Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 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 Maori 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.