3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
Does she stand by the briefing from the State Services Commission on issues surrounding an employment decision at the Ministry for the Environment, which she released on 20 July 2007; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
Since the 20 July briefing note was provided, both the State Services Commissioner and the Deputy State Services Commissioner have said they want further information on the handling of the employment issue relating to Ms Setchell. That is why there is now an investigation under the State Sector Act 1988.
What concerns, if any, does she have that a key piece of information was withheld from Iain Rennie by not only the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment but also the State Services Commissioner himself, Dr Mark Prebble?
I expressed concern yesterday and said I was disappointed that Dr Prebble had forgotten to pass that information on, first of all, to Mr Rennie.
Hon Bill EnglishThe Minister is required, in answering questions in Parliament, to answer correctly to the best of her ability. I quoted directly from a transcript of Dr Prebble’s interview with Morning Report where he does not say he forgot but says he did not regard it as the critical issue. In that respect, and in order to assist the Minister so that she is clear that Dr Prebble did not say he forgot but just said he thought he would not, I seek leave to table the transcript of his interview with Geoff Robinson on .
Madam SPEAKERLeave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection. I would also note—ruling on the point of order—that that is obviously a debatable matter.
What confidence should the New Zealand public have in Dr Mark Prebble, who withheld key information from the first investigation into the communications manager’s employment, and is now conducting the second—and supposedly more comprehensive—investigation, particularly when he was also the man who withheld crucial official information in the “corngate” issue?
I believe that the public can have confidence in the inquiry that is being undertaken—first of all, because Dr Prebble has asked Mr Don Hunn to be involved in the investigation. He wrote a letter to him, which I tabled, but I did discover later that, in fact, the letter was attached to the press release that Dr Prebble put out and obviously had not been read by the Opposition spokesperson on the State services. If I could remind him, the letter to Mr Hunn says: “When you have completed the necessary investigation, I require you to provide me with a report on the following: the relevant facts, including the involvement of me or any State Service Commission staff, any assessment or comment you consider should be made in relation to the involvement of me or any State Service Commission staff, where any conflict of evidence arises your assessment of what the truth of the matter is.” That is in the letter to Mr Don Hunn written by Dr Prebble and released publicly.
When was the Minister first told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion on the employment of Ms Setchell to Mr Logan?
The Minister is endeavouring to answer the question, as the member reminded the House before, in the best possible way. Would the Minister now address the question.
I try to be accurate in what I say. I have written down here the dates and times, and so on, that I was going to refer to. I will take the opportunity later to provide the answer, because I will not take the time of the House by looking now.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may choose to accept that as addressing the question, but if the Minister of State Services does not know what day she was made aware of the most crucial fact in this case, then that Minister does not deserve to hold the warrant.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
This seems to be a peculiarly inappropriate week for the Opposition to climb on a high horse about who can remember what and when, about what was said. This week has been a week in which Mr Key cannot remember what he said about almost anything, and had various stories on everything. [ Interruption] And the Opposition members do not like it when they are reminded of that fact—they do not like it at all. The fact is—[]
We will now hear the point of order in silence. Anyone who makes a comment will leave this Chamber. I could not hear what Dr Cullen was saying.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The fact is the Minister was seeking to consult her notes on a matter of detail. It is a pity that Mr Key did not take the chance to do so on a large number of occasions.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you consider that the Minister saying: “I will choose to answer this later.” is addressing the question?
Yes, I agree. Yes, the Minister did address the question, and it was not a point of order. You were making an observation, which you are entitled to do, but not as a point of order.
When was the Minister told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion on the employment of Madeleine Setchell to Mr Logan?
Further to her response to oral questions yesterday, has she now asked Dr Mark Prebble whether he was telling the truth when he stated in the Dominion Post article: “Ministers ought not be involved, and I understand the environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved”; if not, why not?