to Mr. Brash? …..just to Mr. Brash? No-one else.
Is there another reason why some of you regard the flailing Mr. Brash as indispensable to our Party??
Defend Mr. Brash’s ‘appointment’, management style, and political contribution …
No-one on this website has argued a good case yet for retaining Mr. Brash?
You are National Party supporters?
Then argue…
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:38 am
Not even a nice try James. This thread is about that lying pack of cretins known as the Labour Party cabinet. Defend their honesty and integrity if you can stop the urge to either giggle or regurgitate while you do.
And for Tom, good news from Kiwibank, another $40M down the tubes while they buy business ? Kiwisaver, put more of your own money in the bank and think that the government is doing something for you ? Dream on, sucker.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:55 am
Noddy -
There is a difference between lying outside parliament and lying inside parliament.
One of them undermines the entire parliamentary system, and is why MPs are turfed-out if they are shown to have done it.
(Not that Brash necessarily did either – and its not Brash on trial here)
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am
Under Mr. Brash, the National Party is becoming the Party of the Witch-Hunt.
That’s not politics.
Get rid of him.
Simple.
Then we can be electable in a landslide … on political themes. Under the Brash regime, Mr. Key looks uninterested in the witch-hunt. As does Mr. English and many many others. It’s painful to witness.
The Benson-Pope witch-hunt aside, Labour are still too hard to beat. Too clever for Mr. Brash. Certainly.
Again, maybe you guys all know something about Mr. Brash that I do not?
Argue the case for him …
Blind Faith?
Fear?
What is it?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:54 am
James the guy lied to parliament and the country. He has no integrity, he should not be in power.
If we followed your lead we’d have ex paedophile publishers in parliament and the Prime Minister saying well it was legal back then and its 20 years old.
Some of us actually give a damn about integrity, moral fortitude and honesty and expect it from even politicians.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:57 am
Yeah James, who cares if 10-20 years ago a man walked into girls showers, showered with his teachers, walked in on girls undressing, let teachers put their hands down their pants, published peodophile porn and then lied about it…
Some of us actually happen to think that people like that should not be in positions of influence.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 11:07 am
james, the chap to whom you refer is Dr Brash. Go back to school but be careful to steer clear of Benson-Pope on the way, lest he admonish you to start shaving. He has such a way with words.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am
Adolf:
Something happened to Mr. Brash 20+ years ago. A PhD? (one of several hundred thousand or more)
Should it matter today? Nope, not in politics.
Logic sound familiar? Oh yes.
No, not even if the current leader was practising medicine without a license, would I refer to Mr. Brash as anything other than plain old-fashioned Mister Brash.
It’s polite.
Again, why must some New Zealanders fawn before a person using a certain designation or title? If titles are sufficient for you to follow someone, choose a Duke.
Again, no-one here can put a good case for retaining Mr. Brash as leader of the National Party.
Why not?
Argue…
Vote: