Madam SPEAKERI have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of a State Services Commission briefing on an employment decision at the Ministry for the Environment. The release of the briefing is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and given the public interest in the subject of the briefing I agree that it does require the immediate attention of the House.
I have also received letters from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Sue Bradford seeking to debate the decision of the directors of Auckland International Airport Ltd to recommend a sale of Auckland airport to a Dubai company. The decision of a company’s directors is not a matter of ministerial responsibility, though if such a deal were to proceed it may well involve Overseas Investment Office clearance. However, that stage has not been reached yet. I will therefore allow Mr Key’s application and call on Mr Key to move that the House take note of a particular matter of urgent importance.
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. It would be easy for people to dismiss this case as one of a young woman, Madeleine Setchell, who applied for a job at the Ministry for the Environment, and, for reasons that may not have been made public except for the two degrees of separation that limit all New Zealanders, I think, lost her job, and it was time to move on. That is the position that Helen Clark and David Benson-Pope want to adopt. They want this situation to move on.
Helen Clark, in Parliament’s question time today, gave David Benson-Pope a small slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket, and she now thinks it is all OK—she thinks it is all OK. She does not want to have this issue debated in public, because she knows what the ramifications will be. This is from a Prime Minister who went on the campaign trail and argued about higher levels of accountability and standards. What this story is really about is—
I tell Trevor that he was 18th man in Valencia and after the reshuffle he will not even be 18th man in Cabinet, so sit down, son, and move on.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was actually replaced by 100 kilograms of lead; I was never 18th man.
The Prime Minister wants this all to go away, because it is a little bit annoying and it shows Labour up for what it is—a Labour Government that is arrogant and does not care about the little people any more. The party that was once formed on workers’ rights does not care about them any more. The bit that the Labour Party—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member cannot continue a constant barracking of interjections. The member will listen to me.
Trevor Mallard wants to keep commentating through my speech because he does not want the facts exposed for what they are. There are 55,000 public servants looking on and they know that under Labour the rules of the game have changed. So it is no wonder Trevor Mallard wants to create a few diversions. He wants the facts not to come out.
This goes a lot further than a young woman who lost her job. This goes to the heart of the neutrality of the public service in New Zealand. It is a public service that has served us well from Government to Government. It has been able to draw on people, irrelevant of what their partners did and irrelevant of what their siblings did. It has been a public service that has been well and truly up and beyond anything that can come from a Labour Party.
The second thing that the Labour Party does not want people to know is that this is part of a plan to move to get greater exercise of influence in ministerial departments. That is what is happening here. The Labour Party no longer wants a neutral public service. It wants a public service that has Labour Party lackeys in it, operating under its rules and singing to its tune, because it does not like the neutrality of the public service. On Friday the Government made something very unusual happen. The State Services Commissioner actually had to write an op-ed piece in the Dominion Post about why it does not mean the end of the neutrality of the public service, because he knew that was the case.
The last thing that Labour members do not want exposed is that once again David Benson-Pope has been caught being economical with the truth. It is not the first time Labour has found David Benson-Pope being a little economical with the truth, and it is not the second time it has found him out; it is the third time that he has been found being economical with the truth, and they are the only times on the public record that we know about.
So let us get a few facts on the table. Madeleine Setchell was hired by the Ministry for the Environment because she was good at her job. The ministry knew she would be good at her job because the funny thing is this was not the first time Madeleine Setchell had been hired by a Government department. This was the third time she had been employed by a Government department. The ministry knew her track record. When Mark Prebble said that she was a person of personal integrity, that was not a warm platitude rolled out for a Dominion Post op-ed; he knew, because there was a proven track record. She had worked there time and time again, and the ministry knew she was good. The ministry knew she was trustworthy and she was a person of integrity; it knew that. The Prime Minister wants New Zealanders to believe that, when the ministry interviewed her, her relationship with Kevin Taylor, my press secretary, was somehow glossed over and a little vague.
Well, here are the facts. The ministry raised the issue of whether there was a conflict of interest, and she answered those questions. She was asked directly how she would handle matters of conflict of interest, and she answered them, because for the entire time that she has had a relationship with Kevin Taylor he has had positions where conflicts of interest could have been an issue. She answered those questions honestly and she answered them clearly, and there was no ambiguity and no vagueness. The Prime Minister knows that, and that is just another red herring that has been put up to try to protect David Benson-Pope, because she knows that he is in the gun for something that had gone on.
Ministry staff knew all the facts, and guess what? They hired Madeleine Setchell. They were satisfied that the neutrality of the public service would be maintained, they were satisfied that she knew how to deal with matters with integrity, and they were satisfied with the way things would be carried out. So can members imagine her shock when, after 3 days on the job, her employment was terminated. It was not because she was not good at her job, she could not manage a situation involving a conflict of interests, or she did not have a proven track record with three Government departments. It was because David Benson-Pope did not like her and did not want her in that office—and he knows it.
David Benson-Pope was not asked just a vague question. Duncan Garner asked David Benson-Pope, on behalf of TV3, whether he knew the details of this case, and David Benson-Pope said: “No.” We now know from the State Services Commission that that is not right. When Duncan Garner asked David Benson-Pope: “Are you sure about these matters?”, he said: “Duncan, I have been very clear with you. No, I do not know the details of this case.” But, unfortunately for David Benson-Pope, that is not the way the State Services Commissioner saw it, and that is not factually correct. You see, David Benson-Pope did know, because otherwise what would be the probability of Steve Hurring, a political adviser in David Benson-Pope’s office, making a phone call off his own bat to the Ministry for the Environment?
That is right—zero. Why do we know that it is zero? It is because the Prime Minister’s office advised staff in David Benson-Pope’s office not to make that phone call. No political advisers go and do that off their own bat, because they will get the boot if they cross the ninth floor, unless someone is protecting them. That is why we know that it is not correct. It is because the ninth floor said not to do it, and Steve Hurring did it anyway because he was just the messenger for David Benson-Pope.
David Benson-Pope should get on his feet and stop talking about the things that Steve Hurring has done, when he knows that he is the man who issued the riding instructions. If he does not have anything to cover up, then maybe, just maybe, David Benson-Pope should explain to the public of New Zealand why he did not answer factually the question that Duncan Garner asked him. If he had nothing to hide and if he was not worried about the situation, then he would have answered that question directly, but he did not. He said: “No. I do not understand that situation.” And it is not just the ninth floor that did not agree with it. Last night we saw on Television One that other ministerial staff have made it clear to journalists that that is not the action they expected from that office.
So we can draw only a few conclusions here. Steve Hurring was not acting alone, or, if he was, David Benson-Pope’s office is running so amok that he does not have a clue what is going on and he is not fit to be a Minister on that account, let alone for any other reason. When the Prime Minister came back into the country with the mess erupting around her, do members think she rang Hugh Logan and asked him what went on? Did she make inquiries of the State Services Commissioner, or the deputy commissioner who undertook the report, Iain Rennie? No, she looked at David Benson-Pope and she said that she took his word. He is someone who has twice before been caught being economical with the truth, but on this occasion, for some reason, she decided that he was not doing that.
Well, why was that the case? Because, as my colleague Bill English quite correctly pointed out today, there is a small thing going through the House at the moment called electoral law reform. What it will mean, if it passes—Labour Government legislation—is that the only people who will be able to advertise in the 2008 election year will be political parties up to their cap, which starts from 1 January, not 3 months out from the election, and, of course, Government department communication units spending taxpayer funds, like the one at the Ministry for the Environment. The showcase will be carbon neutrality, and that will be coming from David Benson-Pope’s office. So one can imagine how inconvenient it would be to have a neutral public servant in charge of communications, not a Labour Party lackey.
