KEY POINTS:
Little things can say a lot about the character of people in power. The removal of a recently hired Environment Ministry communications manager because her partner works for National's leader speaks volumes. It speaks of an unhealthy culture of distrust, and an altogether inflated notion of the importance
of political associations in most people's lives.
It might surprise some in the Labour Party that occupational integrity ranks much higher than political leanings in most people's priorities. If their professional duty ever conflicts with their political inclinations the dilemma is readily resolved, for their politics are seldom as certain.
Political party activists might be different. Their politics can seem to be an all-consuming identity, entering every conversation, colouring their assessment of other views on any issue. But the National Party, at least, is accustomed to employing staff it suspects to be privately of the opposite persuasion, and works amicably with public servants who probably vote for the other side. It seems the Labour Party at some level is not as tolerant of the connections inevitable in a society of this size.
Madeleine Setchell was only three days into her job at the Ministry for the Environment in Wellington when a call came from the Beehive office of its minister, David Benson-Pope. The caller, the minister's political adviser, Steve Hurring, wanted to know whether the ministry was aware Ms Setchell's partner worked as a press secretary to National's leader, John Key. The ministry knew; Ms Setchell had mentioned the fact when she applied for the job. But shortly after the call, she was removed by the ministry's chief executive, Hugh Logan.
Mr Benson-Pope denies any knowledge of what his political adviser was doing, and Mr Logan's drastic response has been supported by the State Services Commission. Its deputy commissioner, Iain Rennie, says Ms Setchell had a politically sensitive post. His reasoning sounds desperate: "Sustainability is one of this Government's defining policy themes and it is not surprising that the managers concerned saw sensitivities in roles in this area that involved close work with ministers". It is hard to know which is worse, the small-minded tribalism of the minister's office or the surrender of public service independence implicit in Mr Logan's action and Mr Rennie's report.
Mr Key is doing his utmost, naturally, to pin the blame on the minister, which should not be hard. The culture of any office reflects the character of the person it serves. If Mr Benson-Pope's political adviser did not discuss the subject with him before picking up the phone to poison Ms Setchell's position, it can only be that he had no need to. Mr Hurring must have been utterly confident that Mr Benson-Pope would share his concern and approve of what he was doing.
And he would be right. Mr Benson-Pope's denial of any knowledge or responsibility for the actions of his staff member is the sort of miserable evasive behaviour the country has seen from him before. Another of his free-range staff leaked details of a police inquiry before its release, and, of course, the minister knew nothing of that. This time, the Prime Minister has accepted his assurance that it all happened behind his back, but she can not leave the matter there.
If she is content to let things stand, the problem goes higher. If the minister's adviser was right to query Ms Setchell's appointment, and the State Services Commission is right in saying that the Environment Ministry is too "sensitive" for her to be its publicist, a culture of petty paranoia must be pervasive, so pervasive it could have come only from the top.