The political bitterness over the probe into public sector contracts awarded to Nanaia Mahuta's husband was plainly evident in Parliament today.
As Act leader David Seymour asked a question to Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson about whether he still believed Mahuta was scrupulous in her adherence to the CabinetManual (the answer was yes), the normally cheerful Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, snarled loudly.
"Let's talk about Bill English's family shall we? Or it's okay because he's white?"
Hipkins this week asked the Public Service Commissioner to look at the contracts. He, along with Mahuta, was reflecting what many in Labour believe - that Mahuta is being targeted because she is Māori.
Nanaia Mahuta and her husband Gannin Ormsby. Photo / NZME
But National and Act believe it is reasonable to be asking questions about the contracts and believe they should not be indirectly accused of racism for doing so.
National is able to suggest that Labour can dish it out but cannot take it. They point to Robertson's own complaints in 2011 to the State Services Commission (which has become the Public Service Commission).
It was about the appointment of a brother of then Finance Minister Bill English to a job in the Ministry of Health which was not advertised. That was examined and assessed to be in line with internal policies.
The Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes has agreed to look into the issue without holding a formal inquiry.
Political parties of all hues are sensitive to stories involving family members - but that doesn't mean it is not justified. This has not been a case of a clear scandal but a series of stories which left you wondering whether Crown agencies had shown favouritism.
A series of stories by the Herald's Kate McNamara about five contracts awarded to Ormsby's company or an associated one have simmered away for months now, the most recent one on Tuesday this week about a Kainga Ora contract.
Ormsby specialises in running consultation hui. It is a talent that is in high demand - every Government agency these days is directed to consult with Māori over important policies.
Nanaia Mahuta in April this year with Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson, left, speaking about three Waters. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The questions are about the contracts with the Ministry for the Environment, Kainga Ora, Te Puni Kokiri and the Department of Conservation, and how they were managed - especially given that Mahuta was an associate minister for three of the agencies at the time contracts were awarded: for Environment, Kainga Ora and Te Puni Kokiri.
The questions are about whether potential and/or perceived conflicts were properly identified by the agencies and managed and whether they should have been part of a competitive process.
National's Simeon Brown wrote to the Public Service Commission three weeks ago seeking an investigation into contracts and then again last week with additional information on contracts.
What is surprising is that Hughes did not act earlier of his own volition. He has a famously honed political antenna and must have realised that this was a case of "death of a thousand cuts" that was damaging the reputation of his own public service as well as the minister.
While Mahuta was not accused of impropriety, the issue was not going away, and mud was sticking to her and the public service.
Hughes will look not only at Ormsby's contracts with the four agencies but across the broader public service to see if others exist, how conflicts of interest were managed and if proper processes were followed.
It may not be a formal inquiry but it needs to be thorough to draw a line under it - for good.
• Just before 8 pm Chris Hipkins apologised in Parliament for his interjection about Bill English. He said he had not intended to suggest that the appointments involving the English family had been inappropriate. "In fact, I was attempting to illustrate the opposite." Hipkins said he had worked with members of English's family in Opposition and government and had found them very professional. "I regret that my interjection has been interpreted as suggesting the opposite of what I intended and on reflection, I also regret bringing the former member and his family into a debate that they were not part of. Accordingly, I withdraw and apologise for my interjections."
