Case studies in political conflicts of interest
The Prime Minister has blundered badly by stating that she basically believes Madeleine Setchell should never have been appointed to her job in the first place (she agreed that it was a mistake that her application was progressed at all).
This makes it a story now not just about DPB but about Helen Clark and fundamental issues around the neutrality of the public service.
No Right Turn labels the PM’s statement as “The end of public service neutrality” and he is right – it is that big. The PSA is also concerned and has called on the SSC to clarify the position.
So the Labour has instituted a new rule that you can not hold any sort of senior job in the public service if you have a family member associated with the National Party. This is in complete contrast to how National has treated such issues. I’m going to go through four case studies to show how far Labour has plummeted.
Case Study 1 – Alison Timms
Alison Timms is now a professional director but was a civil servant for many years. Her husband is Tony Timms. Tony Timms is about as 100% Labour as you can get – a former General Secretary (CEO) of the Party itself and then an advisor to Helen Clark – one of her closest advisors.
Alison’s relationship with Tony Timms did not affect her undertaking very senior roles within the Department of Social Welfare from 1994 to 1999.
Even more telling is that under a National Government, Alison was appointed (Acting) Chief Executive of the NZ Fire Service in 1999. Now this was at a time when the Fire Service was hugely controversial, there had been a CIR on it etc. It was a powder keg and potentially a major election issue.
But Alison Timms was appointed, despite her marriage to Tony Timms, because she was trusted to act in a professional manner and not misuse confidential information she had. Because her Minister did not interfere.
Case Study 2 – Alec McLean
Alec McLean is a respected civil servant (and former Olympic rower!) who is currently Helen Clark’s Senior Private Secretary. He is one of the few (very valuable) professional SPSs who work for the Ministerial Services section of DIA. He is married to (or the partner of) Dinah Okeby who has worked for Labour Party MPs since 1984 and was/is Helen Clark’s private secretary.
Now within a Minister’s private office (very different to their Department) the Minister does have basically absolute veto on who works for them, or not. One can absolutely decide not to employ someone because their partner works for an opposing MP. But Alec was employed in the 1990s as a Senior Private Secretary (the most senior role in a Minister’s office) by both Deputy PM Don McKinnon and Tony Ryall, despite his wife working for Helen Clark. That is because they trusted his professionalism and that he and his wife could separate out their professional and persona lives.
So we have two clear examples of potential conflicts of interest which was massively more substantial than a 3rd or 4th level manager in the Environment Ministry having a press secretary as a partner. In neither case were they denied a job or moved out of one, because of the potential conflict.
Now for the next two case studies, let us look at a situation where the grounds for moving someone out of a job are far greater- when it is the actual civil servant who has the political connection, not their partner.
Case Study 3 – Verna Smith
Verna Smith stood for Labour in 1996. You can not get more a political conflict of interest than that. She was No 25 on their list, missing out by just four places.
Both prior to and after the 1996 election Verna was a senior manager with the Department of Social Welfare. I don’t have all her roles but she has been policy and strategy manager for CFA, General Manager of CYF Contracting, and CYF General Manager of Social Work etc.
All senior roles, and ones which the then Minister recalls often involved attending meetings and briefings in the Minister’s office. So even the fact she was a Labour Party candidate did not result her being moved to a different job. Again she was trusted not to misuse information she learnt at work.
Case Study 4 – Parekura Horomia
Parekura Horomia in the 1990s was a civil servant and a highly ranked Regional Manager for Te Puni Kokiri. Prior to that he was general manager of the Community Employment Group.
He stood for Labour in the 1999 election. He was a confirmed Labour Party candidate for the best part of a year. His job was in an area which undoubtedly he would be involved with as an MP. But despite this he was not shifted sideways. He did not lose his job until the mandatory stand down for the election campaign.