Who will get the job and replace Madeleine Setchell, who was fired not because she was not good but because—
Steve Hurring will probably be the person who gets the job, not Madeleine Setchell. So we now understand why this is all happening. It is because the Labour Party thinks the Public Service is an extension of its organisation, and that is why Helen Clark has turned a blind eye to this incident.
The Public Service has served us well. Its employees deserve to know that they are safe in their jobs. We do not live under a regime where all of a sudden there is a change or where people live in fear because their brother, sister, or partner happens to be somehow associated with a political party that the Labour Party does not like. Now we have a Government in its dark and dying hours that is changing the electoral rules because it cannot win under the current ones. It is changing the public service so that somehow it can do what it wants, and all along the way one young woman has lost her job. And nothing has happened about it!
The Prime Minister, who campaigned on accountability, does not care, and the Minister who has misled her three times now, on the record, keeps his job. Well, I tell members that the Minister is welcome to his job for the next 12 months, because when the next election comes around, the public of New Zealand will take his job from him, they will take the Prime Minister’s job from her, and they will take the jobs of all the other Labour Ministers from them, because those members are not fit to be running this country.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
The issue of Public Service neutrality is very important. It is a tradition that, contrary to—[ Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member knows that he cannot accuse another member—
Hon Tau HenareI said: “Spanky’s a liar.” I didn’t accuse any of them; I said: “Spanky’s a liar.”—unless she’s named “Spanky”.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I would just remind the member that he cannot do that.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I start again, Madam Assistant Speaker, as I only got my first sentence out?
Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The issue of Public Service neutrality is very important. It is a tradition that, contrary to some editorial writers, Labour strongly supports. It is the way that Governments, regardless of their political colours, are able to implement their policies when they take office, because they must have a Public Service that services the Government of the day without fear or favour, and it is the cornerstone of our political system.
The employment issue relating to Ms Setchell has led to debate about Public Service neutrality and political interference. From my experience as a Minister, chief executives and Ministers work hard to ensure the appropriate protocols are followed. Being a politician means that at times things are political. Not one member in this House would claim to be anything other than a politician—although some, I have to say, feel uncomfortable about the party they are in, and some change their votes and parties at will.
Chief executives and their staff must be able to raise any issue they believe affects the Government of the day, and Ministers and their staff must be able to raise any matter that they believe affects the Government of the day. In fact, the State Services Commission issued a fact sheet entitled “Political neutrality”, and I think this statement is worth repeating from that document: “Because of the Minister’s political responsibilities and in order to maintain a relationship of confidence between the Minister and chief executive, the Minister is entitled to expect to be informed in advance of any issues or difficulties relating to the agency. Providing information to the Minister on a no-surprises basis is not abdicating or transferring responsibility, and it does not breach the political neutrality principle.” That is a very important piece of advice to any Ministers, now and in the future.
So the key issue here is how those issues are managed. No one is suggesting that a cone of silence must exist between public servants and Ministers—or MPs, for that matter—because there might be some sort of political overtones. If that were the case, it could be considered inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff to have called for a meeting with the Deputy State Services Commissioner to raise the issue of the employment of Ms Setchell in the Ministry for the Environment, which occurred on 2 July.
It could be considered that political pressure was being applied to the independent State Services Commissioner to take some action or other against the chief executive, or others. I do not think that is necessarily the case, at all, but it could be perceived that way. An impartial press may have written up that action as being dubious; I would not have agreed, however. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, through his staff, has the right to raise such issues with senior public servants. You know, sometimes our own behaviour in this place leads to the politicisation of the Public Service—for example, recent attacks by National MPs on chief executives, saying that National will sack them if it becomes the Government, and threatening them about what it will do if it becomes the Government. That sort of behaviour, whether from National or anybody else, does lead to problems, because it is quite obvious that a Minister cannot sack a chief executive. That is the domain of the State Services Commission.
I would like to give the House another example that I have received, of a Parliamentary Service staff member who works part-time in Lianne Dalziel’s electorate office, and who works for the Parliamentary Service as a support for out-of-Parliament staff—and has done so for a number of years. She goes into individual offices to teach the basics of the running of an electorate office and to provide information about the support available. But all that changed this year. It changed when National refused to allow her into National out-of-Parliament offices because she worked for Lianne Dalziel. She is not a political appointee but she has been banned from going into National offices, not because she is a bad person, not because she is incompetent—in fact, I am told she is a good person and she is competent—but because she works for a Labour member of Parliament. You see, it is this sort of behaviour that leads to some of these problems. I think that everyone needs to be mindful of his or her obligations, and not put public servants in such positions. Public servants themselves should also be mindful of their obligations.
This issue, I believe, is a timely reminder for everyone that actions, regardless of how innocent they may be, can be misinterpreted—whether it is a phone call from a Minister’s staffer or a call-up from the Leader of the Opposition’s staff wanting a meeting with the State Services Commissioner. This is not a new issue, and I think that it has been captured extremely well in a cartoon from Jim Hubbard that came out a day ago. It shows John Key, the Leader of the Opposition, stating: “This kind of political partisanship is unprecedented.”, while at the same time he is hastily trying to close a cupboard full of skeletons. I say to people to get the cartoon, because there is a little bit of hypocrisy being spoken here today—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
No, no—please be seated. The member knows that she cannot use that word. I ask her to withdraw it please.
I withdraw. A little bit of cant is being spoken here today about this issue, and I think that it is important we treat the issue with some seriousness and stop throwing around these sorts of accusations, which affect the Public Service and public servants, and take a much more grown-up approach to the whole issue.
As Minister of State Services I was advised by the Deputy State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, on 3 July, during my regular fortnightly meeting with him, that he had met with the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff, at Mr Eagleson’s request, to discuss a number of issues, including an employment issue at the Ministry for the Environment, a Ministry for the Environment advertisement, and other matters. The purpose of his advice was to advise me, as Minister of State Services, of the meeting. No further information was sought, or given.
Given the public commentary about the perceived lack of independence of Mr Logan’s employment decisions, Mr Rennie agreed to provide a briefing note that summarised the facts as presented to him by Mr Logan. On Friday, 20 July I met with the Deputy State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, where he provided me with the briefing note, which was subsequently released in its entirety. Today I asked for a short note on the important points as they relate to the State Services Commissioner and the State Services Commission, because we have heard on the radio today from National that it intends to pursue the State Services Commissioner and the State Services Commission.
I wish to read to the House from the report that I have received: “Discussions between Mr Logan and the State Services Commissioner: Hugh Logan met with the State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble after Mr Logan identified a potential conflict of interest. Dr Prebble advised Mr Logan on the framework that he should use in coming to his decision on how to manage that issue. He did not tell Mr Logan how he should resolve the issue. In summary, the framework used by Dr Prebble was based on two principles: One, that public servants should be considered on their merits, and their political loyalties should not normally be questioned. Secondly, that senior public servants have an obligation to maintain loyal service to the Government of the day, including, sometimes, discreet support on politically sensitive matters without compromising their ability to serve future Governments. These are the principles that have guided chief executives’ handling of potential conflicts of interest for many years.
