McCully Murray: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13093] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I will start by agreeing with a couple of things that have been said by members opposite in this debate. First of all I agree in large measure with Mr Mallard’s analysis about what should have happened in the management of Ms Setchell’s employment relationship. His was a constructive analysis of the situation. I also agree with the Minister of State Services who asserted to the House that one does not go lightly trashing careers of considerable length and distinction in the Public Service. The further thing I agree with is the positive comments that have been made about Don Hunn. I have a longstanding relationship with him in terms of working with him and I certainly respect him. I think his factual analysis provided as part of this report is useful. 
But it is at about that point that I part company with members opposite. I do so because I sat in on the Government Administration Committee this morning without having had the opportunity to read either the Prebble report or the Hunn report but having had the opportunity only to skim both. I want to share with Mr Mallard and other members of the House the problem that members on this side genuinely have—and I emphasise the word “genuinely”—in dealing with our view of Dr Prebble in these circumstances. I think I could best summarise it by saying that I welcome the Hunn report but that my first beef with the Prebble report is that it does not start off with the words “Once upon a time”. The reason is that finding any relationship between the report drafted by Dr Prebble and the facts as they are known to members on this side of the House is not easy. 
Let me start by taking members through the key features of Dr Prebble’s findings. First Dr Prebble asks us to believe that Mr Logan chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment despite having been told in words of one syllable by his Minister Mr Benson-Pope that he would not accept Ms Setchell in his office and would not be able to work with her had no regard for that exchange when he decided completely independently to disengage her from her employment with the Ministry for the Environment. We are asked to believe that somehow what Mr Benson-Pope did had no bearing on Mr Logan’s independent decision and that is a stretch. Then we are supposed to believe that Mr Hurring who was employed in the office of Mr Benson-Pope and who is an associate of Mr Mallard’s—he has been to the “Trevor Mallard School of Charm and Etiquette”—in his dealings with the Ministry for the Environment had no influence over the decision that Mr Logan made. That is an even bigger stretch. 
Then we find out that there had been an application by Ms Setchell—and I did not know this until I read the report—for a job at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. We are told that the chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry independently and quite unrelated to any exchange he had with Mr Anderton as Minister decided not to employ Ms Setchell in that ministry. That is a bit of a stretch. Then we find that the Ministry of Education did not even bother to reply to her application. So it is a coincidence that Mr Benson-Pope had some stern conversations with Mr Logan and then Mr Logan decided to disengage Ms Setchell. It is a coincidence that Mr Hurring has some Mallard-like exchanges with Mr Logan and then Mr Logan dispenses with Ms Setchell’s services. It is another coincidence that Mr Anderton has an exchange with his chief executive and then that chief executive coincidentally decides not to employ Ms Setchell. Then we find that all of these coincidences come together in a form called the Prebble report. Members on this side of the House have very great difficulty in accepting that at face value. 
I sat on the select committee this morning and I asked Dr Prebble this question point blank. I said to him: “Can you assure me that you believe that if Ms Setchell applies today for a senior communications role in a Government department she has as good a chance as any other similarly qualified person of landing that job?”. He assured me that he believed that. I do not know anybody else from the National side who believed that. I did not see anybody from in the assembled press gallery who believed it. 
That is the fundamental problem we have—that Dr Prebble is telling us that Mr Logan made a decision without any influence from Mr Benson-Pope and we do not believe that. Dr Prebble is telling us that the persuasion exerted by Mr Hurring did not have any influence over the decision to disengage Ms Setchell. We do not believe that. Dr Prebble is asking us to believe that the role at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was denied Ms Setchell for reasons that have nothing to do with Mr Anderton’s discussion with the chief executive of that ministry and we do not believe that. We have been asked to believe that the application for a job at the Ministry of Education was unsuccessful for no reason related to Ms Setchell’s relationships with people connected to this side of the House and we do not believe that either. 
Neither do we believe that when Dr Prebble wrote an article telling New Zealanders that Mr Benson-Pope had nothing to do with the decision of Mr Logan to disengage Ms Setchell that was anything other than an attempt to mislead New Zealanders. When I put it to Dr Prebble this morning that New Zealanders would have felt misled by that statement more misled by his failure to correct it and even more misled when it occurred to people that it was an enormously convenient thing for the Government that had happened here Dr Prebble had no adequate response other than to point to the amnesia that seems to be increasingly afflicting his work. I say to members opposite that that will cause members on this side of the House to read both reports very carefully and to have some very careful discussions. We are mindful of the statement made by the Minister of State Services today that one does not lightly go around trashing longstanding and distinguished careers. But we have these profound problems and having listened to the explanations and finding ourselves unable to accept them we then have to ask ourselves whether we can have confidence in this man as the chief executive of the State Services Commission and the most senior public servant in our land. 
We are not impressed to find that Dr Prebble is then to mete out his punishment to himself having acted as his own judge and jury. He invited in a few of his chief executives and said: “Guys I want you to ignore for a minute the fact that I’m your boss. I want you to put aside the fact that I’m going to do your performance review. I want you to put aside the fact that I’m going to decide whether you’re going to get a bonus this year and I want you to ignore the fact that I’m going to decide whether you get reappointed. And I want you to tell me what sort of punishment you think I should give myself in these circumstances.” They said 2.5 percent of his salary. On his salary that is somewhat more than members on this side of the House would regard as adequate! 
I say that in these circumstances we will reflect carefully on these reports. We will read them carefully and ask ourselves in a deliberate way whether we have confidence in Dr Prebble as a result of these two reports today. I say to members opposite that Dr Prebble has made it enormously difficult for members on this side of the House to be able to answer that question in the affirmative. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.