Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8390] 
4.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What conventions preserve the political neutrality of the public service? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State Services 
:  
The New Zealand public service has a long and proud tradition of public political neutrality. The Public Service Act of 1912 established the convention that the public service should be free of political interference or patronage. That convention has evolved over time but remains very relevant today. 
David Benson-Pope 
: How does the politicisation of the public service by the naming and attacking of public servants compromise this convention? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is an important responsibility placed on members of Parliament not to attack public servants. Public servants cannot respond because that would jeopardise their political neutrality. By attacking public servants politicians also compromise their ability to work with those individuals one day if they are in Government—but of course in the case of the National Party that will never happen so it does not matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: What advice would the Minister have for Government Ministers who regularly attacked civil servants such as Christine Rankin Kit Richards and in this last week the Prime Minister attacking Mark Prebble? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would take the advice of the State Services Commissioner who said: “Trust in Government is a precious commodity. Once it is lost it is hard to recover. That is why tough and legitimate scrutiny by Parliament of the actions of our public institutions is justified.” But it is not justified to attack 35 public servants who run our State services as that man did yesterday. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked this Minister who has a life of blameless excellence and is probably as modest as the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that cannot be part of a point of order. He should come to the point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I asked this Minister a direct question: what advice would he have for Ministers who attacked civil servants? Then I named three. He did not answer that question at all. He just read out a blurb from the State Services Commissioner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address that in the last part of his answer. I heard him. 
David Benson-Pope 
: To what extent does a convention that was established nearly 100 years ago still apply? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I noted earlier the convention of a non-political public service was introduced by the Public Service Act in 1912. Conventions develop and evolve over time but it is still relevant today. I believe that the following undertaking by a former State Services Minister Simon Upton is equally applicable. He said: “I feel compelled to offer an apology to you on behalf of some of my fellow parliamentarians who have little knowledge or regard for their civic responsibilities or current constitutional conventions.” The apology like the convention would apply to Mr English’s behaviour yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think that superficial saccharine hypocritical verbiage satisfies this Parliament when it comes to addressing the following very serious comment from a civil servant: “The appearance may be that these public servants are no more than political puppets especially since what they are now saying is different to what official papers at the time said.”; why does he think that the kind of answer he has given the House would suffice to address such a serious question about the integrity of the public service? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In fact those quotes go to the essence of this matter. The matter is one of a public servant writing to Michael Wintringham the State Services Commissioner to ask a question about a process and of Mr Wintringham writing back. The attributing of those comments to Mr Wintringham by Mr English is what has led to the integrity of public servants being drawn into question. That is why he is wrong and should resign. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of Labour who in investigating the “lying in unison” episode came to the conclusion that civil servants had broken the law over the Official Information Act but who has made no comment about that and taken no action on civil servants breaking the law? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am looking at the note here from Dr James Buwalda yesterday when he released his reply to that inquiry which states that no evidence of a conspiracy among officials to lie or deceive has been found. What he is saying is that the procedures were not followed properly that he will ensure that they are followed and that he will take the correct disciplinary action. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister not concerned about the editorial this morning in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 New Zealand’s largest newspaper describing the inquiry into the Immigration Service as “completely unsatisfactory”; if he is interested in an independent civil service why does he not order an independent inquiry into “lying in unison”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Anybody in this House should be concerned that this inquiry was one that was properly conducted but Mr James Buwalda began his life as the head of the Department of Labour only at the time of this inquiry. He is completely independent. It is an appropriate process for him to undertake this inquiry in the way that he has. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind the odd interjection but there were too many interjections. I want to hear the answer. I am entitled to hear it as is every member of the House. I want members to restrain themselves in that regard. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To finish my comments I think that when anybody reads through what Dr Buwalda has done here as the newly appointed head of the Department of Labour he or she will see it is entirely and utterly appropriate that this inquiry has been undertaken in this way and therefore I think the conclusions stand up.