English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1807] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I noticed Dr Cullen sitting there smiling as he thought he was stepping through the final stages of his strategy to hit back. But of course the shot that Mrs King has fired is in the wrong place altogether. In the debate about Mr David Benson-Pope his family was never mentioned. 
Hon Annette King 
: Calling him a “pervert”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I say to that member that when Helen Clark put my children on TV and drew my family into questions in this House I was a bit distressed about it too. The House has always operated on an unspoken convention that we do not attack the members of other members’ families. At no stage during the David Benson-Pope debate did that occur. Who drew David Benson-Pope’s family into the debate? It was David Benson-Pope. He set out on a charm offensive—or as one commentator put it a “blub” offensive—and he decided that the best way to rebut the strong allegations of his dishonesty in this Parliament was to hide behind his family to put his family in a Sunday newspaper and to get them to talk on his behalf. 
I have to say that it took a long time for even his hardened cynical political mates to speak on his behalf. They left it until the Thursday before David Benson-Pope’s family appeared in the media after this House had been at David Benson-Pope for months—12 months since the first day he stood up and misled the House. He was asked a simple question as to whether he was aware of any complaints against him and he said no he was not aware of any complaints against him of any sort in his 24 years as a teacher. Since the day he said that any number of people have been willing not just to make the allegations but to front up to the media—not just about what he did but to confirm they had made complaints. As a number of members have said they fronted up to the police as well and made their honest statements about what they believed to have occurred and just about everything they said contradicted what David Benson-Pope told this House. 
What undermines the House’s confidence even more is that in the end senior Labour members conceded it. The Prime Minister said he made an error of judgment which for her is very strong language—that means he lied to the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is clearly out of order and the member should withdraw and apologise. He is the last person who should make that kind of allegation in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. Now we hear the innuendo from Dr Cullen that somehow I am the last person who should make allegations. I say to Dr Cullen that we have sat here for 6 years listening to the half-truths of the Labour Party like the granddaddy of them all that we heard this year—when a complaint is not a complaint. Maybe he had a discussion with Bill Clinton when he was here. Members may remember his statement about it depending on what the meaning of “is” is. Well it depends on what one thinks the meaning of “complaint” is. It is obvious for everyone to see. 
A senior Minister of the Crown who was questioned in a straight-up and honest way about his past actions and about his knowledge of them made a statement to the House that has turned out not to be true. I say to Dr Cullen that no one in the Labour Government is willing to stand up and say that David Benson-Pope correctly made that statement to the House. In fact I asked the Prime Minister a question last week—Dr Cullen was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister—which was whether the Prime Minister now believed the statement that David Benson-Pope had made to the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: What was the answer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: His answer was no. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I ask members to look at the  
Hansard 
. He said no. Every member who was sitting here and heard question time last Thursday will recall that. He said no he did not believe it. So if the Government does not believe him why should the people of New Zealand?