State Services Commission briefing report 20 July: The report to you on 20 July was a briefing to you setting out matters that the State Services Commission were aware of in relation to this matter. Given that public comment has been made about an alleged lack of independence in respect of employment decisions by Mr Logan, the Deputy State Services Commissioner provided you with a briefing note outlining my understandings of events. It was not an inquiry or a detailed investigation of the issue. As the briefing makes clear, Madeleine Setchell made a disclosure of her personal connections when she applied for the position with the Ministry for the Environment. However, Mr Logan did not know of her personal connections, and hence was not aware of any potential conflict of interest at the time of her appointment. The responsibility for managing conflicts, or potential conflicts, of interest lies principally with the chief executive. Chief executives are expected to protect both their employees and their departments from situations that might expose them to conflicts of interest perceived or actual.
While the previous briefing confirms there was a contact between Mr Logan and the staff from the Minister’s office and the Minister on this matter, Mr Logan is very clear that during those contacts the staff member and the Minister stress that staff issues were the responsibility of Mr Logan alone. Mr Logan did not interpret that contact as an attempt to influence employment issues within the ministry. Mr Logan made it clear he made the decision independently and the Minister was not involved in that decision. Whenever a chief executive considers an employee has a potential conflict in a particular task, they are obliged to work with that employee to arrive at an appropriate strategy to manage the conflict. Potential approaches include changes in aspects of the staff member’s job or an offer of an alternative position.
It is my understanding that Mr Logan and Madeleine Setchell did explore options which would have involved the offer to her of an alternative position. Mr Logan believes he should have been made aware of the potential for a conflict of interest prior to Ms Setchell’s appointment. He is in the process of making the changes required for a more formal registration of actual or potential conflicts of interest for senior staff in the ministry and those in recruitment.”
That is the advice I received today from Iain Rennie and I know that members opposite know Iain Rennie very well. He is a highly regarded, respected public servant—
I have just heard Bill English say: “He was”. It is that sort of dirty politics against a man with a reputation for being an upfront, straight public servant that brings this House into disrepute. In my view, Bill English, over the last few months since he became the deputy leader of the National Party, has sunk to levels so low that even his wife must be ashamed of him. I say to that member that it is time he got out of the gutter and treated this issue seriously.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a convention in this House about family members, from which that member has had huge benefit in recent weeks because her husband has been enmeshed in a scandal that the ministry is reviewing, and it is a disgrace for that—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. [ Interruption] Please be seated. [] No. It is up to me to finish the point of order. Please be seated. The member will be seated. The member knows quite clearly from the Speaker’s ruling that the point of order does not have to go on. The member has made his point of order. The member did cross the line as far as bringing a member’s family into debate, and I will ask her to withdraw and apologise. Just before she does, the member was about to go on again and make the same allegation that he had raised the point of order on. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In last Wednesday’s debate in this Chamber, Bill English brought my husband into the debate deliberately and in a nasty underhand way and he stands up today demanding that there should not be this sort of behaviour. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove raised the matter at the time and said to Bill English that it was not the track to go down. Bill English chose to go down that track; he broke the convention. I do not like it, but he is not going to be able to do that in this House and think there will not be some sort of retaliation.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I will rule on that point of order. I am going to make a point to the member. I realise that the member is probably speaking later, otherwise he would leave this House now. He spoke about four times during that point of order and he knows that he is not to do that. He will withdraw and apologise for that right now.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. I am going to deal with the point of order that the Minister raised. The member did go on to then bring the family of the Minister into the point of order he was making. The member will—[ Interruption]. No, not last week; nothing can be dealt with from last week. The point of order can only be dealt with now. The member did go on to bring the member’s family into the debate, and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
No, I am sorry—[ Interruption] Please be seated. The member is in danger of leaving the House. I am being very patient. The member did bring the member’s family into the debate when he raised the point of order. I ask him now to withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Thank you. Just before the point of order, I warn the member that I have ruled on that point of order.
I would ask that you consider—but not give a ruling right now—just where the House could end up over this kind of issue. I raised the point that there is a convention—it is not a Standing Order—about family members, and in this case the member brought into the debate a family member who is of no public standing whatsoever. I did not ask for a withdrawal or an apology; you put that to the member and she complied. I did not ask for it, and it is not against Standing Orders; it is simply a convention. In the course of that, I mentioned the member’s spouse who, of course, is a public figure and whose name and activities are fully documented in official documents that were released under the Official Information Act.
I would be concerned if you are now suggesting that a person who is a family member of an MP is immune from any discussion in this House by virtue of his or her relationship; that cannot be the case. A public official is fully accountable regardless of who he or she is related to, and other MPs have gone through that process as well. Your ruling seems to suggest that it is against the Standing Orders for us to mention the Minister’s spouse. It is not. There is no Standing Order about mentioning family members, and in this case there is no breach of the convention because the person concerned is a public figure covered by a matter about which there have been days of questions and 1,500 pages of Official Information Act requests, and in that sense there is every legitimate right of a member of Parliament to mention the name.
Speaking to the point of order, I ask you, Madam Assistant Speaker, in relation to that point of order, to look back at the Hansard of last week when Bill English decided to bring my husband’s name into the debate. It was not just his name, but he linked him up to who he is and did that in a very calculating way. My husband is not a public figure—he works for a private company—just as Mr English’s wife is not a public figure. The crossing of the line last week was done by Mr English. I say I will withdraw, if he will withdraw, but he set the ground rules last week because he decided that he wanted to go on the offensive in a very, very unsatisfactory political way. I think it is time, if we are going to follow the convention, for Mr English to reflect on what he did last week.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I say to the member that I cannot deal with anything in last week’s debate; we are dealing with the debate today and that is the end of the matter. I say to the member that it is up to the Speaker to enforce the convention, and that is the decision I made.
Darren HughesI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring this point of order to your attention because of the exchange. On two occasions when these points of order started, the Hon Bill English continued to stand on his feet and speak while you were standing as the presiding officer of the Chamber. He knew you were trying to call him to order. He continued to speak over the top of you, and showed no respect for the office that you hold. I think in order that we can move on with this debate and get back to the business before the House, he should withdraw and apologise for that behaviour.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member is lucky to be here; he has transgressed twice. I realise that he probably has a speech later. I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that matter too.
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am now concerned about another procedural issue. I was making a point of order and you interrupted, as is your right as a Speaker, and that is why I have withdrawn and apologised—because I did not immediately sit down. I think you interrupted because of the content of the point of order. You felt—for some reason that is not clear to me yet—that I had gone beyond the bounds of a point of order. I did not happen to agree with that, but I accepted your ruling. The Minister then got up and launched into a detailed point of order covering very similar territory and you allowed her to continue until she stopped. I want to be reassured that the Chair understood what was happening and that the judgment that was exercised in sitting me down and allowing the Minister to continue was consistent with the Standing Orders.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I say to the member that it certainly was. The member has been given a lot of latitude himself and has spoken to the point of order. I certainly did stand the member down for the first point of order, but he has certainly spoken extensively since. We will continue with the debate.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member from Christchurch used the term “scumbag”, which I think she may have been addressing to David Benson-Pope. But whoever she was addressing it to, it is unparliamentary and should not be used.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
It is an unparliamentary term and I ask the member to withdraw.
