KEY POINTS:
While David Benson-Pope has never really looked like being sacked from the Cabinet following blatant political interference by his office in the staffing of his ministry, it is somewhat surprising that the Prime Minister has not at least reprimanded him.
The Environment Minister may not have been responsible
for the phone call from his office which ultimately resulted in Madeleine Setchell, the partner of the Leader of the Opposition's chief press secretary, losing her job.
But Mr Benson-Pope is responsible for the actions of his staff. He may not have been aware of the phone call from his political adviser, Steve Hurring, tipping off the ministry's chief executive, Hugh Logan, to Ms Setchell's potential conflict of interest. He says he is not happy the call was made.
The Prime Minister may equally say it was unwise. She may insist on Mr Hurring getting "counselling" so he knows what is acceptable.
But despite her and her minister's concerted effort to defuse the affair before today's sitting of Parliament, Mr Hurring's phone call still amounted to blatant political interference which saw someone unfairly dismissed through no fault of their own.
Yet the repercussions for the minister and his adviser do not stretch beyond the slap of wet bus-tickets for the Labour Party underling who will willingly take the rap on behalf of his boss.
The Prime Minister may have judged the affair has not developed enough traction with the public to put any real pressure on her to dump Mr Benson-Pope.
While likely to be distinctly unimpressed with her minister - the torrent of negative publicity came just as Labour was recovering in the polls - she may see little point in giving National the satisfaction of a ministerial scalp.
That seemed less likely anyway after Mr Benson-Pope talked his way out of the hole he had seemingly dug for himself in saying he had not been aware of the detail surrounding Ms Setchell's dismissal when last Friday's report by the State Service Commission stated Mr Logan had informed him of the "issue".
Mr Benson-Pope says there is a difference between being "informed" about an issue and being "briefed" in detail. Unless something startling emerges during question-time, the minister is technically off the hook.
Yet, in toughing it out, Labour may be the loser. It may suit National more for Mr Benson-Pope to stay in his job.
He seems to attract trouble like a magnet. He has again made a poor fist of handling it. His credibility has suffered accordingly.
As long as he remains a Cabinet minister, his poor image means National can continue to single him out as an example of what is wrong with Labour. Perversely, it is Labour which stands to gain more from him being sacked.
Were Helen Clark to apply some political disinfectant in the form of a ministerial sacking, it would do wonders for her third-term administration. It would indicate ministerial accountability is still being upheld to the standard that applied after Labour came to power in 1999.
But when governments find themselves up against the wall, they tend to find such sacrifices all the harder to make.
