Paula Bennett speech on PM’s office involvement in assault claims


Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

The Prime Minister says she did not know there were sexual assault allegations against one of her staff members until Monday. I could go through the various media reports since 5 August and my own representation since being contacted by victims to show the inconsistencies in this, but they have already been well traversed in the last 24 hours.

Back in 2016, Jacinda Ardern wrote an op-ed about the scandal surrounding the Chiefs rugby team. She said that a resignation is not enough: “It’s the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.”

The resignation today of Nigel Haworth cannot be, in the Prime Minister’s words, “the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away.” Yes, Mr Haworth needed to go, and it should have happened weeks ago, but what is also known is that the Prime Minister’s own senior staff and a senior Minister have known the seriousness of the allegations but have not acted.

The complainants were members of the Labour Party. They genuinely believed that the party would listen to their complaints and deal with the alleged offender appropriately, but nothing happened. It clearly has taken an incredible sense of frustration, disappointment, and disillusion for these people to come to me, a National Party MP, to try and see their complaints addressed.

These are serious allegations. The Prime Minister cannot keep her head in the sand and pretend like it is happening somewhere far, far away. It is happening in her own office, in her own organisation. She is the leader of the Labour Party. The alleged perpetrator works in her leader’s office—he works for her.

Less than a year ago, the Prime Minister was in New York at the UN, trumpeting “Me too should be we too.” Well, who knew that that meant her own office was following the path well trod by all those companies who drew a curtain over sexual misconduct and inappropriate behaviour.

I have been told by the complainants that Jacinda Ardern’s former chief of staff Mike Monroe knew about the allegations, her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, knew about the allegations, and the director of her leader’s office, Rob Salmond, knew about the allegations. I have been told by two victims who work in Parliament that they went to Rob Salmond around Christmas time and made a complaint about the alleged perpetrator.

The Prime Minister has constantly said her office did not receive complaints and, in fact, encouraged the victims to speak to their line managers. They did. They have told me they went to Rob Salmond and nothing was done, and we are expected to believe that none of these men in her own office told the Prime Minister about the allegations—all of this in the aftermath of the Labour summer camp scandal, when the Prime Minister made it very clear she expected to have been told. And are we really expected to believe that she didn’t know that her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, embarked on a witch-hunt to try and find out who in the Beehive was talking to the media about the allegations? The complainants certainly felt hunted and scared that he was trying to shut them up and stop them from talking to the media—classic bullying of victims, and hardly a victim-led response.

A victim has told me that the alleged perpetrator has deep alliances to Grant Robertson, that he was involved in his campaign for the Labour Party leadership, and that Grant Robertson has known the seriousness of these allegations. It is unbelievable that he hasn’t discussed this with his close friend and his leader.

This all smacks of a cover-up. This goes straight to the top: to the Prime Minister, to senior Cabinet Ministers, and—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Possible of note is in Question time just before this Bennett briefly questioned Ardern.

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the statement made by Jacinda Ardern in 2016 about the Chiefs rugby scandal that a resignation is not enough: “It’s the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. … After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.”?

SPEAKER: No. That question does not relate to a statement of the Prime Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “we need to make sure that we have environments in all of our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims, and that respond to those situations.”, and how does that correlate with a situation where the victims were barred from parts of the parliamentary complex?


Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “we need to make sure that we have environments in all our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims,”; and, if so, how does that correlate that senior male staffers in her office have known about these extremely serious allegations since at least the beginning of the year and none of these men have brought it to her attention?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to answer the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be revising her statement made to the UN less than a year ago that “#MeToo must become we too. We are all in this together.”, in light of her own office’s failure to deal with sexual assault allegations involving one of her staff members?


Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her previous statements that victims should go to one of their line managers and that no senior people in her office had received a complaint?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time that I made the statement, yes.

If Ardern “made the statement” after two complainants went to a line manger (Salmond) around Christmas time she could have a probem.

No benefit if on arrest warrant

Government plans to stop benefits of anyone who has an outstanding arrest warrant has not surprisingly been controversial. Some have hailed it as “why wasn’t this happening already”, some have condemned it as diversionary and another beneficiary bash.

Different sides argue this on Kiwiblog – Half of those with arrest warrants on a benefit – and from here at The Standard. The Standard has just startedtopic on this which will build comments today – Trouble? Re-announce a distraction…

I see Paula Benefit is up to her old tricks again. As the government desperately wants to be doing something other than not attending huis over water rights, it’s up to Paula to pull a benefit bash. But she’s obviously run out of ideas so now we’re re-announcing the old bene-bashes.

Kiwiblog reports on the stats:

“Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,” says Mrs Bennett.

A lawyer who’s a regular on Kiwiblog comments and answers some queries:

  1. F E Smith  Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 6:14 pm That low, huh?  I thought it would be a greater proportion than that.By the way, I think it is a fantastic policy.  Should have been implemented years ago.

    Are there checks to ensure the people concerned know that there is an arrest warrant for them?

    In my experience, 98% of people subject of a WTA are fully aware of it.  Of those who weren’t, many at some point were aware of it but then forgot about it.  Often Corrections will be the most likely organisation to apply for a warrant in lieu of service, which means that almost all of those people should be aware that there will be charges coming for not complying with a sentence.

    The person receiving the benefit is the same person with the arrest warrant and not just someone with a similar name

    Well, that does happen, but not very often.  The level of incidence is so low, in my opinion, as to be able to be discounted.

    because now, those crims who have their benefits cut will return to crime to feed themselves.

    Gee, if you believe this then I have a good sized bridge in Auckland to sell you.  In my experience there is very little crime out of necessity, especially the necessity to feed oneself or one’s dependants.  Very, very little.  On the other hands, there are quite a number of people receiving a benefit who continue a life of crime quite happily.


  1. F E Smith Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    FES – how much if any effect will removing benefits be likely to have on offending of individuals?

    Oh, take their benefit off them and they will scream!  I expect it to be quite effective, to be honest.

And another view…

  1. tristanb Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Inky: Are there checks to ensure the people concerned know that there is an arrest warrant for them?

    No. There’s no checks to ensure it’s not a similar name [strong sarcasm]. WTF?! Plus they’ll find out when they don’t get their benefit! Arrest warrants aren’t things that we develop for no reason (like rashes) – you actually have to commit a crime to get one.

    You’ve just got to find something wrong with this don’t you?

    Lee C: because now, those crims who have their benefits cut will return to crime to feed themselves.

    Yes, starvation is the most common motive behind crime in NZ. That’s why people rape – because they can’t afford a MacAttack. (Also strong sarcasm.)

    You’ve never actually met a criminal have you? They’re arrogant, they get every entitlement they’re “entitled” to and more. They’re nasty and they only care about themselves – that’s why they commit crime – because they don’t consider how traumatic it is to have your windows forced, and have someone rifle through your house before stealing family heirlooms.

And another lawyer on the other side of the argument:


A lot of these warrants will be for unpaid fines where notices have been sent to a former address.

Even a temporary suspension of payments will cause hardship.  Many of these people are on the breadline and a temporary cut will mean they will not be able to make the next week’s rent or grocery bill.

For political gain and minimal savings Bennett intends to make it that much harder for them.  Shame on her.

And another:

Kotahi Tāne Huna

Failure and incompetence are the hallmark of the National Party, so they hide behind these distractions.

The question is: will the Labour Party come out strongly and promise to reverse this and other attacks on New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens?

Perhaps a promise to fully compensate any person who can show that this policy caused genuine hardship?

Or will we hear about an old guy whose neighbour didn’t pay a fine?

Criminals are “New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens”?