KEY POINTS:
The fuss over the Environment Ministry's hiring of Madeleine Setchell ought to have finished the day it forced the resignation of the minister, David Benson-Pope. Instead, it took a strange turn. The Prime Minister wanted to know why the ministry's top official, Hugh Logan, had not mentioned the minister's interference to a State Services Commissioner investigating the incident. Had Mr Logan mentioned it, Mr Benson-Pope would have been unable to make the denial that cost him his job.
Confused? Auckland can seem a blessedly long way from Wellington at times. The ensuing fuss rather clouded the central issue: should Ms Setchell have been sacked once the minister and the departmental head discovered she was the partner of the chief press secretary to the National Party leader, John Key.
Thankfully, an inquiry set up by the State Services Commissioner after Mr Benson-Pope's resignation has helped clarify the issue that matters. The first lesson the commissioner, Mark Prebble, has drawn from it is that "the political views of public servants are generally not relevant to their employment; it is their behaviour that matters".
A second lesson, more pertinent to Ms Setchell: "Family connections are relevant and demand special sensitivity from employers." Dr Prebble, who knows something about the difficulties for a public servant with family political connections, believes Ms Setchell could have done the job for which she was hired, managing communications for the department.
Again, the view from Auckland might be different from that in Wellington. At this distance the conflict of interest seems fatal; the Environment Ministry has charge of policies that rank high in the Government's re-election bid next year and a communications manager would know when and how they were to be promoted. But that is not to say Ms Setchell could not be trusted; her disclosure of her partner's interest immediately she applied for the job suggests otherwise.
In Wellington it is not uncommon for public servants to handle these conflicts professionally. National governments are well accustomed to working with officials whose personal views are on the other side. In fact, it turns out Labour activist, Clare Curran was working as a communications adviser at the Environment Ministry before Ms Setchell. Ms Curran has since decided to seek the party's nomination for Mr Benson-Pope's Dunedin South seat. It is a small world.
A small country cannot afford to distrust people in its professional ranks. It cannot afford politicians so tribal that they cannot trust anyone with connections to their opponents and perhaps cannot conceive that anyone in political work could have anything more interesting to discuss in their personal lives.
This storm in a teacup seems to have chilled the top echelons of the public service. Ms Setchell has failed in applications for two other departmental communications positions. One, the Ministry of Agriculture, consulted minister Jim Anderton who indicated, according to the Prime Minister, "he would have some concerns that it might put Ms Setchell in a difficult position".
Dr Prebble has found Mr Logan made his employment decision independently of the minister, as required, but was right to keep the minister informed. He believes, however, Mr Logan could have arranged Ms Setchell's work so that her conflict of interest posed no problems, and that he did not handle her dismissal well. The commissioner has fined Mr Logan by the loss of a performance bonus, and fined himself 2.5 per cent of his $400,000 salary for his oversight on occasions.
But more important, the case reminds public servants, and hopefully the present Government, that politics has no place in departments' appointments. We might also conclude that those who lack the capacity to trust cannot be trusted.
