Corngate note writer 'superb' worker

By KEVIN TAYLOR

Despite disagreeing with Mark Prebble, the powerful head of the Prime Minister's department, over the release of Corngate memos, Ruth Wilkie still has his admiration.

As Corngate Mark II swirled around the Beehive this week, Dr Prebble described her as a "superb public servant" who did not resign after the election for any reason other than to have a baby.

Ruth Wilkie wrote the memo Opposition MPs tabled and crowed about in Parliament this week.

National MP Nick Smith said her memo of December 8, 2000, to the Prime Minister was the smoking gun showing Helen Clark was "donkey-deep" in managing Corngate.

The memo was written as the Government grappled with the possibility that GM-contaminated corn had been grown in New Zealand.

Ruth Wilkie continues to maintain her silence, telling the Weekend Herald yesterday that she had no comment.

But it is clear from a letter to Dr Prebble dated July 17 last year - in the middle of the white-hot election campaign - that she was unhappy he had withheld documents on Corngate.

That went against an order from the Prime Minister for full disclosure. She wanted to dispel allegations of a Government cover-up that were contained in Nicky Hager's book Seeds of Distrust.

Ruth Wilkie's letter registered her "formal concern" that at least one of the notes Dr Prebble had withheld "filled an important gap in the paper trail" of the affair.

Dr Prebble said her letter was actually referring to his memo to the Prime Minister of December 1, 2000, which said he was convinced, contrary to previous information, that it was no longer certain there was firm evidence of GM seed in the seedlot.

Dr Prebble said he was acting on a long-standing "convention" that advice to the Prime Minister should generally be withheld.

The Office of the Ombudsmen considered the convention in its annual report last year and accepted that the relationship between the department's policy advisory group and the Prime Minister had "unique characteristics", although it said requests for information should be assessed case by case.