Am I the only one who cannot understand why the government is continuing to defend David Benson-Pope?
What he is alleged to have done this time wasn't illegal, but it was a clear breach of professional standards even at the time. Even then, it wouldn't be a real problem, except that he has opened himself up to a charge of misleading Parliament by denying it so strenuously. And while his denial is perfectly understandable in the face of outright muckraking from the opposition, it has called his credibility as a Minister into permanent doubt.
More importantly, Benson-Pope is a political liability, and has been ever since allegations were first raised back in May. And rather than dismissing them, the police's decision not to prosecute has turned them into a permanent albatross around his - and by extension, the government's - neck. In the past, Helen Clark has responded to this sort of problem swiftly and decisively, by standing down the Minister in question and then quietly rehabilitating them (assuming they are competent) when the fuss dies down. It's ruthless, but politics has never been fair.
So, why hasn't this been done with David Benson-Pope? I can think of only two explanations: either he, contrary to Helen Clark's oft-stated principle, is indispensable, or Helen has lost her mojo. And neither is a very comfortable answer.
15 comments:
There are so many beatups and straight fabrications promulgated in an effort to smear ministers that I guess the PM has to be quite robust.
However in this case I think she should have long ago told Benson-Pope to either resign permanently, or resign and sue for libel, so that the allegations could have an airing in court. Same applies to Philip Taito Field.
Posted by Rich : 3/01/2006 01:04:00 PM
He has lost all credibility, I can only assume the PM is supporting hims so wholeheartedly for internal party reasons and/or the delicate balancing of numbers in the House.
His behavior has been bizarre through it all, and shows a real lack of judgement. He has to go, sooner or later, and now it looks like later, when he will have done even more damage.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 01:06:00 PM
I can give you a couple of reasons. 1/ Most people don't care and see it as just an irrelevant muck raking exercise. The finer point about misleading the house is lost on most of joe public.
2/ Of those that do care, DBP is most likely to get sympathy from "spare the rod spoil the child" Nats and criticism from PC lefties. Since neither groups heart is really in giving succour to the enemy they are muted int heir criticism.
Posted by Sanctuary : 3/01/2006 01:34:00 PM
I think I agree with sanctuary. It's not the best to have a male teacher hanging around one's daughter while she's changing, but it's worse to have her unsupervised on a school outing. If the guidelines are followed rigidly, then the kids can game the system. I know what school outings are like. Are we going to insist that stomach pumps are only operated by same-sex paramedics?
As for Clark, it may be that she is a little over-sensitive to being called PC and that protecting DBP makes her look robust.
But all that's being alleged here is that guidelines were breached, not that assaults took place. We seem to have swallowed the tennis balls, so to speak, so why is this an issue?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 02:25:00 PM
Phil: and none of it would matter if he hadn't backed himself into a corner and lied to Parliament about it (which makes his "crime" effectively insufficient evasiveness).
I think Benson-Pope should have gone after the first set of allegations; I have no stomach for sadists in Parliament. But now this is a straight issue of political management. DBP is making the government look stupid (and yes, the opposition look like muckrakers), and in the past that's been more than enough reason to fire someone.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/01/2006 03:57:00 PM
Pfft. Whatever happened is certainly being blown hugely out of proportion by the opposition and the media. There are ministers in parliment with records as bad or worse than DB-P what about their dirty secrets?
Yup. Sure he was a bastard. Most teachers in the 80's were, mine certainly were. It was the cultural norm at the time, and times have changed.
However naughty the minister may have been is beside the point. What concerns me is that right now the opposition has nothing better to do.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 04:35:00 PM
A good percentage of the staff at my small-town secondary school were walksort-wearing psychopaths, or at least were turned that way by years of struggle in the classrooms with unruly adolescents. I don't feel sorry for BP, but I would wonder how many other career teachers would be similarly embarrased by intense scrutiny of their professional pasts...
We had: a whole squadron of barely-reformed caners... a hurler of blackboard-dusters... two frequent weepers who presented an irresistable challenge to every class... a sadistic PE teacher... a lesbian PE teacher who spent a great deal of time in changing rooms... an American maths teacher obessed with cleanliness and the threat of disease... many more shouters and pedants (hair length, socks, etc etc)... a particularly nasty female science teacher who loved to abuse the less capable...
And that's just off the top of my head, and dosn't include the nutcase pupils that might make the staff look, on the whole, reasonable...
Posted by Anonymous : 3/01/2006 05:11:00 PM
He lied about there being no complaints, he should resign.
Posted by Muerk : 3/01/2006 06:20:00 PM
THe reason with regards to your last sentence is simple. He is not a Maori, he is not on the right of the Labour spectrum, and Clark has decided that integrity and truth is irrelevant.
Posted by Swimming : 3/01/2006 06:45:00 PM
Phil wrote:
But all that's being alleged here is that guidelines were breached, not that assaults took place. We seem to have swallowed the tennis balls, so to speak, so why is this an issue?
I reply:
As the old saying goes, in politics it's not the crime that kills you but the cover-up. And, even if you're being extremely generous, the constantly morphing story and attacks of highly selective early onset Alzheimer's mean you have to question his judgement - especially in always contentious and politically sensitive areas like education and welfare where the Minister's credibility with relevant sectors is critical.
You've also got to ask how the Minister of Social Development can credibly talk about professional standards and accountability in his portfolio where staff recruitment and retention are critical issues.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 3/02/2006 12:45:00 AM
Hmm, suddenly I see a lack of "innocent until proven guilty", until he's tried and convicted, why should he be punished?
...if this man was being accused of say sedition or deviancy would you be calling for him to step down as minister?
Posted by Anonymous : 3/02/2006 03:30:00 PM
Bloodrage: The presumption of innocence and natural justice apply in any criminal case or formal proceedings. They certainly don't apply to democratic accountability.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/02/2006 06:03:00 PM
I should also point out that DBP's "crime" is misleading Parliament, rather than anything to do with the substance of the allegations themselves. And that's something for which the proof is absolutely clear. Helen has forgiven him for that lapse, but I'm not sure that its really up to her...
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/03/2006 01:03:00 AM
agree with your comments I/S. he should have fronted up early on and accepted responsibility for what was known and what might come out, end of story.
the real reason clark has done nothing was hubris. she just won an election. now she is backed into a corner
Posted by sagenz : 3/03/2006 07:25:00 AM
The difference between this and previous embarassments to the government is in the blatant baselessness of the allegations against Benson-Pope.
Benson-Pope was put in an impossible position when forced to answer the question of whether there were any other complaints. Of course there were complaints - that happens every single day to teachers just because they do their jobs. But apparently there were none judged signficant by the school administration. So he has the choice of providing a list of further minor incidents for the opposition to blow out of all proportion, or he can say there weren't any and wait for them to find the non-issues themselves. I'm not surprised he took the latter course.
I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right to stand against this Karl Rove-style character assassination. And distasteful as it is, I think she's absolutely right to point out the chaos that would ensue if the government descended to the same depths against former teachers on the other side of the house.
Meanwhile, we have a serious shortage of qualified high school teachers, and I don't think there could be a single one in the country who isn't watching this and wondering whether it's time to resign.
Posted by Anonymous : 3/03/2006 07:48:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).