So all four case studies show that there have been far far greater political conflicts of interests that that of Madeleine Setchell, and they have never had their careers suffer for it. Yet, despite this history, Helen Clark believes Madeleine Setchell should never have been appointed to her role. Helen Clark’s view of a neutral public service is very different to National’s. This is of course why Wellington was named Helengrad by some civil servants.
If a future National Government was to adopt Helen Clark’s views as the standard for ineligibility to hold senior or sensitive roles in the public service, then dozens and dozens of civil servants would be out of their jobs. Fortunately National has confirmed they will not behave like Labour has.
I shudder to think what life will be like in the public service if Labour get back for a fourth term. Helen Clark’s view that having a family member associated with National is reason enough not to be employed, will reign.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
DPF, do you have anything else, apart from (gosh!) a National Party media release, which is itself based on nothing more than a throwaway line? Where is the actual evidence that “you can not hold any sort of senior job in the public service if you have a family member associated with the National Party”. You’re just being silly now, but then I’m sure you were giggling as you typed!
Have your fun with B-P (he deserves it) but to claim some Evil Klark Agenda, you’ll have to do better than that.
[Sam - Idiot/Savant of NRT, who is in no way National friendly, has condemned what Clark said in possibly stronger terms than even me. If you are unable to see how a statement like that by the PM is a major shift in practice for the civil service, then well your own partisan leanings blind you]
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
DPF
I think sam sums it up quite well. Labour supporters would continue to support Labour even if there were 6:00pm news clippings every day of Helen Clark chopping National supporters in half with a chainsaw. They myopic lefty partisan supporters clearly can’t smell the stench of corruption – just the sweet perfume of the glorious words MOVE ON capture their senses.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Oh, David, but you missed one. A very senior MFAT civil servant stood for National last election, and also held a very, very senior role at the WTO. As soon as Labour found out he was standing, they did nothing to undermine is role.
Oh, hang on. Actually they sacked him.
[DPF - Excellent point IP. Yes that was disgraceful but shows well the double standards]
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Clark was quoting Prebble whose article in the DomPost is worth a read even if you disagree – as NRT obviously does.
You put words in her mouth in a previous post in a way that would have had someone banned from this site had they done the same to you.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
You put words in her mouth in a previous post in a way that would have had someone banned from this site had they done the same to you.
What rubbish. How many people has DPF banned?
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
DPF – the same question applies to NRT too (but cannot be asked on his blog, as you know). Both his post and yours are based solely on the National media release, which is based on the interview on Morning Report – but not the substance of the interview, because Clark actually states numerous times that the State Services Commisssion makes those decisions.
So again: Do you have any evidence that in future “you cannot hold any sort of senior job in the public service if you have a family member associated with the National Party”? That is an extremely serious charge, and it would be a disgrace if it were true.
Can you back it up?
[DPF: Sam - as others have said what happened to Madeleine is the proof. The opinion of the PM will weigh very heavily on the state sector CEOs, esp if you believe that they crumble just in the face of a Beehive staffer. A CEO would have to be mad to hire someone who has a National Party family member after the PM has said such an application should not have been progressed]
Maybe Sam you could share us whether or not you think Clark is correct that Madeleine should never have got the job because of her relationship. That is the issue, not your attempts to spin]
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
For fucksake I wish people would stop playing partisan on this. David’s right to raise this as an important issue. All the wannabe Labour apparatchicks are trying to defend the indefensible. David, of course is making a bit of hay while the sun is shining. Hell, he’s never hidden his Tory connections and sympathies. But that obvious colouration doesn’t diminish the seriousness of the issue. Idiot/Savant has hit the nail on the head in No Right Turn – this is a very serious misjudgement by the Labour government and the SSC. Clark’s decision to step in on the wrong side of the argument only makes the breach worse. This is not just some minor Wellington skirmish – if it’s true that Benson Pope conspired to get rid of a relatively senior public servant because of her husband’s political leanings and we let him get away with it, we’ve essentially fucked some pretty important constitutional conventions about how Ministers and officials interact.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
It seems to me that Madeleine Setchell should have pursued this through the employment court rather than the media. If she were wanting to do so are there any barriers? (other than retrospective employment law changes)
Smells like an employment lawyers bread and butter or are armies of said learned people far to busy defending cases we’ll never hear about?
