English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10978] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does she have confidence in Dr Mark Prebble’s investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes I do. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of a statement made by Dr Prebble last Friday explaining why the article he published in the  
Dominion Post 
 omitted the fact that David Benson-Pope had made comments where Dr Prebble states: “The reason why I didn’t mention it is it didn’t at the time—it wasn’t the critical issue.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am. 
Hon Bill English 
: So which of Dr Prebble’s explanations does the Minister now believe: his explanation that he omitted that information because “I forgot” or his explanation as given on  
Morning Report  
that “The reason why I didn’t mention it is” because “it wasn’t the critical issue.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe it is possible for both those statements to be correct. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that anyone else would regard those statements as both being right where Dr Prebble gave as one explanation for leaving the information out that he “forgot” and gave another explanation where he said he left the information out because it was not a “critical issue”—in fact that he had made the judgment that it did not matter enough to put it in the article? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes it is true that some may believe that Dr Prebble set out to mislead the public of New Zealand. I do not believe that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that Dr Prebble left the information out because “it wasn’t the critical issue.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I take Dr Prebble’s word for what he said and said publicly—that he forgot. He also said that he did not—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Public Service have confidence in an inquiry led by Dr Prebble where he is investigating the facts as he says and coming to it with an open mind when his own statements have contradicted each other—on the one hand he said he “forgot” to put it in and on the other hand he said that he did not put it in because it was not “the critical issue”—how can the Public Service have confidence in an inquiry led by Dr Prebble when one of the key elements of that inquiry is Dr Prebble’s contradictory statements? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can have confidence because Dr Prebble has asked Mr Don Hunn to investigate independently the facts of this matter—the facts of this matter. He did that after seeking advice from the Solicitor-General. Dr Prebble has now added Mr Don Hunn to that inquiry. Mr Hunn has been brought in to look at the facts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that that is not Dr Prebble’s view because in this interview he says that he is going to gather the facts saying: “I am entering into this process with an open mind knowing that I don’t know all the facts and I know that others don’t know all the facts.”; who is gathering the facts: Dr Prebble who has given two contradictory versions of why he left a vital piece of information out of a published article or Don Hunn who is part of the inquiry that is still legally the responsibility of Dr Prebble? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mr Don Hunn is investigating the facts. Under the State Sector Act the facts are being investigated. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who will interview Dr Prebble about his contradictory statements over why he left critical information out of a published article; will it be the legally responsible lead investigator Dr Prebble or will it be Mr Hunn? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The facts of this case will be investigated by Mr Don Hunn and in looking at the facts he will no doubt interview everybody whom it is appropriate to interview. 
Hon Bill English 
: In this inquiry that 30000 civil servants are meant to regard as credible will it be the case that one of the appointed reviewers Mr Don Hunn will have to interview extensively the chief reviewer Mr Mark Prebble to ascertain the truthfulness of Mr Prebble’s statements? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mr Don Hunn has been given the job of investigating the facts of this case and no matter how Mr English wants to portray it and try to denigrate public servants it will be done in a proper manner—as one would expect from a man of Mr Don Hunn’s calibre. I do not believe that there are many people in New Zealand—although I cannot account for some in the Opposition—who would find a problem with regard to a man who has had a long service in the Public Service and is considered to be the father of the State Service Commission having been one of the people who set it up. I believe he is the right person on the advice of the Solicitor-General to help in this inquiry. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think that Dr Prebble may be making rather too many mistakes for a senior and very experienced public servant given his failure in 2003 to release critical documents that reflected badly on the Government in relation to the “corngate” incident despite instructions that everything should be released? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has been satisfied with the work of the State Services Commissioner. However I have to say that everybody makes mistakes and as has been pointed out already this week it is regrettable that Dr Prebble did forget an important piece of information. But I think it would unfair to say that in a lifetime of public service one would judge that person on one or two errors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement by Mr Mark Prebble that he did not forget to release the document— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.