Jones Shane: General Debate 
Jones Shane: General Debate 
[Volume:628;Page:631] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tahi rua toru wha—four parties. It is far far too many. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. New Zealand First Mauri Pacific National—three. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
SHANE JONES 
: I beg to differ with the member. I remember seeing a hitchhiker wandering the lonely roads of the Bay of Islands a distant relation lost in the Tai Tokerau looking for a ride to the meetings called by that esteemed kaumatua of both of ours Matiu Rata. Tahi rua toru wha—it is far too many. That reflects the bizarre situation my whanaunga finds himself in which is under the cloak of hypocrisy which we saw Mr Brownlee demonstrate with total accuracy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to raise it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I heard it and I am entitled to make the ruling. The member shall not use that word in respect of any member or group in this House. He will please withdraw it. 
SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think he should also apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I made a determination that I wanted a withdrawal and that is where it rests. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps he could talk about his two jobs and how he is enjoying double-dipping on his salary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
SHANE JONES 
: Let us talk about the brave Opposition leaders who wander up to Maniapoto country go inside for a hongi but then walk outside and try to talk tough and say they will put the Te Wananga o Aotearoa in a hangi. They wandered up there tried to be staunch tried to push the mission of accountability but were caught off guard then wandered out on to the public estate and talked tough. Fortunately the voters irrespective of their ethnic hue saw through that. 
Another thing the voters have seen through is that those members ran a campaign hounding the Maori personality stigmatising and demonising but the first thing they offered the Maori Party was to say: “We will do the Watusi with you over the takutai moana over the seabed and foreshore.” What on earth would possess our friends from the Maori Party to think for a moment that they could— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just trying to help the House. The member seems to be too close to the microphone and the sound is quite distorted for a number of our colleagues. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that technical issue Mr Henare. 
SHANE JONES 
: Those members having decided that they wanted no bar of a takutai moana could not wait for the opportunity to put together a deal that firstly demeaned and destroyed the expectations that our Maori voters had of the Maori Party and caused a whole host of people to accurately identify that they would say anything at any time to capture an opportunity to form a Government which will definitely elude them. 
What did that show? It showed how far National’s leadership had departed from Doug Kidd Doug Graham and Jim Bolger who knew that the way forward was to firstly treat people with respect and secondly to observe and uphold the Treaty. But no under the new recipe all we saw was destructiveness and a convenient denunciation of the Treaty. Deep down they knew that their pedigree was to be balanced but the pursuit and zeal for power caused them to abandon that. 
Bill English has actually identified that by courting and hopefully embracing the brown vote his party will have an opportunity to come on to this side of the House. Well rest assured National will need more than a “Tau” and a couple of brown baits to pull that off. I remind my whanaunga Tau Henare that I observed with great interest the time that he parted company with our matamua Winston Peters. I remember because we go back quite some time that he said he would never serve with Jenny Shipley Mr Birch or Mr Bolger but hello he now lies in the bed that they once made. What does that tell us about not so much his character but the selective memory of the individual? 
In addition to that it has come to our attention that in the pursuit of wanting to have it both ways with the Maori vote National members have decided to embark on a policy of pretending to be friendly to Rongo Wetere but being anti the wananga. They cannot have it both ways. The reality is that the wananga will survive and the reality is that the wananga is larger than one two three four five particular people. If they chose not to follow the policies and procedures then that is no reason why the wananga should be either destroyed or brought down. Those people are in regular contact. They regularly share information and avoid responsibility. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Today in the House during question time Mrs Judith Collins demonstrated the sheer deceit of the Minister for Social Development and Employment David Benson-Pope. She exposed how he has systematically manoeuvred to change his story which is involved in this case. She also laid before the House the series of events and the Minister’s involvement in the deceitful leaking of the police report associated with the David Benson-Pope case. 
I think that what Mrs Collins did is a service to the nation and a service to the people of this House. She laid out the case against David Benson-Pope and displayed to the nation the deceit that he bears sitting on the opposite side of the House. The Minister of Health Pete Hodgson who is also from Dunedin is also reported to be subject to a police investigation. It involves his alleged assault against a woman protestor during the election. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it was reported in the paper today. Now we have a situation where Mr Benson-Pope has come into this House over the last two days and under questioning from Mrs Collins has changed his story. 
Let us just go through exactly what Mr Benson-Pope said. When initially asked about the tennis ball allegations he replied: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” He further repeated: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” I was in the House that day and I must say that the impression was emphatic. It was a denial. There was no if there was no but and there was no maybe. It was an emphatic denial of the case. As we know the history has flowed and the case has been subject to a police investigation. We know that in that police investigation a senior and experienced police officer said that there were nine people who confirmed that the incident happened or an incident of that sort and that they were credible witnesses who could be relied upon in a court of law. They said there was a prima facie case that the Minister committed those offences of child abuse. 
The police report actually means that they did not believe David Benson-Pope because if they did they would not have said that the nine other witnesses were credible and could be relied upon. So that is the conclusion of the police case. Because they thought the case was old and because they thought there would be an undue and harsh focus due to the Minister’s position they decided not to proceed. They did not decide not to proceed because they thought they would lose in a court of law; they did not decide not to proceed because there was no foundation; it was because they thought that the case was old and that the effect on the Minister would be disproportionate. 
But under questioning from Judith Collins during question time yesterday Mr Benson-Pope changed his story. This is what he said: “I have said from the outset that I have no recollection of these events and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” Well that is just not true. He did not say that from the outset. From the outset he was emphatic: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” It was not a case of: “Look it’s 23 years ago I can’t remember. I cannot believe that I would do such a thing and I refute it.” There was no sort of conditionality. It was absolutely clear: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them. 
Then under questioning from the National Opposition yesterday the story changed to: “I have said from the outset that I have no recollection of these events and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” Look at the words: “said from the outset” “no recollection” “do not believe” “alleged” and “happened”. I do not think those words would have been written by the Minister. They would have been written by a lawyer because they are very clear they are very detailed and it is very very clear that they conflict with the earlier comments. So Mrs Collins has outlined the fact that we have a Minister who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.