Parker David: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Parker David: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13084] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The Hunn report discloses the series of mistakes that were made within the State Service in dealing with this issue. The first thing I would emphasise is that this Government accepts that the impartiality of the Public Service is an important plank of the constitutional settings we have in New Zealand. For that reason the Government was of the view that there should be an inquiry and that it should be carried out by someone whose integrity was beyond being impugned: Mr Hunn. I thank Mr Brownlee for his acknowledgment that he holds Mr Hunn in that regard because there is at least agreement that the Government appointed an appropriate person to look at these events. 
The second point I would like to put on the record and would emphasise is a point that has been made previously by the Prime Minister when these issues arose—that is the person who comes out of this matter with a clean bill of health and as not having made any mistakes is Madeleine Setchell. She was a person caught up in events here that do not reflect poorly upon her at all. She conducted herself properly throughout these events and she should feel well respected in the community as a consequence of her integrity being upheld in this report. 
Madeleine Setchell was interviewed by staff at the Ministry for the Environment for the position of manager of communications. It was a senior role as is evidenced by the fact that she was being paid effectively the same as most members of Parliament here are paid. This was not a junior role; it was a senior role within the ministry. It is clear that at the interview she properly disclosed her relationship with the senior press adviser in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. 
The first adverse comment Mr Hunn makes is that he fails to understand why that disclosure was not passed on by the staff in the Ministry for the Environment to Mr Logan. In that regard I think that Mr Logan can feel let down by his own staff. They obviously made a mistake in not making that disclosure and I have a suspicion on reading the report that they did not really become fulsome in their proper disclosure of that even when the issue of Madeleine Setchell’s potential conflict of interest became known to Mr Logan. 
Mr Logan was not told of that and then a rumour circulated. I do not know where that rumour started but we know that the rumour was passed on to a staff member in Mr Benson-Pope’s office. David Benson-Pope’s staff member quite properly—and Mr Hunn acknowledges that it was proper for him to do so—asked the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment whether the rumour was true. Mr Hunn said there was nothing wrong with that: it was quite a proper inquiry to make and it was not out of the ordinary. It has no doubt happened in the past and it will no doubt happen in the future and it would be a sad day if there could not be such a level of openness that if people heard that sort of rumour they could not inquire of the chief executive as to whether it was true. 
The chief executive then quite properly consulted with the State Services Commissioner Dr Prebble. Dr Prebble—and this again is not contested by anyone; this is accepted by Mr Logan and by Mr Hunn—told him that he thought the conflict of interest could be managed without a requirement that Madeleine Setchell have a different role notwithstanding the difficulties that might have been seen in the Minister’s office. The State Services Commissioner was quite clear in his advice to Mr Logan that the potential conflict of interest should not be problematic and could be managed. 
However in that same advice it was also emphasised to Mr Logan that at law decisions relating to the employment of public servants in the Ministry for the Environment were decisions for Mr Logan to make not for the State Services Commission. So although Dr Prebble gave that advice and expected Mr Logan to take that advice into account—which he no doubt did—it was also within the power of and indeed the duty of Mr Logan to make his own decision. 
Mr Logan then raised the issue of Ms Setchell’s potential conflict of interest with her. I think one of the mistakes that Mr Logan should regret most in this matter was that when he dealt with Ms Setchell he was less than sensitive as to her position. It appears to be likely that even then he was being told by his own staff members that Ms Setchell had made a disclosure of some conflict of interest rather than a fulsome disclosure of the nature of that conflict of interest. We now know that that was not correct. Ms Setchell had made a full disclosure and Mr Logan in presenting his view—having no doubt been told this by his staff members—that there had been only a less than adequate disclosure of that interest was incorrect. 
I can understand Ms Setchell feeling aggrieved that her integrity from her point of view was being questioned. She made it quite clear that she wanted her reputation within the Ministry for the Environment protected by it being made clear and properly acknowledged that she had fully and properly disclosed her potential conflict of interest. One of the findings of Mr Hunn was that that was not the way in which these issues were approached with her indeed not just verbally but also in the written documents that came forward to Ms Setchell when she was offered an alternative position within the ministry. The wording surrounding that offer I think was insulting to her and questioned her integrity and viewpoint because it seemed to suggest that she had been less than fulsome in her disclosures which plainly was not the case. 
