Benson-Pope David: Urgent Debates — Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Benson-Pope David: Urgent Debates — Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10629. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 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— 
Hon Bill English 
: You were there. Why do you need a report? You were there. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Madam Chair it would be helpful if you could— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: 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 
: 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. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.