Editorial: Benson-Pope unlikely to survive as MP

Events surrounding David Benson-Pope have taken a predictable, and unhelpful, turn. Dunedin's Bayfield High School, where the suspended Cabinet minister taught for 24 years, has, not wishing to see its reputation sullied, rushed to his defence. As have many teachers. Excuses aplenty have been put forward, most placing the accusations against Mr Benson-Pope in the context of teaching and classroom discipline in the 1980s. All of which miss the essential point: how reasonable, even given the climate of that time, were his alleged methods of discipline?

There has been much discussion of Mr Benson-Pope's use of the cane, specifically whether he used it too vigorously. That is not relevant. Corporal punishment was an accepted, and legal, means of disciplining secondary school pupils then. As was the likes of holding them back after school for detention, dispatching them to the headmaster, or having them stand outside the classroom for the duration of the lesson.

What is relevant in Mr Benson-Pope's case are the extraordinary claims levelled against him by former pupils: that, for example, he stuffed a tennis ball in a 14-year-old's mouth to keep him quiet, and that he struck a pupil with the back of his hand, making the boy's nose bleed. Such acts, even given the greater flexibility of the 1980s, were far from normal. In fact, they represent behaviour that can be described only as bizarre. No school and no teacher could possibly condone them and nor should they be sending out smokescreens.

In fact, if the inquiry initiated by the Government confirms the accusations levelled against Mr Benson-Pope, it will have established that his unreasonable methods spilled over into acts of illegality. Even in those days, teachers crossed a line when they touched a pupil. Such contact was not acceptable, even as a last resort. But such are the allegations against Mr Benson-Pope that upholding them would equate to him being found to have committed a number of assaults. That would make his stewardship of an anti-bullying campaign a travesty and render his holding an education portfolio utterly untenable.

Indeed, unless the inquiry concludes that the claims against Mr Benson-Pope are totally groundless, it is difficult to see how he can return to Cabinet. A complete acquittal seems unlikely, given the statements of those said to have suffered a clip over the head or a tennis ball in the mouth. At best for Mr Benson-Pope, the inquiry may prove to be inconclusive. Yet even then he must confront his own categorical denials to Parliament in the week before the complainants went public.

Asked at that time whether he had ever tied a boy's hands together and jammed a tennis ball into his mouth as punishment for talking when he was a teacher, Mr Benson-Pope responded: "I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them." Asked whether he smacked a pupil with the back of his hand sufficiently hard to make the boy's nose bleed at a school camp in the Catlins, he replied: "This is a disgraceful allegation and I refute it completely." Mr Benson-Pope then went on to describe such behaviour as "clearly illegal".

It is difficult to see how he could have forgotten such behaviour if, in fact, it occurred, especially as he now concedes that it would not have been legal. The strength of the denials has painted him into a corner. If the inquiry finds against him, it must surely block not only his return to Cabinet but set in train a course that will lead to his departure from Parliament. Misleading the House is, quite correctly, considered most dimly and is a resignation offence.

The motives for opposition parties raising the allegations against Mr Benson-Pope might smack of election-year politics. Equally, it has taken the complainants a long time to air their grievances. But that does not invalidate them or detract from the unsuitability of an Associate Education Minister if he were found to have administered discipline in the weirdest of ways.