It subsequently transpired that an agreement was reached with Ms Setchell. That was another cause of criticism by Mr Hunn and the State Services Commission in that it led to a confidential settlement with Ms Setchell. I agree with those criticisms; I do not like these sorts of settlements to be confidential. Occasionally the need to reach a settlement with someone who is rightly aggrieved is inevitable somewhere in the Public Service but these issues ought not to be done on the basis of confidentiality. The ministry has subsequently said that it would be willing to waive that confidentiality but of course it cannot do that off its own bat. It is no criticism of Madeleine Setchell that she does not want that confidentiality raised; that is her right. That confidentiality was offered to her albeit wrongly by the Ministry for the Environment and it is her right to have the confidentiality of that settlement now upheld. I do not know the amount of the settlement. The former State Services Commissioner Mr Hunn said he thought it was within the range of what would be an acceptable outcome but of course we do not know what it was. 
The next stage in this catalogue of errors was of course the failure of the State Services Commissioner to remember that Mr Logan had told him about his conversation with David Benson-Pope. That is something that Mr Brownlee has just characterised as some evidence of collusion between the Government and the State Services Commission and/or Mr Logan. It is very clear from the report that in actual fact amongst those who were misled as a consequence of that forgetfulness on the part of Dr Prebble was the Government. The reports that came from the Deputy State Services Commissioner Mr Rennie while Dr Prebble was overseas to the then Minister Annette King were from the point of view of the Government fulsome. But they contained no reference to the discussion that Mr Logan had had with David Benson-Pope. That was to the disadvantage of the Government rather than to its advantage and the issue was not well handled by the State Services Commission. So the Government can feel a little let down as a consequence of what occurred here. 
Subsequent to that there were issues relating to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry where Madeleine Setchell made inquiries as to whether she might find employment there. I would make the point that the suggestion that she has been blacklisted throughout the Public Service is incorrect; there has been no such blacklisting. As I understand it she is obviously a very skilled person and got employment within a short period of weeks with Victoria University as it happens and I hope she is happy in that position. I think the comments that Mr Anderton made to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A Crown entity. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Victoria University is a Crown entity albeit more independent than a Government department. 
I also refer to the parts of the report on about page 37 from memory for the benefit of those who have a copy of the report that deal with Mr Anderton’s comments in this matter. I thought Mr Anderton’s comments were very mature very considered and consistent at the time and later. They obviously struck a chord with Mr Hunn because he reported them in full and I think commented on them reasonably positively or cast them in a positive light. He made the point that it is very difficult in some of these situations where the conflict arises from a family relationship—with one’s spouse or partner—and where the other person is working in a highly politicised position. These events only occur rarely but he made the point that it makes the person who is put into that position the possible butt of suspicion when things go wrong. That would have been a difficult position for Madeleine Setchell to be put in and it shows that this issue was difficult for all concerned albeit it was not handled well. 
Now what should the consequences be? Obviously there have been mistakes here and the question is: what consequences are proportionate? The first point to make here is that people’s future livelihoods and careers are at stake. We have to act wisely and justly and not overreact. Dr Prebble’s mistake for example did not change the outcome for Madeleine Setchell—that has been made clear by Mr Hunn. His mistakes all really ran from his forgetfulness in respect of the conversation that he had had with Mr Logan but they did not change the outcome for Madeleine Setchell. They did cause embarrassment for the Government. How do we rate that? 
Dr Prebble has been a senior public servant for many many years not just for this Government but for prior Governments. He has been the head of two of the most important Government departments: the State Services Commission and before that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is hard to find a person who has had a more senior career. If the Government was to overreact here we would bring that career to an end. 
Dr Prebble has made it clear that if the Government has lost confidence in him he would go quietly—he would merely resign. The view of the Government and my view is that that would be an overreaction and disproportionate to what has happened. There is no suggestion of dishonesty on the part of Dr Prebble. His was a sin of omission. It was not deliberate; he forgot. As Mr Hunn said in his report Murphy’s Law was rife. When these things started to go wrong they went wrong when people were in different parts of the world at times where cellphone coverage was poor. The events multiplied because different mistakes were made by different people. The situation does not reflect well on Dr Prebble and he knows that. He has had to face up to public scrutiny and public criticism. I for one think it would be wrong to let his career end on that note. I have confidence in his ability to continue to serve his country as he has done for decades to date. 
In terms of the outcome for Mr Logan that is of course not a matter for Ministers; it is for the State Services Commissioner—and I am sure he has decided on that after taking advice from senior colleagues within the commission. 
I think that this inquiry shows that New Zealand has an open and a transparent attitude towards the Public Service. Both the Government and the Opposition which I think is sincere believe that the Public Service should be beyond reproach and not politicised. It is clear that the Hunn report quite explicitly says nothing that any of the Ministers or Ministers’ offices did went beyond what has been an historical norm. They did nothing wrong. Mistakes were made within the State sector and various steps have been laid out by the State Services Commission to make sure that those errors are not repeated.