Hon Ruth DysonThroughout the speech that I was giving, in which I was setting out the issues as they have been reported to me, I said to the House that we need to be incredibly careful when we raise these issues and that we need to be responsible, and I faced a barrage of interjections and just darn right nasty comments, at that. But what really got me going, I have to say, was when Bill English questioned the integrity of the Deputy State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie. I do not know Iain Rennie, other than that he is the Deputy State Services Commissioner—
Even as I speak, Nick Smith is saying it is a cover-up. I reject, and I resent, that sort of mad behaviour. Iain Rennie is a man of integrity. He has been a Treasury officer, and possibly even worked with some members in this House. He was selected as Deputy State Services Commissioner because of his qualities and integrity, and Bill English impugned them in this House today. I take exception to that. The reason why he did that is that he is desperate for political points. If we have sunk to that level, then it is a very sad House indeed.
We have something like another 16 months to the election, and I make the prediction that those sorts of comments, and comments like that about public servants, will get worse from the National Party. I urge other members in this House who are not members of the National Party to think very seriously about indulging in such behaviour.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I will commence by telling the House that in any reference I make to Madeleine Setchell or her circumstances, I do not wish to cast any aspersions on her ability, competence, or integrity. I do not know the lady, and I have no doubt she is as top-notch as the National Party, in particular, asserts. I also do not want to cast any aspersions on the ability or integrity of Kevin Taylor, her partner. Equally, New Zealand First does not want to cast any aspersions on the Minister for what he said he did. We believe him. We believe that is a convention of this House, and we will take his word as gospel, I suppose.
However, having said that, I say it is exceedingly important that the Public Service is neutral and is seen to be neutral. It is like justice: neutrality must be there, and it must be seen to be there. I think the recommendations made by Iain Rennie to the Minister, which the Minister relayed to the House, seem to be a good starting point in terms of addressing this sort of circumstance.
That question perhaps should be answered, but I am not qualified to answer it. I will say that in my opinion a more appropriate question would be, in the circumstances that she found herself in and the circumstances of her personal life: why was she given the job? I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the lady’s integrity, but why was she given the job?
Politics is a very competitive occupation—exceedingly so, in this place. I have to say that in recent times the competitive environment in this House has deteriorated. At one time we had humorous differences, but they have been replaced by humourless arrogance.
There is no humour when a young woman loses her job, and there was no humour in the exchange that we saw only a few moments ago between the Hon Annette King and the Hon Bill English. I did not find that humorous at all. Whether or not we like it, the competitive environment in this House has deteriorated to the extent that personal attacks and personal innuendo are almost a daily fact of life. I think that is sad. It is not what the public of New Zealand require from their MPs. They voted for MMP, principally to see more cooperation. But what they are seeing now is more differences between MPs, which escalate into personal attacks and petty arguments. By enlarging this debate and carrying it on, I do not think we are doing terribly much good for Madeleine Setchell or Kevin Taylor, or, indeed, for anybody else. We may be making life for them a good deal more difficult.
Furthermore, I want to remind members opposite, because obviously they are taking a key interest in the employment of public servants, that late last year, or early this year, it was painfully obvious that some emails had been leaked from the National Party into the hands of an author, who then wrote a book. What did the National Party do with regard to that? I have every sympathy for National in that area. I have read the book, and I know National disposed of its leader probably as a result of that book. But, more important, National had an internal inquiry and called in the police to investigate the people who were working for the party.
The point is that National had people in its camp that it could not trust. It did not know whom they were. There is no way I am suggesting that Madeleine Setchell could not be trusted, but if there were a similar set of circumstances within the Labour Party’s ranks, where would she be? She would be feeling distinctly uncomfortable.
It is obligatory on MPs to ensure that the Public Service serves both sides of the House, is totally neutral, and is seen to be neutral. I feel sorry for Madeleine Setchell for being the centrepiece of this debate, because I think that in the long run we are not doing her any good, at all. The best thing we can do is to leave it to the arrangements that are being made to satisfy her, so that she leaves the Labour Party with her integrity and competence unquestionably intact and is given a job where she will obviously apply her talents much more—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
She works for the Ministry for the Environment, not the Labour Party.
The Minister just happens to be from the Labour Party, and the member who is making assertions, if he were in Government, would put a National Party spin on everything, exactly as the Labour Party is doing. Labour has been voted into Government. It has the Ministers and—
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
Nick Smith banned me, as a local MP, from visiting the Department of Conservation when he was the Minister.
Well, there we are! I do not want to enlarge on this sort of thing. I just say that as parliamentarians we have to get our act together, because it will not be us who will suffer; it will be the people who come to work conscientiously in order to serve the cause of democracy and efficiency.
I do not think I can add any more to this debate, other than simply to say that if the National Party continues to attack in this vein, the skeletons will come back to haunt it. I would say that will do National no good, will do Parliament no good, and will do democracy little good.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party welcomes this debate, because we think that every now and again it is important that the House has a debate on the nature of the Civil Service, and that we reinforce the fact that the Civil Service should be strong and independent, and be a place where people are professionals who have careers and serve their country without fear of political persecution, and without fear of being sacked for things that are not of their making, which is what has happened in this case.
Public servants should not be subject to the sorts of political pressures that Madeleine Setchell has been under. I think we have to trust the integrity of our public servants. That is the key to the functioning of our governmental apparatus, and we should judge our public servants on the basis of their own abilities and professionalism. When they are on a career path, there is plenty of opportunity over the years—and through their CVs, references, and everything else—to judge their professionalism on the job and whether they would be some sort of political leaker. Very few public servants, in my experience, are of a character that means they would run out and politically leak information to some other party.
From what has gone on so far, it is quite apparent that Madeleine Setchell was the most qualified applicant for the job. In all of the commentary I have seen so far, there has been no question about that. She was also open about her relationship with Kevin Taylor, who is John Key’s chief press secretary. So it was quite wrong to sack her later on, without there being any good reason for doing so that we can see, other than the fact that she has a relationship with Kevin Taylor.
Of course, in any partnership situation, there is a security risk if one of the parties has access to confidential information and may disclose it to the other party. But in reality, in my experience, when there is that sort of conflict within a household, both partners are quite scrupulous to prevent leaks, for the obvious reason that they would be the first to get the blame for any leak. If there had been a leak from the Ministry for the Environment, who would have been the first to get the blame? It would have been Madeleine Setchell, so she and other people in her position very much protect confidential information and their independence, because they do not want to be accused if something happens in the department they work for.
There is a whole history to this issue. It is ironic that the State Services Commission has gone along with the current sacking and seems to be justifying it, when the head of that same commission, Mark Prebble, has had very senior positions in the Government, including one at the top of the Prime Minister’s department, at the same time that his brother was the leader of the ACT party, which is obviously a party that was rather antagonistic to Labour through that whole period. But Mark Prebble’s professionalism was trusted during that whole period, and rightly so.
I do not want to get into an interpretation of who made a phone call to whom, and of how much David Benson-Pope knew; other speakers in this debate are traversing that topic, and it was traversed in question time today. I want to deal with the problem that arises out of this case for public servants. All over Wellington in particular, and more broadly all over New Zealand, public servants will be worried about the sacking of Madeleine Setchell and what is happening here. That is the problem. In hundreds of relationships involving public servants—maybe even thousands—there are conflicts of interest.
One just needs to look at Steve Hurring himself, the person who made the phone call to the Ministry for the Environment. As I understand it from the media, he is in a relationship with Helen Kelly, the incoming President of the Council of Trade Unions. One might ask where the conflict of interest is there, and it is perhaps not a major one. But, in fact, if the Ministry for the Environment had a particular stance on the pay rises or conditions of employment to give to public servants in that ministry, Steve Hurring might be privy to that information. It might be of use to the Public Service Association (PSA) to know that confidential information, and the Council of Trade Unions might be involved in working with the PSA on its wage claim and the progress of it. So there is potentially a conflict of interest there, too, as there is across Wellington. But I would not for a moment think that Steve Hurring would break confidentiality and tell Helen Kelly something, or vice versa—that a conflict of interest would come out in practice.