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Sam said: “So again: Do you have any evidence that in future “you cannot hold any sort of senior job in the public service if you have a family member associated with the National Party”?”
I have the evidence Sam. The evidence is Madeleine Setchell. If you knew anything about the laws of evidence then you’ll know there is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Here we don’t quite have direct evidence (but not too far off that) but when you consider DB-P’s previous slips of the tongue and Clark’s penchant for being ‘light’ on the truth on some prior occasions also you have all the circumstantial evidence you need.
Dig a little deeper Sam and look behind the curtains. It ain’t all smelling of roses.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Bit of a rum do this one. Labour are supposed to be the party of the workers and should not be involved/supporting the sacking of people in these circumstances.
I reckon Setchell has been treated appallingly and surely she has the ability to challenge this legally? I suspect that she does not have a trade union though! The independence and neutrality of the civil service is very important but even if her partner was John Key she should still be judged on her own merits in terms of her ability to do the job.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Oh and another thing, isn’t it ironic this has come to the surface just when the Election Finance Bill has been tabled. If you thought Helengrad will punish you for who you support now, just wait until you declare your campaign donations!
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Great summary David.
Boy didn’t BP look uncomfortable on the TV news tonight.
I bet he wished he had a tennis ball to stuff in his own mouth to stop from giving the game away. LOL
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
OK, the whole thing stinks to high heaven and we really do need an apoliticqal public service, and you have shown hopw hopnourable national is.
But if people like that bitch with her rabid labourite connections are heading up social welfare no wonder we have to give till the tears well up in our eyes and our groin aches, eh?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Oh my. The media gets into a bit of a tizzy over something the civil service has done, tries to pin it on a politician, the National Party quotes the PM out of context and surprise surprise, National’s favourite cyber running dog is foaming at the mouth.
Just before DPF starts calling for a complete “reverse purge” of the civil service after the next election because it has been unfairly populated by reds, lets listen to a bit more of that interview, shall we?
SP: “Should it make any difference that her partner Kevin Taylor did work for John Key, if we have – as we would like to think – an impartial and non-political or non-politicised public service?”
HC:”My view Shaun is that that is a matter for the judgment of the chief executive and the State Services Commission and I come back again to the fierce independence of Dr. Prebble and Mr. Grennie (sic?), people, as I say, that I’ve crossed swords with before in the capacities that they’ve had.”
Gosh. What gross intervention!
[DPF:Charlie - first of all you can fuck off if you are going to call me names. Secondly don't lower me to your level - I explicitly said it was good National would not respond in kind when in Govt. Third what you post doesn't in any way change the fact she said she agreed the application should not have progressed. Something she has not yet backtracked on.
Now Charlie maybe you can answer a question. Do you think that Setchell's relationship with Taylor should have prevented her from holding the job?]
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Charlie
A reverse purge would be as dangerous to the future of this country as the current apparent purge. A lop sided civil service of any persuasion is a stupid thing to engineer. Why would any Govt want to polarise it’s public and private business sectors? Who would be stupid enough to want to do that…
July 24th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Surely underpinning this is the Bill of Rights.
Section 2: You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, FAMILY STATUS, and sexual orientation.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:27 am
I get sick of the Tui thing, but really….. you forgot to add “as long as you reflect the core values of NZ, ie the establishment view” to the end of the bill of rights there kaykay.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:30 am
My, Mr. Farrar you are developing a very thin skin. You should lean a bit closer, you can smell the arrogance on his breath.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Labour is unconventional. DDT worries about Labour ignoring an important ‘convention’ in this case Labour stopped taking any notice of conventions years ago. Remember Philk Off and his ‘gone by lunchtime’ breech of convention?
