Power Simon: General Debate 
Power Simon: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2074] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Today I do not intend to canvass the behaviour or the actions of the two Ministers who have been in the centre of the news media swirl over recent weeks. Others in the fullness of time will make their own judgments on those issues. 
What I do want to raise this afternoon is the judgment of the Prime Minister over the last 6 to 8 weeks. I have been pondering that at some length because I find it extraordinarily curious. I find the behaviour of the Prime Minister and her decision making particularly interesting from an objective point of view. Why would the Prime Minister spend valuable political capital on Mr Benson-Pope leaving herself out of valuable political capital for Mr Parker? Although I do not excuse in any way the original mistakes of Mr Parker at least in my view he had the dignity to act in an appropriate and responsible way. As a student of political science prior to becoming a member of Parliament I guess it was in a difficult way reassuring to hear a Minister at least refer to the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility at the point he handed in his resignation and refer to his respect for the Westminster system. But it was curious from my point of view that although huge political capital from the Prime Minister—and from the front bench when one thinks back to the nature of supplementary questions and the like from the start of this year—was afforded Mr Benson-Pope none of that protection or political capital remained to give Mr Parker in any way the type of buffer he must have sought. 
The curious thing about that is that both Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Parker were well recognised as protégés of the Prime Minister—people she regarded as having bright futures in this Parliament. That was not just the talk in this building; it was the talk around Wellington. I find it curious that one was given the full strength of support of the Prime Minister’s office and the front bench of Cabinet and one was not. I wonder at what point the decision makers came to the view that that capital was to be invested in one member but not in the other. I suspect it was because that political capital had been well and truly exhausted on the first member and the Prime Minister was simply left without the political capital to deal in any way other than in the honourable way—in my opinion—that Mr Parker reacted seemingly without those same support networks. 
I guess it begs the question now of who would want to be a protégé of Helen Clark’s because those protégés are now in a very difficult position. There will be members opposite thinking they would rather be in Phil Goff’s camp. I think it will be particularly interesting over the coming weeks to see how the Labour caucus repairs itself in relation to its respect for its leadership structures. I will use my usual litmus test to decide how that is going because I will watch how David Cunliffe moves over the next month and a half as I decide exactly where the power balances are shifting inside the Labour caucus. 
In the meantime there are serious issues in the law and order area that I will continue to scrutinise while that sideshow carries on and while others make decisions about issues relating to the future of those two members. There are also issues in the corrections area that continue to burn considerably. Damien O’Connor’s constant refusal to face up to the fact that Parliament and the public of New Zealand should have an opportunity to scrutinise the Department of Corrections is almost beyond comprehension when one tallies up the list of awful incidents that have occurred in his department over recent months. Not only has there been a massive budget blowout of nearly $890 million—double the original $400 million—but Damien O’Connor has still not told us that that amount is capped.