There are hundreds of other examples of potential conflicts of interest. When Don Brash came into this Parliament and became the leader of the National Party, Je Lan, his wife, was in the Cabinet Office. So I find it upsetting that Madeleine Setchell has been sacked in this situation; that will frighten a lot of public servants.
Potential conflicts of interest can affect people’s personal relations in a broader sense, too. One of the things that happens around New Zealand—around Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch, in particular—in areas where there are a lot of public servants is that there is a lot of mixing at social functions and everywhere else. That obviously produces some longer-term relationships. There is an interchange of ideas and views, and people speak quite openly, though not in respect of confidential information. We are not like some bigger countries, where people tend to talk only to those who agree with them. In social situations in our smaller country, as in Auckland and Wellington, one talks to a lot of people with whom one disagrees, and that cross-fertilisation of ideas is good for our democracy, good for our politics, good for our civil society as a whole, and, beyond that, good for the Government. We do not want to interrupt that process. We do not want people to fear talking to a person for too long if he or she is in the Green Party or the National Party, or to not go out with a person who is very active in the National Party and may become an MP, because to do so may affect their Civil Service careers.
If people start to think like that and start to worry about their relationships in those terms, that will dampen the civil society we want to build. The next thing will be that the State Services Commission issues guidelines on whom people should sleep with or marry, if they are to advance their job future in the public sector. That, of course, may be taking things to the extreme, but there are elements of truth in that.
The mixing up of party politics into the Civil Service in the way that has been done could also lead to biases in our media too, because many people our press gallery, people like Kevin Taylor himself, go on to become press secretaries for Ministers or politicians. In my experience, Kevin was a very good and very independent reporter for the New Zealand Herald when he was there; I certainly did not pick any National Party politics in his reporting. I am not sure whether he is aligned personally to the National Party; he is doing a professional job for the leader of the National Party at the present time. If we suddenly start to define journalists’ political relationships as being important and that mucks up the future career of their partners, we may get journalists starting to write more pro-Labour, pro-National, or pro-Green articles if they see their future as being a press secretary for a Labour, National, or Green Cabinet Minister. That would start to muddy up the whole situation, and it would remove from New Zealand its very creditable tradition of having an independent Civil Service with independent advisers, and with people being chosen for their skills and their abilities. That is what the Greens are very strong about, and that is why we are so worried about the sacking that has taken place over the last week. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou i tēnei wiki, te Wiki o te Reo Māori. Kāti, tēnei take he take nui nei ki a mātou o te Tōrangapū Māori. Kua rongo kē mātou i te āhuatanga o te whakawhiu o te kōrero i mua tonu o te pōti whānui o te tau 2005; te wā i rongo nei i te whakawhiutanga o ngā mea Māori mahi i roto tari kāwanatanga nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i tō rātou piringa ki te Tōrangapū Māori. E ai ki tā wētahi o ngā imēra i rere haere nei i Te Puni Kōkiri, i reira tonu te kōrero e akiaki tonu ana i ngā kaimahi o tērā tari kia kaua e haere ki ngā hui a Pāti Māori nei. Kia kaua e mau i ngā kara whero, mā, me te pango me kī, ngā kara o te Tōrangapū Māori. E hoa mā! Kia mōhio mai tātou, koi nei ngā kara i runga i tērā poti o tāwāhi o Alinghi, ko Brad Butterworth te kāpene.
Kei wareware i a tātou a Amokura Pānoho. Ka kore te Pāti Māori e wareware ki tērā ingoa. Nā i rongo a Amokura i te ngau o te kupu nā te mea, i mutu i tana mahi whakahaere i Te Tari Mahi i muri mai i ngā kōrero whakawhiu i a ia nā te aha? Nā tana piringa ki Te Tōrangapū Māori. I reira tonu ngā mema o Te Rōpū Reipa, he Minita tonu. Ko John Tamihere tētahi, otirā, ko te Minita o nāianei, a Trevor Mallard. I taka ki runga i a rāua te whakamā ka mutu, ka tuku aroha mai ki a ia. Nā, ko te whakatau a te kooti kia mai utua te $7,500 ki a ia whai muri i tana hāmenetanga i a rāua. Arā noa atu wētahi o ēnei momo tauira. Ka mutu, ko te mate kē o te wāhanga ki a Ms Pānoho, ko te ngau ki runga i a ia, otirā, ko wāna mahi i muri mai o tērā āhuatanga i ngā tau kua hipa.
Ko te mea nui e ā ana i a mātou o Te Tōrangapū Māori, ko ngā uaratanga e whakaputa ana i ō mātou ūtanga teitei ki ngā mātāpono pērā i te whakamāramatanga mahi, te ngākau tapatahi me te mārama. Ā, nā reira mātou, pērā hoki i te maha o ngāi Māori, i kaha ai ki te mau pai i ngā pōtae e hia kē nei. I kaha ai hoki ki te wehi ki ngā rere kētanga i waenganui i ō mātou whānau, hapū, iwi tirohanga tōrangapū. Ko te whakanui i te wāhanga kia tū motuhake ngā mema kāwanatanga i roto i ngā mahi kāwanatanga. Engari, ko te mea nui kia whakanui te tangata kia kaua ai ia e rongo i te ngau o te tangata engari, kia wātea ia ki te tū mō ngā tūranga e tika ana, otirā, ki te tuku i ōna kōrero hei mea wānanga mā te katoa. Kei te whakaae mātou me eke ngā kaimahi Māori ki ngā taumata pērā i ētahi atu kia noho me kī, kia wātea rātou ki ngā ngau o ngā mahi tōrangapū engari, kia eke ki ngā taumata o ērā atu e mahi nei i te kāwanatanga. Kei te mōhio tonu mātou, ka taea e te tangata kotahi nei te eke hei Komihana Reo Māori, otirā, me te noho anō hoki hei tiamana mō Te Rarawa.
Kei te hoki ngā mahara ki te wā i tū a Haami Piripi hei tiamana, me kī, āae hei tiamana mō Te Rarawa i te wā i tuku ai a ia i tētahi tāpaetanga whakatūpato ki te Pāremata, he pakanga kei te haere nā te aha? Nā te hanganga ture mō te Takutai Moana. E ai ki tā Haami Piripi, ehara tana kōrero i te mea whakatūpato whakararuraru rānei engari, he inoi noa ake ki ngā mema Pāremata kia āta titiro ki te āhuatanga mahi noho wehe, otirā, te noho taupatupatu, noho raruraru rānei mēnā ka pāhi taua pire. Engari, i kaha nei a Reipa ki te wero i te mana, otirā, te tū o matua Piripi me te kore paku whakaaro ake mō ōna hiranga tū roa. Ka mutu, ka hoki ngā mahara ki te wā i tae mai te pire nei, arā, Te Pire Takutai Moana ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare i te wā Kāwanatanga 47. I reira ngā mema me kī, ngā rangatira o te Kāwanatanga i rongo nei i ētahi kupu whakatūpato kia kaua rawa e hīkoi i te whenua ki te whakahē i te hōhonutanga o tērā pire. Ko te mea tika ki te Pāremata, ko te tuku i tētahi kōrero. Koi nā te huarahi hei whakatakoto i ētahi nawe, āwangawanga rānei.