The only convention recognised by Labour is that what it wants it gets.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Got anything relevant to the subject at hand, TomS? Care to explain how this isn’t Labour demolishing public service neutrality and extending an open invitation for National to do the same when they’re in? This sucks big-time – drop the partisan bullshit and face the fact.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Maybe Toms will answer the question, the others flee from. Do you agree with the PM that Setchell’s application should not have progressed, and that such a relationship should rule out being a comms manager in a ministry?
July 24th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Listening to B-P on Morning Report at 8.30am one is left wondering if he actually lies straight in bed at night.
He admits he knew something was going on but he didn’t really want to know about it.
It is simply not plausible that he admits that he was aware of an issue and that the issue was a conflict of interest of staff that he didn’t want more detail. Good god the man is a politician, they want to know everything so they might be able to use their knowledge (remember knowledge equals power) at an opportune moment.
As for Hurring getting involved in an employment issue in the Public Service when he is an outsider to the employment of Public Servants is also a worry. That Logan jumped to his tune is even more disgraceful.
Who do these people actually think they are. Their bloody arrogance knows no bounds!
July 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am
DPF – don’t hold your breath, “toms” is too gutless to answer that question!
He agrees with Herr Helen that Setchell’s application should not have progressed, but is too PC to admit it. Typical lefty double standard hypocrite.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“DPF:Charlie – first of all you can fuck off if you are going to call me names.”
Ouch. Truth hurts, I guess. Are you going to ban me again?
“Third what you post doesn’t in any way change the fact she said she agreed the application should not have progressed. Something she has not yet backtracked on.”
Any idiot who actually listened to the interview can tell that that comment was in the context of what came before. i.e. Had the correct procedure been followed during the application process those whose responsibility it is to make those decisions should not have accepted her application. If you are ever in doubt, go to the source.
“Now Charlie maybe you can answer a question. Do you think that Setchell’s relationship with Taylor should have prevented her from holding the job?”
Not in a post-hoc fashion as it actually transpired, (although that is hardly the fault of those being blamed at the moment,) but her relationship certainly did throw up significant questions surrounding her impartiality. So, if you want a black and white answer, then yes, yes I do.
But then, I would say the same if Peter Davies applied for a position of responsibility in the health system – in fact, I seem to remember him being lambasted by the right for the mere fact that, as a noted socialogist specialising in health he accepted funds from a government body to do research. Hardly significant compared to this case, but at the time it really revealed the “commitment” of those on the right to impartiality within the public service.
[Charlie - thank you for saying you believe civil servants with partners who work for other parties can be discriminated against. I hope you keep to this belief when there is a change of Govt.]
July 24th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I certainly will. As I believe I made fairly clear, the door swings both ways.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Not to be misconstrued though, the decision is one for the State Services Commission, not you, I or the PM – as she made clear numerous times in the interview you and your masters at the National Party now take snippets from to quote her out of context. So your question, as usual, is fatuous.
[DPF: Yeah Right. And they will take no notice of the views of the PM]
July 24th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
No they won’t. Prebble is clearly impartial, and one would assume his staff is too. If all you have is speculation about their motives and an out-of-context snippet from the PM that proves nothing, then perhaps you and your handlers shouldn’t be shouting so loudly.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Oh please please can I have the job of cleaning out the tertiary education sector when the “big cleanout” comes?
We just can’t trust those who call themselves educators to present impartially to our impressionable children and teenagers. The pinkos will have to go.
I have a little list
I have you on my list
Not one of you’ll be missed
….
….
July 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Charlie I have followed your advice and gone to the “source.” Read between the lines and its pretty easy to get the full picture. Here it is:
2 Madeleine Setchell applied for a senior position with the Ministry for the Environment and, I understand, made a disclosure of her personal connections. The Ministry for the Environment at first did not realize the significance of Ms Setchell’s potential conflict of interest and the chief executive was certainly not aware of any potential conflict of interest at the time of her appointment to the position.
