KEY POINTS:
I don't know which is worse, Helen Clark's double standards or the State Services Commission's toadyism in the Madeleine Setchell employment affair.
There are two distinct issues here: whether political interference took place and - whether it did or not - whether sacking Setchell because her partner worked for John Key was justified.
Clark this morning justified the decision to remove her as comms manager at the Ministry for the Environment on the grounds that she was in a "strategic" job.
She also tried to distance David Benson-Pope from it by saying it was handled by State Services Commissioner Mark Prebble and Hugh Logan at the ministry. "These are fiercely independent people who uphold the traditions and ethos of the public service," she said.
How her tune has changed. This is the same Dr Prebble she accused of being "an apostle of the New Right" and "the high priest of Rogernomics," in 1998 when as a public servant her was appointed to head the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Jenny Shipley.
That is a "strategic" job if ever there were one.
By Clark's own reasoning, Michael Wintringham would have been justified in sacking Prebble when she took office in 1999. But despite Clark's prejudice, he stayed and she declared two years later that "he has been an outstanding policy adviser".
What about Setchell? Prebble declared her to have a high degree of professionalism but apparently not enough to withstand a phone call from Benson-Pope's office about her partner's work.
Deputy State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie rather sweetly relies on the view that Benson Pope's henchman, Steve Hurring, simply sought information from Logan about Setchell's private links.
The unspoken question would have more force: Do you realise that your new comms manager will be working closely on some of the campaigns on sustainability and carbon-neutrality we feel certain that the ministry will be planning before the election next year?
If Labour had nothing to hide, it would have nothing to worry about. But the line between legitimate public information and political advertising has become increasingly blurred. That is why Auditor General Kevin Brady instigated a cautioning report before about it the 2005 election.
We always knew the politicians had blurred the line to get money for nothing: the real worry with this case is that it appears the state sector bosses are willing to go along with it.