Arā noa atu wētahi kōrero kua puta engari, i te tīmatanga mai o Te Pāti Māori nei e mōhiotia nei e tātau, arā anō tētahi rārangi kōrero, otirā, e ai ki tā ētahi mea Māori noho rangatira nei i roto i te Kāwanatanga, e ai ki wētahi, he pānga anō rā ki Te Tōrangapū Māori tino kaha rawa atu, i tukuna, i rere haere nei Te Rōpū Reipa. Ka mutu, he mea kōrero tērā, he mea whakaohorere hoki. Ka mutu, anei te tino pūtake o taku kōrero. Me ōrite ngā taumata i ngā tōpito katoa, i ngā pakitara katoa o tēnei o ngā Whare. Kei te mōhio tonu tātou katoa, ko taua Rōpū Reipa anō i puta tika i ngā tari kāwanatanga hei Minita ake māna tae atu ki a Hōnore Parekura Horomia o CEG, arā, o te Community Employment Group, a Shane Jones o te Tari Mahi me te Minita o mua, a John Tamihere nō roto i Te Puni Kōkiri. Ka mutu, he kaimahi o roto tari kāwanatanga a Hōnore Mita Ririnui me Hōnore Mahara Okeroa i haere tika mai ki ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare i ō rātou tūranga teitei i Te Puni Kōkiri. Arā anō tētahi kōrero, tērā pea i tae mai a Hōnore Mita rāua ko Hōnore Mahara tae rā anō ki a Hōnore Parekura Horomio nā runga i te tautoko mai a wētahi o roto i ērā tari kāwanatanga i te wā i a rāua e haere nei i te mata o te whenua mō ā rāua mahi rapu kaipōti.
Kia kaua tātou e noho kāpō ki te āhuatanga o te taenga mai o te ekenga mai o ngā mema kāwanatanga ki roto i ngā tōrangapū katoa mai rā anō i pērā rawa te kōrero. Ka mutu, ehara i te mea he take anō rā ki reira hei whakapōrearea, hei whakararuraru i tērā āhuatanga. Ko tēnei take he kōrero me kī, he tino whawhati i tēnei kawa, tikanga rānei i roto i te tari o te Minita, otirā, te hononga o te Minita ki ngā tūranga mahi nā te aha? Nā te kore kitea atu o ngā rohe tari kāwanatanga me ngā mahi tōrangapū, otirā, ki tā ngā pūrongo hiahia pea kia whakaaro pērā tātou. Ki a au nei, mēnā e pai ana mō Hōnore Parekura ki te whiwhi kaitono o te Rōpū Nāhinara i roto tūranga tino teitei rawa atu o taua tumu whakahaere, me te hoatu tūranga teitei hoki ki te Perehitini Tuarua Māori o te Rōpū Nāhinara, nā he tauira pai pea tērā hei whai mā tātau katoa.
Ko te mea tino nui rawa atu, ko tā tātau whiwhi tāngata tino pai rawa atu i roto i ngā tari kāwanatanga. Kāre kei te hunga tōrangapū te tika ki te uiui i te ngākau tapatahi o ō tātou tari kāwanatanga ahakoa pēhea te pōhēhē, te taumata rānei o te whakawhanaunga ā-tōrangapū. Kia ora tātou.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to us in this Māori Language Week. This is an issue of great relevance to the Māori Party. We have, of course, experienced the desperate allegations that were made in the lead-up to the 2005 general election, when Māori public servants were accused—and for what reason? For being affiliated to the Māori Party! Allegations, such as through emails, circulated throughout Te Puni Kōkiri, instructing staff not to attend Māori Party hui and to avoid wearing red, white, and black clothing—let us say, the colours of the Māori Party. Colleagues should be aware that those are the colours that adorn Alinghi
We must never forget Amokura Pānoho. For sure, the Māori Party has not. Ms Pānoho certainly felt the pressure, and was forced to resign from a position she held in the Department of Labour. For what reason? Because of her involvement with the Māori Party. Labour was in office then; John Tamihere was a Minister, as was current Minister Trevor Mallard. They were forced into an embarrassing back-down and had to apologise to Ms Pānaho, as well. They also subsequently had to pay court costs of $7,500 after she sued them. There were many other examples of people paying costs resulting from such public humiliation. But in respect of Ms Pānoho, it impacted severely on her well-being and career prospects in the years that followed.
We in the Māori Party are driven by values that express our highest commitment to principles such as accountability, integrity, and transparency. So we are able to wear many different hats with ease, respecting the need for boundaries between our whānau, hapū, and iwi politics; respecting the need for an independent Public Service; yet also respecting and valuing the freedom of all people to have political views, and to stand for office. We absolutely agree that Māori public servants must meet the same standards of political neutrality and accountability as all other public servants, but we also acknowledge that one can be a Māori Language Commissioner and chairman of Te Rarawa.
We remember the example that was made of Haami Piripi when in his position as chairman of Te Rarawa he made a submission to Parliament warning of the potential civil war over the seabed and foreshore legislation. Haami Piripi said his submission was not meant to be threatening, but was more a plea for MPs to recognise the potential for conflict if the bill was passed. Yet Labour was quick to jump to attack the credibility and the reputation of Mr Piripi without a thought for the long-lasting implications. And of course we remember that in the day before the bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act came before this House—in the 47th Parliament—senior public servants were warned not to participate in the hīkoi protesting against the legislation. Participating in the democratic process through direct submission was therefore the acceptable course of action for concerns to be processed.
I could go on. There was, in fact, a rumour at the very establishment of the mighty Māori Party; a possible list of Māori senior public servants affiliated to the Māori Party circulated around the Labour caucus—certainly something that can be debated and is of concern. The point is that we must apply standards consistently across this cluster of buildings. We know that Labour has drawn directly from the Public Service in selecting some of its own Ministers, including the current Māori Affairs Minister, Mr Parekura Horomia, from, the Community Employment Group; Mr Shane Jones, from the Department of Labour; and the former Minister John Tamihere, who had formerly been with Te Puni Kōkiri. Mita Ririnui and Mahara Okeroa had also gone into Parliament directly from their Public Service jobs, from their management positions in Te Puni Kōkiri. And the rumour has been that Mita, Mahara, and Parekura were supported by the Public Service all through their electoral campaign.
Let us not be blind to the reality that public servants have always been represented in political parties. As long as boundaries are clear, and integrity maintained, there has never been any need for intervention. The current debate is in light of a very significant breach of this protocol in the Minister’s office—indeed, the Minister being linked to employment positions as a result of boundaries being blurred between the political service and the Public Service, or so the reports would lead us to think. If it was good enough for Parekura Horomia to have a National Party candidate employed in the higher senior management levels of that organisation, and to also appoint the Māori vice-president of the National Party to a number of senior management positions, then perhaps that is an example we could all emulate.
The key issue is that we must have excellent people in the highest positions in the Public Service. Politicians have absolutely no right to question the integrity of the honour of our Public Service, at any level, on suspicion of political affiliation. Thank you all. ]
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
Last week this House reverberated to charges that the Chief Executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board had political associations, because he had previously worked in the office of a Labour Minister of Health a decade or so ago. This week we have the Madeleine Setchell affair. The point that arises from both of these is that in a small country like New Zealand, with a particularly small political and administrative gene pool, the arguments about the political allegiances of those in the Public Service, and their partners, ought to be above any form of suspicion or public debate. People’s politics, like their views on religion and money, are their own views, and we tread very dangerously when we start to make judgments based upon our perception of other people’s political allegiances.