3 The possibility of an issue was brought to the attention of the Chief Executive, Mr Hugh Logan, by way of a phone call from the office of the Minister for the Environment after Ms Setchell had started work at the Ministry.
IN OTHER WORDS THE MINISTRY DID NOT REALISE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNTIL DBP’S LICKSPITTLE CONTACTED THEM
The staff member from the Minister’s office indicated that it would be helpful to know whether this was true but also stressed that it was entirely the chief executive’s responsibility to make decisions on the employment of staff.
YES THE STAFF MEMBER SAID ITS YOUR DECISION BUT THE STAFF MEMBER THOUGHT TO THEMSELVES HOW OFTEN AM I CONTACTED BY A MINISTER’S OFFICE ON EMPLOYMENT ISSUES HMM… I CAN CONNECT THE DOTS
4 Once the chief executive clarified the position that Ms Setchell’s partner held he considered that there was the potential for a conflict of interest that required management.
THAT IS ONCE A PARTISAN HAD INFORMED THEM OF THE DISPLEASURE OF THE POLITICAL WING OF THE EXECUTIVE…
The Commissioner’s advice was based on two principles:
• That public servants should be considered on their merits, and their political loyalties should not normally be questioned.
• That senior public servants have an obligation to maintain loyal service to the government of the day – including, sometimes, discreet support on politically sensitive matters – without compromising their ability to serve future governments.
IN OTHER WORDS THE COMISSIONER WAS SUGGESTING THERE ISN’T REALLY A PROBLEM BUT YOU KNOW HAT HELENGRADS LIKE THESE DAYS…
7 My understanding is that Mr Logan informed the Minister of the issue. However, Mr Logan is very clear that the Minister stressed that staff issues were the responsibility of the chief executive alone.
8 Mr Logan is clear that he made the decision independently and that the Minister was not involved in that decision.
BUT WITH A FEW GROANS, TWITCHES, AND SIGHS DBP MADE HIS THOUGHTS KNOWN…
It is my understanding that Hugh Logan and Madeleine Setchell did explore options which would have involved the offer to her of an alternative position.
EXCUSE ME DEAR MADELIENE I KNOW ITS A STEP DOWN BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEEP THE FLOORS?
Though these issues hardly ever emerge as matters of public comment they are not rare. Senior managers are always asked to manage these conflicts and they require sensitivity and good judgement to successfully navigate.
WHY DID THIS ONE EMERGE? COS CONTROL FREAK DBP INTERVENED WHEN OTHER MORE PROFESSIONAL MINISTERS HAVE NOT…
It has been pointed out by the State Services Commissioner that his own career is an example. His brother has been active in politics throughout Mark Prebble’s time as a public servant.
PREBBLE KINDLY STATED THIS TO REINFORCE THE POINT – OOO SHIT IS MARK PREBBLE GOING TO SLASH AND BURN THE BLOATED BUREAUCRACY BECAUSE HE IS THE BROTHER OF THAT ACTOPHILE RICHARD PREBBLE?
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 LIKE THE PERCIEVED PART DON’T YOU?
This case has in his view 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
IN OTHER WORDS THIS SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS APPEARS TO BE A WAY IN WHICH THE GRUBBY LITTLE HELENGRAD CRONIES ARE GOING TO WARP OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THERE ON BENEFIT. I HOPE IT COMES BACK TO BITE THEM IN THE ARSE…
July 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Thank you very much, cynic. You have shown that
a) while it may have been improper DBP’s “lickspittle” to contact the chief executive, there is only speculation that shows that DBP had anything to do with the decision. Speculation that is so tenuous, in fact, that the National party needs to argue about semantics in order to “prove” its case.
b) This can only be a scandal when it is massaged by the comments of suspicious nats.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
David you could also have mentioned Mahara Okeroa who worked for TPK in a relatively senior position before standing for Labour. Funny how that was no problem but an MED manager got into all kinds of trouble when he just put his name forward for possible selection by National for a Wellington seat.