King Annette: Urgent Debates — Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Urgent Debates — Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The issue of Public Service neutrality is very important. It is a tradition that contrary to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot accuse another member— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I 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) 
: I would just remind the member that he cannot do that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I start again Madam Assistant Speaker as I only got my first sentence out? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member can. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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— 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no—please be seated. The member knows that she cannot use that word. I ask her to withdraw it please.  
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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— 
Hon Bill English 
: He was. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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. 
Hon Bill English 
: 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) 
: Please be seated. 
Hon Bill English 
: I just want to say to the member— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] 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. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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) 
: 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. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: 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. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: 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. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. Just before the point of order I warn the member that I have ruled on that point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: 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 1500 pages of Official Information Act requests and in that sense there is every legitimate right of a member of Parliament to mention the name. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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) 
: 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 Hughes 
: I 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) 
: 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. 
Hon Bill English 
: 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) 
: 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. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Throughout the speech that I gave— 
Hon Bill English 
: 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) 
: It is an unparliamentary term and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Throughout 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— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was a cover-up. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: 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.