8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Does he stand by his statement on Tuesday this week, in respect of the decision by his ministry to employ Labour Party activist Clare Curran for strategic communications on climate change, that it was “in breach of the operating policy” and that “There is a fast-track authority method that could have been used quite properly in this case, and it was not.”; if so, who does he hold responsible for this breach?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
Yes; that is a matter that the State Services Commission is currently looking into.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Which is right: the Minister’s statement on Tuesday that Clare Curran’s appointment was “in breach of the operating policy” or the statement by David Parker yesterday that “Nothing was wrong or inappropriate about Clare Curran’s appointment.”?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
David Parker was referring to his role; I was referring to the ministry’s role.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why did the Minister firstly tell the House on Tuesday that the reason the current contract was not declared in response to very specific questions from the select committee was that it was in the name of Clare Curran’s company, when that company is not listed in this year’s financial review, then excuse that omission on the basis that the contract was not in that financial year, when the State Services Commission report states that the contract was signed on 16 July and the committee requested all contracts after 1 July; and what explanation can he now give as to why the ministry hid this politically sensitive contract to Clare Curran from the select committee?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The contract was declared the year before, which was the appropriate time to declare it. It was in the name of Clare Curran’s company. The engagement, which the member asked about at the select committee, was in the previous financial year.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How does the Minister explain the contradiction between David Parker’s statement in the New Zealand Herald this morning that a ministry official had, at last Thursday’s select committee, “clearly stated he did not direct the ministry to appoint Ms Curran” and the transcript from that select committee meeting, which shows that a ministry official said: “My recollection was that Clare Curran was employed to do a short piece of contract work. We cannot confirm anything further about the matter, but the ministry will get back with details.”; and why are the public again being misled about this Government’s dodgy interference in the ministry’s staffing?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The Minister did not direct that Clare Curran be employed, just as he did not direct that Anna Hughes, Anna Kominik, or Therese Anders be employed. All of those people were employed. I accept there was a breach. There should have been an approval for not having proper quotes, but there was not. That is being looked into.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was very specific. David Parker said in the New Zealand Herald this morning that the ministry had given evidence to the select committee. I have checked the select committee record, and what David Parker said about what had happened there was not correct. My question to the Minister was why that was the case, and the Minister went off on another tangent. I think the House is entitled to an answer to the very simple question of why David Parker said today in the that that happened in the select committee, when that is not supported by the transcript.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
That then becomes a very simple issue. That Minister is not responsible for what another Minister said about what happened in a select committee. He cannot have ministerial responsibility for that.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Adding to what my colleague Dr Cullen has said, I am also not responsible for the New Zealand Herald—fortunately.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
My question to the Minister was how he could explain the contradiction between the statement in the New Zealand Herald and what his ministry official said at the select committee. This is a Minister who is responsible for his officials, so I am asking him to explain why it is that the Minister David Parker is contradicting the ministry officials, for whom Minister Mallard does have responsibility.
Madam SPEAKERWould the Minister clarify the point for the member. I did think it was addressed, but would the Minister please clarify it.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I am prepared to elucidate if the House wishes. To date, no person who has been in a meeting with David Parker has suggested that he directed the ministry. Someone who is a sad person, who had six attempts at doing a piece of work, and who was replaced on that job is the only person—other than Opposition members—who has suggested that.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
If the only issue was in respect of Erin Leigh’s performance, why did senior manager Neal Cave also resign in protest over this politicisation of the ministry; and is not what is really going on here that this Government has banked on the issue of climate change as its future chance of getting re-elected, but, as the evidence of the United Nations’ report today shows, its progress has been awful and it has politicised the communications wing of the Ministry for the Environment to try to save its bacon?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The only person I know who says that Mr Cave resigned for that reason is Erin Leigh. I would prefer to rely on the word of the officials who were present at the time.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
The document I have is the transcript of the select committee hearing last Thursday. I seek the leave of the House to table it, as it contradicts the statement made by David Parker this morning in the New Zealand Herald.