5. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
Why was he consulted about the potential employment of Madeleine Setchell by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
Because the chief executive chose to do so.
Does the Minister have any further comment in addition to the one he made on radio this morning, when he said that his reasons for not appointing Madeleine Setchell were “if anything went wrong, she may have the bone pointed at her unfairly”; and does he not really mean that if a person has a family member who has a connection to the National Party, then there will be no job for that person, but if a person has a connection to the Labour Party, then everything will be all right?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, not at all. The Minister this morning was repeating the comments he made to Mr Sherwin that in these kinds of sensitive positions, if something happens, then no doubt the Opposition would be the first to point the bone, given half the chance.
Is the Minister concerned by this quote in the Hunn report from a mid-level manager inside the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: “Of course I will accept any decision the Minister makes but I am extremely worried about the precedent here. We have a number of employees with potential ‘perceived’ conflicts that may come into play with a change of government.”; and does this not indicate that this Minister has created a climate of fear in his office and an understanding that he will blacklist applicants, and that he has also stacked his ministry with people who are of his political persuasion?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am not sure which ones the member is referring to, but there is Mr Murray Sherwin, the former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, and a well-known economic dry; or Dan Bolger, whose surname might suggest something to the member.
Has he seen the quote of the acting communications manager at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, who said: “Madeleine has been ‘up front’ about her relationship which, in my view, should pose no obstacle to her being able to take up the contract position”; if so, why is it that the Minister then decided, very directly, that no, she was not to have the position?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
It is absolutely clear that Madeleine Setchell was up front initially about her relationship and revealed a potential conflict of interest. It is also absolutely clear from both Mr Hunn’s report and Dr Prebble’s report that the decision not to employ Ms Setchell in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was entirely that of Mr Sherwin and was not a decision by the Minister.
Hon Dr Nick SmithHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
So we now have the member opposite who was, of course, convicted of contempt of court and was commented on by the court for his veracity, saying that, in fact, Mr Hunn is a liar, and Dr Prebble is a liar, but the National Party stands up for the independence of the Public Service in saying so.
If we are to believe that the Minister did not express an opinion about the employment of Madeleine Setchell, why did Mr Sherwin convey a message to the mid-level manager of communications saying: “I have discussed with (the Chief of Staff) and he has discussed with the Minister. The answer is a clear ‘no’.”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If the member had managed to read a little bit further into the report he would have found that Mr Sherwin made it quite clear to Mr Hunn that the “no” was his “no”, not the Minister’s “no”. The acting communications director seemed to be acting under a strange impression from offshore that the Minister was going to make the decision anyway. The member actually asked almost for the Minister to make the decision—that is not what Mr Sherwin did, and it is certainly not what Mr Anderton did.
What does the Minister take the House for, when it is evident in the Hunn report that Mr Sherwin went to Mr Anderton and asked him whether it would be appropriate to employ Madeleine Setchell; if he did not do that, and he did not make that request for that purpose, why on earth is it in the report?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Because, indeed, Mr Sherwin did go to Mr Anderton and ask whether there would be any difficulty. Mr Anderton said that a problem could arise if something went wrong in terms of a leak or whatever; then it did not matter whether Ms Setchell was involved, the bone could be pointed at her. The report makes it abundantly clear that Mr Hunn is satisfied, and Mr Sherwin is clear, that Mr Sherwin made the decision alone. Now we have Mr Sherwin added to the list of those who are telling a lie. [ Interruption] That is right. The head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is telling a lie according to Mr Brownlee, and the head of the State Services Commission is telling a lie.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
“Yes”, he says. A former head of the State Services Commission is telling a lie, but of course the National Party would not attack the independence of the Public Service! Does the member not see some contradiction, so far, in his logic line?
Would the Minister care to believe that what I know is that Madeleine Setchell has been blacklisted by the Public Service, and the evidence is abundantly clear for that; and that not only Mr Benson-Pope decided to give her the heave after she had been appointed, after she had been headhunted, but also Mr Anderton, who knew that she had been through the difficulties at the Ministry for the Environment, decided to do exactly the same?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That line can be followed only if Mr Brownlee continues to insist that Mr Hunn, a very distinguished former public servant, tells a lie; that Mr Sherwin, who has never been associated with the Labour Party in any shape or form as far as I am aware tells a lie; that Dr Prebble, who, I think for many years now has not exactly been on the left wing of politics, tells a lie; but who cares, as long as it is said under privilege! Why does the member not say it outside as clearly as that?