As a political scientist and a historian, I am well aware of the historical arguments in favour of the separation of the Public Service from active involvement in day-to-day politics. Those arguments are utterly valid today, as they have been through the generations. But I add to that that as a Wellington member of Parliament, where my constituents and the people who work for me in my office as impartial Public Service advisers may well be my constituents, we mesh constantly. This system simply would not work if there were always, or even at any point, a doubt about the political allegiances of those upon whom we rely for advice and for the support we need to do our jobs properly.
Where I think the argument has fallen down in this case—and I do not want to trawl through the relevant details, because they are murky at best, and they are always murky in cases of this type—is at the point we should never depart from, and that is the political neutrality of the Public Service, the right of all public servants, let alone their wider families, to hold their own political views and not be penalised for those views.
The previous speaker drew attention to a number of instances that have affected Māori over the years. New Zealand’s history is rich with examples of these types of events having occurred under Governments of various flavours, but the bottom line in every case has been, and must be in this case, that public servants have to be politically neutral and have to be protected to be politically neutral, and that although they cannot be muted in the sense of not being entitled to political views or attitudes like the rest of us, they cannot have those held against them in the exercising of their official duties.
Of course, there are occasions where public servants seek to exercise their democratic right to seek office, and there are protections in the law for them to do that and also take a stand-down so that they are not compromising their role as public servants. But that was not the case in this instance. This case relates to the conduct of a public servant’s normal activities and the suspicion being brought to bear that because of a political allegiance, not actually on her part but on the part of her partner, something improper had taken place.
The only true and acceptable position has to be that the Public Service retains its integrity and independence, and in that sense that public servant’s political views and attitudes are no-go areas as far as the scrutiny of members of this House is concerned. Occasionally, a public servant may well volunteer—I think, quite improperly in the circumstances—whether he or she supports a particular party or policy. But that is his or her call. It is not for politicians to start prying into the affairs and the beliefs of individual public servants. It may be that political allegiances are the most obvious example, but if we start down that path we start down a very slippery slope of starting to control the type of society we develop, and I do not think anyone in this House, whatever his or her views, has that particular outcome in mind.
So when I look at this particular case—and I do not have all the details, and I do not want to have all the details—I say that, on the face of it, Ms Setchell’s comments about her partner’s role should not have been an issue at all. She, I think, was courageous to volunteer in her interview that there was a question mark. But, certainly, to get to the point where inquires are being made actively and independently and where a decision is then made that in the best interests of all concerned she is moved on—not for what she has done but for what her partner does, day in and day out—I think has gone beyond what is acceptable.
But, as I said at the beginning, this is not something unique. It has happened before, and I daresay it will happen again. The message we have to take from each of these occurrences is that the only solution can be to reinforce at all points that public servants are neutral, have to be treated as neutral, and have to be respected for the neutrality of their views. The alternative is that when we have a change of Government we expect all our senior public servants to routinely resign, as is the case in the United States, and we see political appointments come through at quite low levels of the Public Service, and I think that would be reprehensible and unacceptable. It is not the New Zealand way.
I understand that the Minister is going to make an explanation to the House shortly, and that is appropriate. That is entirely as it should be, and the House will make a judgment on the adequacy or otherwise of the explanation of these particular circumstances. So as we contemplate a way forward here, this incident does serve to remind all of us of the very fine line we tread, particularly those of us who interact more frequently than others with the public sector. The public sector is the ongoing rock of stability in the New Zealand political process. Governments come, and Governments go, but the Public Service remains forever, and the strength of its traditional role has been an ability of Ministers of whatever political persuasion to rely on the impartiality of the advice that has been offered, and for the public servants in turn to feel that they can offer impartial, free, and frank advice without being subject to political sanction for the advice they offer.
Unless we draw a cloak very tightly around those conventions, we will end up in a situation not only where there will be an expectation that public servants are really an extension of their Minister and therefore are politically accountable but also where the advice public servants offer, upon which policy is based, is being presented in such a way as to suit the political arguments.
I respect the fact that there will always be debate about the extent to which that happens now, but it is a pretty open and robust process. It will become tainted, damaged, and destroyed if what we get from our public servants is public servant advice suited to the needs of a Minister because that is seen as the best way of dealing with the particular issue at hand.
I do not intend to say very much more at all, other than that I think the Minister ought to explain the position to the House. The House will make its own call on the robustness, if you like, of that judgment. The country will, as well. But, in time, the message we need to reinforce is that New Zealand’s great administrative strength is its impartial Public Service. Once we start to pry into the affairs, political or otherwise, of public servants, we compromise that ability, and that is the start not just of a free-for-all in terms of looking into people’s private lives and all of that sort of thing but also of a diminishing of respect for our system of government. I do not think that is what anyone in this House ultimately will seek to achieve.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
Here is a simple question for the Labour Party to answer: who is responsible? Who is responsible? You see, in order to maintain the principles that the Hon Peter Dunne has just talked about, and which he articulated so ably, someone needs to take responsibility for enforcing, promoting, and maintaining those principles. I thank God someone has articulated those principles, because none of the people who should have has done so. The Prime Minister has not articulated them. The paranoia starts at the top. It is utterly believable that the Prime Minister’s office was involved in this disgraceful episode.
I will tell the House a little story about that. It shows how paranoid the Prime Minister is. Meridian Energy, which owns large assets in my electorate, came to open a wind farm in my local area. I can see the wind farm from my kitchen window; it is on my hill. The Prime Minister and her cronies had it that Meridian Energy could not invite me to be part of the official party. Instead, the failed candidate for Clutha-Southland, who is now a list MP whom no one has heard of, was paraded up the front. Do members know what one of my locals said to me? It was: “She thinks it matters.” It did not matter a damn to me, but it mattered to Helen Clark. That is why it mattered that Madeleine Setchell, who has a partner who works professionally for another party, was in the wrong place at the wrong time. So the Prime Minister is not going to do anything about it!
Does that not sound just like what happened in the Liam Ashley case? In that case, of course, the tragedy was much greater. It happened, but no one was there. No one who spent public money or who had a public obligation was anywhere near that death. Even as of today, no one has been held accountable for that death.
In this case, the most blatant case of a civil servant being sacked for political reasons, no one was there. It is like the ad on TV where the people use their elbows, not their hands. People are saying they did not touch it, did not know the details, and only read the report. That is the disgrace. You see, the Labour Party has become so paranoid and so politicised in its relationship with the Civil Service that it does not even know how wrong this sacking is.
I will tell members how right the relationship can be. When I worked for Roger Douglas as a junior official on his flat-tax package on the Monday, I had been knocking on doors as a National Party branch chairman on the Saturday, out in Lyall Bay.
Hon Marian HobbsHe did—and I will not go into that, because I should not. That is how matters should be. I sat in a Minister’s office—that of Roger Douglas—when a Labour candidate, an almost-selected candidate, Verna Smith, came in and out, and up to 6 weeks before the election was giving and taking policy advice and listening to Ministers. And that is how it should be. We would have thought then, and we did think as Ministers, that no Prime Minister would let us break the rules.
