Liar liar pants on fire
Do you remember how about to be sacked Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope said he knew no details of the sacking.
Do you also recall how he kept maintaining he expressed no opinion to the Environment Ministry CEO on her job?
Well as Audrey Young blogs, we learnt different today in question time:
“From the point of view of my office, I will likely be less free and frank in meetings with such a person.”
So he knew no details of the issue, and had no opinion about her job, EXCEPT that he would be less likely to be free and frank if she was employed.
So the CEO has a choice of sacking her, or not sacking her with the implicit consequences that the Minister would no longer be free and frank with his Ministry.
Audrey Young notes that not only has he misled the PM and the public, but in her own words:
“He misled me as well.”
Around Parliament the expectation is that he will now be sacked. More than one person has said to me that the only thing worse than misleading the PM is misleading Audrey Young 
So if he goes tomorrow, Clark may do a full reshuffle next week as Samuels will be standing down also to make room for Shane Jones.
Of course Clark may not sack him, but surely even she will give up trying to protect him now.
UPDATE: TV3 says they understand Benson-Pope is to be sacked in the very near future.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Good Fucking Job!
July 26th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I mean if he gets dumped
July 26th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
David, I believe DBP was meaing he would be less free and frank with th CEO of the Environment ministry
July 26th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
The guy is a joke and whatever he says will be twisted. Short little “sound bites” can be misconstrued. I’m holding judgement until I see the full version … but I’m suspect that DF will be right…
July 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Just for you Richmastery – verbatim from Hansard
“Environment, Ministry—Communications Manager
6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister for the Environment: Did the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment ever ask him for his opinion on the appointment of Madeleine Setchell as the communications manager of the ministry; if so, what did he say?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): No; I had one conversation with the chief executive relating to this matter before it was resolved. That conversation happened when he drew me aside in the context of a meeting about other issues and advised me there was an issue he was dealing with involving the partner of a National Party staff member, and that he had formed a preliminary view that there was a conflict of interest and that he was working with the State Services Commission to manage that issue. I noted two things: first, that this was clearly an employment issue and therefore his responsibility alone to manage, and, secondly, that from the point of view of my office I would likely be less free and frank in meetings with such a person. That was a statement of the obvious.
Gerry Brownlee: What miraculous events have occurred overnight for the Minister to have this greater recollection of the meetings held on 29 May that he could not remember yesterday, and has he also perhaps forgotten that he did say to Mr Hugh Logan: “I won’t have that woman in my office.”?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No miraculous events have occurred and I did not make that statement.
Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister expect us to believe that after the flurry of phone calls between his office and Hugh Logan’s office on 28 May, which caused Mr Logan to drop everything, conduct an urgent inquiry, and involve the State Services Commission, that at a meeting the next day the Minister was neither asked for, nor offered, his opinion on the actual appointment of Madeleine Setchell beyond the scant comments made by the Minister in the House today?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: For the benefit of the member, let me run through the chronology again. I was not aware, when my adviser began his inquiry but I now know that it was Monday, 28 May. I was first informed of the relationship later on 28 May when it had been confirmed by the chief executive. That there was formally the possibility of a conflict of interest was notified to me after that date personally by the chief executive.
Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister said to Mr Logan that he would be able to be less than free and frank should Ms Setchell be in any meetings in his office, what conclusion could Mr Logan reach other than the Minister was instructing him to dismiss Ms Setchell?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The member has misrepresented my quote. I said I would likely be less free and frank. I am sure the member understands fully that that is a statement of the obvious. He would be less likely to conduct a conversation as frankly with this side of the House as he would with his own colleagues, one would assume.
Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Minister not simply make that admission—this new revelation—right at the start of this particular issue and the investigation into it; and is the Minister surprised that when Mr Logan was asked by the media if the Minister had said: “I won’t have that woman in my office.”, he could not answer that question for himself with a simple “No”?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: There are about five questions there. Can I repeat that I did not make that statement.
Gerry Brownlee: Can we assume from Mr Logan’s refusal to deny the Minister told him: “I won’t have that woman in my office.” with a simple one-word answer, that it is a fact the Minister did instruct exactly along those lines, and could any other conclusion be reached from what the Minister has told the House today?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, members cannot make that assumption, and other conclusions can definitely be reached. These are the facts of the matter.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister assure the House that if Mr Logan were to speak in a free, full, and frank manner, and tell the media what the Minister said to him, he would keep his job?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can assure the House that I have confidence in the professionalism of Mr Logan and I have no concerns in that respect.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no adverse consequences for any one either in his office or in the Ministry for the Environment who blows the whistle on what the Minister actually said to Mr Logan?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not the employer, either in my office or in the Ministry for the Environment.
Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that he has not, in the past, pressured any Government department to remove staff because of his perceptions about their political connections?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It would be totally inappropriate to do so.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We know that it would be inappropriate to do so. We are asking whether the Minister is prepared to say he has not done that before.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is answering as the Minister for the Environment. That is his ministerial responsibility in this context. I also remind members that they cannot require a specific answer to their questions. In that instance the Minister addressed the question, though it may have been outside his ministerial responsibility.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In relation to the question about the employment of Mr Logan, has the Minister received any report that when Mr Brownlee was asked whether Mr Logan would have a job were there to be a change of Government, he refused to answer yes?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I think it is one of the ironies of this issue that the behaviour of Mr Logan and, I believe, my staff has been honourable, and that reflection cannot be conveyed about the behaviour of those members opposite.”
July 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
peterquixote Says: look promise farra i dont usually curt and paste
July 26th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
yous dont seem to be doing much local body election stuff farra
why not,
look i tell you ssomething
my opinion is this,
Bob Parker will be the next Mayor of Christchurch,
and I see him as mayor elect.
so all green people and all people of energy, I urge that you should meet him now and make good things for your city and your region.
It is good that we have a leader.
end this farcical pretence from the 2021thing,
Paul Scott
http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/
July 26th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
DBP – “The member has misrepresented my quote. I said I would likely be less free and frank. I am sure the member understands fully that that is a statement of the obvious. He would be less likely to conduct a conversation as frankly with this side of the House as he would with his own colleagues, one would assume.”
There’s the money shot. He states that he regards the public service to be on his side of the house.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
The first of the many to be gone. Helen is hung out to dry?
July 26th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
The question remains……
Why has H1 clung on to DB-P so desperately??????
Broad-ly speaking ……what else does DB-P know !!!
Thru concern about also receiving the Setchell treatment I refer to my comments made further down today under DPF’s heading More Irony.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
To answer Calculus … DBP was the Labour Whip. He knows where the bodies are.
The heat now goes on HC. Does she stand by her ‘man’ or does she kick him out. Either way her personal credibility takes another battering.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
It was clear all along that Logan would not have sacked Setchell unless he was sure that the Minister has expressed a view that this should be the case. Why Benson-Pope proceded to lie his way out of this and blame everyone else and not take responsibility beats me. The man is a low down coward and a bully. People who are Ministers take leadership positions. He should have taken responsibility RIGHT from the start, acted like a man and he would still be in his job. Time and Time again it is not the midismeaner that costs the job it is any subsequent lying and cover-ups. Godd riddance to a feeble man who is of very very poor character.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
The issue is never whether Ministers are free and frank with their officials. Benson-Pope has a completely confused view of the ministerial relationship. Practically, there are never occasions when Ministers are called upon to be free and frank. They simply make decisions based on policy advice. It is preposterous to claim that a Minister would choose to make different decisions, or not make decisions at all, on the basis of one official being in his Department.
The issue is only ever about officials being able to give free and frank advice to their Ministers: if they can’t, then they cannot be part of an independent public service.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
from Iain Rennie’s Briefing from State Services Commission (www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=30104):
7 My understanding is that Mr Logan informed the Minister of the issue. However, Mr Logan is very clear that the Minister stressed that staff issues were the responsibility of the chief executive alone.
8 Mr Logan is clear that he made the decision independently and that the Minister was not involved in that decision. This is consistent with section 33 of the State Sector Act 1988 which stipulates that a chief executive of a Department must act independently in matters relating to decisions on individual employees. That is, there is no Ministerial responsibility for such decisions.
Does this mean that Logan deliberately misled the SSC?
July 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hm. Given all that’s happened, he might well get away with lying to the PM too.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
When does Ian Wishart invite David Benson-Pope along for lunch to do that necessary 17 page interview?
July 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I DBP gets the big A will he be replaced by someone from the reserves bench?, and if he is to be replaced who will fill his shoes?. Can Liarbour replace him without having a by election? If Liarbour cannot find another shinny arse to fill his seat what will this mean when it comes to numbers in the house?
July 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
… and can blinky bunsen-burner withstand the heat? I think not.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
9pm radio news reports that Benson-Pope’s office is leaking like a sieve. Benson-Pope’s actions may have inadvertently created a major problem for Labour – dozens of public servants covering their own asses instead of covering those of their ministers! Man, you’ve gotta love that!
July 27th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Inventory2: They are leaking, and not just BP’s office and not just to the media. National now has at least three highly-placed sources within the Beehive. We’re basically reading their emails! (ok, not quite, but you know what I mean)
July 27th, 2007 at 8:44 am
I deal with his department quite a bit. I like to remind his officials time and time again that why is it they expect a higher standard of honesty from welfare applicants than the public get from their Minister. They have no answer to that question of course.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Natstaffer has delusions of grandeur. A common affliction amongst recent grads in the Opposition Research Unit. I bet your colleagues think you’re real hard giving up the inside goss. How many PQ’s did you write today?
July 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
look i honestly dont remember