English Bill: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
English Bill: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:494] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 What decent New Zealanders would not have felt sick today when they heard the Acting Prime Minister answer questions about David Benson-Pope? My colleague Judith Collins asked legitimate questions about a man who is legally the guardian of all those New Zealand children who do not have fit parents of their own. In response to those questions the Acting Prime Minister Dr Cullen introduced into this House a series of allegations regarding the activities of victims of Mr Benson-Pope some 22 years ago. That is the best Labour can do. Is it not an incredible inversion of who is strong and who is weak? Here we have a Minister of the Crown one of the more powerful positions to hold in this country being defended by Labour with allegations that cannot be answered against what a kid did when he was 13 or 14. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And 15 and 16 and 17. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: So it goes on. I want to say to that young man whose name I do not know that Labour members are out to get him. They are out to get him because they think that is a fair price that that young man should pay to save the career of David Benson-Pope. What has that young man done to deserve this? Well he might have done some things that are wrong. Many young teenagers have. What we do know for sure is that David Benson-Pope in a position of adult and professional responsibility did do something wrong. We have the police to tell us he did. 
So let us think about what might amount to a fair go here. Trevor Mallard and Dr Michael Cullen two of Labour’s more vicious operators are pursuing a young man who 22 years after the incident still felt compelled to complain to the police. Of course it mattered to him. That is the red corner—No. 2 and No. 4 in the Government. And in the other corner is the victim who after 22 years still felt so disturbed that he sought— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A million-dollar diary. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Trevor Mallard’s “dirt file” is full again. We have heard about the “dirt file” in this House before. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s Tuku Morgan’s diary. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All that is going on here is the intimidation by senior Labour Ministers of some young New Zealander. He is now getting three warnings from Trevor Mallard today. The reference to Tuku Morgan simply reinforces that this young man can expect the same kind of public exposure kicking and vicious compassion that only those two Ministers can hand out and it is a disgrace. It is the crowning disgrace on a very bad start to the history of this Government and its term. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s scary. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is scary. Let us bear in mind the position that David Benson-Pope holds. I understand that legally Ruth Dyson is the Minister in charge of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services but David Benson-Pope is the Minister for Social Development and Employment and he actually has equivalent legal powers. When we look at the Ministry of Social Development briefing—which is rotten with meaningless “Mahareyisms”—a few of the words that stick out are about violence. Actually the Ministry of Social Development identifies as the top social priority for Government policy lifting the level of achievement of those children who are underachieving in school. That is the briefing that was put on David Benson-Pope’s desk. 
Is Labour so bereft of political and administrative talent that that man should stay in charge of the department that looks after New Zealand’s vulnerable people? The answer to that is yes; that is why he has to stay there. He is only the fourth to be investigated by the police. The Government cannot put the other three in there. 
Is this Parliament so bereft of compassion for those young New Zealanders who were victims that we will stand by and let that happen? The answer to that is no. The Government can expect more questions on this matter. David Benson-Pope should show up and answer. He should come out of hiding and take responsibility. As Rodney Hide pointed out the conflicting evidence in front of the police consists of one piece of conflict and that is David Benson-Pope maintaining that he never did it. He told this Parliament he never did it and that is serious. Parliament takes that very seriously. If members say they never sped or missed the plane that does not matter but if the Minister says he never beat up the kids but all the other kids say he did and the police say he has a case to answer then he absolutely has a case to answer in this Parliament. He will struggle mightily to answer the case to the public; he will try to hide from it. But he must answer the case in this House. He absolutely must do so because he said on his word in this House that he did not do it. 
Actually the dishonesty—if that is what it is—is only the secondary consideration. The primary one is that he maintains a position of responsibility at the grace and favour of the Prime Minister Helen Clark who of course knows all about prima facie evidence of criminal activity. It is the deep empathy between the two that keeps him there. 
Who is left to answer the questions on it? It is Dr Cullen. I might say that I think Dr Cullen’s misjudgments today reflect the pressure that Helen Clark and the Labour Government are putting on that man. He is now “Mr Fix-it” for everything. Tertiary education is his next one and I will tell him now that it will be more difficult than the foreshore even if it is less controversial. He is the man who had to answer all the questions about the stupid arrangement between Winston Peters and Helen Clark. He is the man who will have to answer more questions if David Benson-Pope does not come to this House. I say to Dr Cullen that he is being taken for granted. He is the last credible Minister in this Government and given the way pressure is being put on him that credibility will not last if he keeps giving the kinds of answers he did today. 
Occasionally this Parliament must take seriously what MPs say in here. David Benson-Pope said that he did not abuse young children. He is in charge of a department whose fundamental responsibility is for exactly the most vulnerable of our young people. He must come here he must explain himself then he must go.