But Helen Clark, “Mrs Paranoia”, “Mrs Detail”, is driving down on everything and making sure that the local MP for Clutha-Southland does not sit in the wrong seat at the opening of a wind farm on top of a hill covered in snow. Well, she knows, and they know—those Labour Ministers know—that that is how she runs the Government. That is why David Benson-Pope and his offsider did what they did and now are getting away with it. The Prime Minister will not take responsibility for it. She never has taken responsibility, and she never will do so. “Nothing wrong. Move on.”, is her chorus. Will the Minister take responsibility? Absolutely no! We should ask Peter Coleman how that man takes responsibility. Maybe Peter Coleman is available for the job Madeleine Setchell has lost. He lost his job in David Benson-Pope’s office because that Minister lied to the public about a police report. David Benson-Pope denied releasing it. Then it turned out that he had authorised his staff to release it—after the staff member had been disciplined.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. The member knows very well that he cannot accuse a member in this House of lying. He will withdraw and apologise.
I withdraw and apologise. And that is what is happening now. Mr Hurring is so close to Labour that he probably will not be disciplined. So nothing will happen.
What about the State Services Commission? Well, the problem in this kind of environment is that decent, competent people behave at a level that is below the standards that they should have. I was very disappointed to see Mark Prebble try to construct a defence of this disgraceful action in the newspaper. He did not have to do that. He could have, by his silence, condemned what happened, and he did not. I think that is a shame. I really think it is a shame that the State Services Commissioner went out of his way to condemn something that every civil servant knows is wrong. Every civil servant knows it is wrong. That is why Peter Dunne got up in this House. He wants to support the Government, but he cannot do that on this matter. The reason is that civil servants are his voters, and they now know that there is no one to defend them. The State Services Commission is not defending the Civil Service against politicians terminating people’s employment on the basis of presumptions about their politics. No one knows what Ms Setchell’s political views are. Maybe even her partner does not know. She is not being kicked out because of her views; she is being kicked out because of an assumption about the political views of the person she lives with.
What about those people who are much closer to the National Party? Are they next? The answer Helen Clark has is to not apply for the job. That is what she told Morning Report. When Sean Plunket asked her, she agreed that Madeleine Setchell should not have applied for the job. So there is the new rule of the proud Labour Party: if people have a relation who has anything to do with the National Party, then they should not apply for the job, and actually they will have to declare the relationship as a conflict of interest. Is that being promulgated now through the Civil Service? That is what Labour has said today—that it is a conflict of interest to apply for a Civil Service job if one has a relation who has anything to do with the National Party. That is a conflict of interest? What a load of rubbish! What a disgrace! What a disgrace it is that a Minister can stand up in the New Zealand Parliament and maintain that that is a conflict of interest.
I just want to say to the Public Service Association that it will have to crank up its effort. It has come out and said that its membership is uncomfortable about this matter. My gosh, if National did what Labour has done there would be a riot on the front steps of Parliament—if we fired a woman because she was in a household with someone who worked for the Labour Party. I think I personally know about 25 people in a situation like that within the Civil Service; I am sure Mr Blumsky can name 200. The message is that when Helen Clark comes after people, there is no one to defend them. Members should remember that.
The nub of the issue is that today a person is without a job because of Labour’s views about that person’s political views, and no one is accountable for that—no one. No one was there, as usual; it is as though it never happened. The woman was just a casual victim of Labour’s glorious path to power. Labour is taking over the Civil Service. It will use the electoral law to make sure that no one else can spend money, while it spends millions. It is a disgrace. I have been around the Civil Service for 25 years, and I have never seen anything like this. Steve Maharey, who lectured all those students about Labour’s wonderful principles, should be ashamed, and so should Pete Hodgson.
David Benson-Pope should be ashamed that with such a bad reputation he is still willing to hold a ministerial warrant. If Helen Clark does not have the honour to sack him, why does he not walk? No one believes what he says. He took a job from someone, and that is political persecution. David Benson-Pope is in charge of sustainability, and the Ministry for the Environment put an ad in the paper that stated, basically, that anyone who wanted to run the Government’s campaign next year should apply for the job. Labour will use sustainability and the Ministry for the Environment as the front end of its political campaign from hereon in. I say to those civil servants: “Don’t do it. Tell Government members to get stuffed. They cannot shoot you.”
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
The first thing I will do in this contribution is to urge Mr English to look at the document that was tabled at question time today. I think that would be of considerable assistance to him in providing him with the facts of the matter. I guess we are not surprised by the nastiness Mr English has brought to the debate this afternoon, but even for him the attack on the State Services Commission, and on Messrs Rennie and Prebble in particular, is pretty extraordinary. But what has really surprised me in the last few hours is the personal nastiness that Mr Key, the leader of the National Party, has brought to this matter. I am disappointed that he has descended into the same gutter as Mr English, and I guess the community will make its own judgment about that.
As Minister for the Environment, it is not appropriate for me to talk about the particular details that led to the State Services Commission report and the decision that Mr Logan made, other than to reiterate three of its key findings. Paragraph 8 of that report reads as follows: “Mr Logan is clear that he made—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. I have warned members this afternoon for constant barracking, and the member knows he cannot do that. He will desist.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Given the inaccurate contribution we have just heard from Mr English, it would serve him well to listen to some of the facts here. The report says “Mr Logan is clear that he made the decision independently and that the Minister was not involved in that decision. This is consistent with section 33 of the State Sector Act 1988, which stipulates that a chief executive of a Department must act independently in matters relating to decisions on individual employees. That is, there is no Ministerial responsibility for such decisions.” Mr English will make his decision about whether he believes me, but to not believe Mr Logan, under advice from Mr Prebble and Mr Rennie, is an extraordinary position for National to take.
I want to raise the matters of principle that are raised in the report. As I say, the report was tabled today and members are readily able to read it. The key finding appears to be that conflicts of interest are not to be denied; they are to be managed. This is outlined in paragraph 16, which reads as follows: “In maintaining a politically neutral public service we continue to expect that chief executives protect both their employees and their departments from situations that might expose them to conflicts of interest, perceived or actual.” I might add that the same principle applies to the operation of a ministerial office.
It was with that in mind that one of my staff members sought clarification of a rumour of a potential conflict of interest. I repeat that the State Services Commission appears to be saying that conflicts of interest are not to be denied; they are to be managed. This is Wellington, and conflicts of interest abound, including the ones that have just been mentioned by some of the speakers opposite. There has been a large degree of media interest in this issue, as members are only too aware. In one sense, that is entirely appropriate. In the words of Dr Prebble, there was a reasonable public interest in the principles to justify his writing an opinion piece entitled “Conflicts of interest should be managed” in the Dominion Post last Friday. But I am disappointed at a number of media reports that somewhat misrepresent the details of that State Services Commission report. As one example, there are media reports making it sound as if I had been fully briefed on the matter. That was simply not the case. As the report said, I was informed of the issue, not of its detail. I certainly did not receive a full briefing, as some media outlets would have the public believe.
Inherent in the report is the acknowledgment that Madeleine Setchell is not at fault here. I find it unfortunate that her name has been emblazoned over every newspaper and other media outlet in the country, through no deed of her own. I must say that although that is unfortunate, it is certainly not the doing of the Ministry for the Environment, my office, or the Government, that that has happened. People will make their own conclusions about that matter.
I would say that I am sure that everyone in this Parliament agrees that we are all focused on making sure that matters of this kind are out in the open so they can be managed properly. In that respect, I refer to one further key finding of the report. In the report, Mr Rennie makes the comment that the procedures that have transpired “demonstrated that the Ministry for the Environment should have a more formal registration of actual or potential conflicts of interest for senior staff both existing and those in the recruitment process.”—I repeat, so that any such conflicts can be properly and positively managed. I welcome that change. I am sure that staff in that ministry and others will welcome that change. I urge all members to take the trouble to acquaint themselves with Mr Rennie’s findings and read the State Services Commission report in its entirety.