Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13092] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do not think I need to take the full 10 minutes but there are some things that need rehearsing. I regret deeply the comments made by Gerry Brownlee in particular in regard to the State Services Commissioner. There has been a tradition in this House of working with the commissioner and of not politicising that role in the way that Mr Brownlee did. I will get back to that later on. 
I join with the Prime Minister at question time and the Minister of State Services earlier in this debate in putting on the record of this House that Madeleine Setchell acted appropriately. It is now shown by these reports that she acted with integrity; she made the declaration that was appropriate. There was a very bad failure within the Ministry for the Environment of that declaration not being escalated to the notice of the chief executive at the beginning of the process. That is one of a series of errors that occurred which led to what I think is a very unfortunate situation indeed. 
That was then followed by a questionable decision—in fact an incorrect decision—on the part of the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment in not giving serious enough consideration to the views expressed to him by the State Services Commissioner. I have no doubt that there was an ability to manage that relationship within the original position. Such situations happen regularly within the Public Service and within the broader State sector within New Zealand. One of the results of being a relatively small society is that we develop methods of handling this sort of issue. A lot of it relies on the integrity of the individuals and my view on this is that in a New Zealand situation one trusts people until there is evidence that they have acted inappropriately. That with the proper systems set up would have been the proper approach to have taken originally with Madeleine Setchell in this process. So I think that was unfortunate. 
I think the decision not to give to her the written assurance and the comments to her team that she sought was a further mistake because she had acted properly. Probably excessive regard was being given to legal advice around Employment Court consequences. I think it is proper to treat people well to start with even if that might mean a disadvantage later in the process. Even when the process was over the Hunn report shows that a written declaration that should have been made was not made and I think that was wrong. 
I want to place on the record of the House that I was the person who chaired the panel that appointed Dr Prebble as State Services Commissioner. Dr Prebble is someone who has had a long-term career within the Public Service. He has been in all three senior roles in all three of the central agencies. He is someone who knows probably better than anyone how to manage relationships where there is a political aspect to them. We should remember the fact that his brother was a high-profile Cabinet Minister member of Parliament and party leader for a period of time. If anyone knows how to give advice on managing this sort of conflict then Dr Prebble is that person. 
I also want to place on record that there are a lot of views Dr Prebble has that I disagree with. He is a person who is not afraid to test Ministers—and I was his Minister—and to argue to push and to discuss things. But in the end when a decision is made Dr Prebble is someone who implements it and he does so in a proper and very professional way. He made a mistake. It is a mistake that is part of a chain that had no effect on Madeleine Setchell and that is clear. His forgetting the conversation actually ended up having no effect on the decision that Hugh Logan made with regard to Madeleine Setchell. It might have had some effect on reputation and the way the thing was handled afterwards and I accept that but the core decision—Dr Prebble’s memory lapse—did not. 
I ask members opposite whether they have ever had a memory lapse. Have they ever made a mistake? Have they ever not done something they should have done? Of course we all make mistakes. We all do. Generally they are not quite as public as the mistake Dr Prebble made on this occasion. He has effectively fined himself; he has given some money back. He cannot cut his own salary because that is something that the Remuneration Authority decides and that is something he will face up to next time he comes in front of the authority I am sure in terms of changing the curve. But he has done what I think is an honourable thing: he has written out a cheque—my guess on the maths makes it somewhere around $10000—and paid it back. If members opposite were fined $10000 every time they made a mistake then the Government coffers would be well filled. The surplus would be doubled probably. 
The next point I make which I think is an important one is to acknowledge the fact that Don Hunn has done a very thorough job in this process. I want to make it clear that the decision to involve Don Hunn in the report was the decision of Dr Prebble. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It was the Prime Minister twisting his arm. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well there is no doubt the Government’s view was that it was important there be an independent look at Dr Prebble’s action and that has occurred. Don Hunn is someone who also has had a very good reputation long term. He was the first of what we might call the modern State Services Commissioners in the middle 1980s and I think he has done a very thorough job. 
I finish as I started by saying that it is very unfortunate that Madeleine Setchell has been caught up in a series of errors. It is my view that her employment could have been managed in a way that was appropriate and that her reputation has not been enhanced by this performance and I regret that very much.