The Setchell Report

Former State Services Commissioner Don Hunn has published his report into the treatment of Madeleine Setchell.  It’s comprehensive and very well done.

Some extracts, and commentary:

The CE is also certain that the adviser said at some stage in the telephone exchanges on 28 May that he had told the Minister about the “rumour”: he gained the impression that the Minister was “exceptionally annoyed”.

But I am sure that had no influence!

Having himself been in a similar situation as the Communications Manager appeared to be, the Commissioner said the CE shouldn’t rush into things simply because of family connections. The first aim should be to see if the potential conflict could be managed. The Commissioner commented that if he were the CE he would not himself talk to the Minister in the circumstances as he understood them.

Bravo Dr Prebble. Indeed managing the conflict should be the first aim.  In fact as one reads the entire report you realise Hugh Logan is principally to blame as he ignored the SSC advice and shut his mind to trying to manage the conflict.  While Benson-Pope lied about what he did say, he is not principally to blame for what happened – Hugh Logan is.

The CE recalls the Minister responding that staff decisions were the CE’s to make, but that he would find it difficult to speak as freely as he would with other senior managers, in front of an employee who was in a close family relationship with someone working for the Leader of the Opposition. He reminded the CE that the Government had recently announced its intention to give environmental issues a much higher profile in the Government’s priorities and it would thus be open to much greater pressure from the Opposition on these issues. It was only to be expected that he would be more cautious in discussing matters of policy and tactics in front of such a person, so that meetings with the senior managers might not be as productive as, desirably they should be.

Now Logan may have already closed his mind to managing the conflict, but this is certainly a not very subtle way of saying get rid of this person.

For his part the Minister does not recall the detail of the conversation

Tsk, old age is sad.

The CE remembers the conversation as a “robust” one on the Minister’s part but not out of the ordinary. The Minister customarily expressed his views firmly and this was no exception.

Heh, this is code for the Minister swore at us for being idiots, but we’re used to it.

The Commissioner made the following points: – the increased emphasis on environmental policy was not the same as close political management of the Minister’s position;
– if the Government was planning a politically oriented environmental communications programme, the Ministry shouldn’t be doing it: if it wasn’t, it should be possible to find a way to manage the appointment;

Again, well done Dr Prebble.  This sums it up nicely.  If the campaign is that political it should not happen, and if it isn’t that political Setchell should be fine to keep her job.  I think we have some idea of how political they were planning.

The CE mentioned that one of the reasons for his decision had been the Minister’s reaction to the Communications Manager’s relationship with her partner. The Deputy Commissioner responded along the lines – “Well if the Minister does display concern, just tell him to get over it”. (The CE did not find this particularly helpful: the remark may have been a little colourful but the CE could not have had a more succinct encapsulation of the SSC view of where the Minister’s and the CE’s responsibilities began and ended).

And a big kudos to the Deputy Commissioner for indeed succintly provided the correct response.

Now we get to an intersting aspect – Setchell also applied to MAF as she was leaving Environment.  She was a former staffer at MAF and had worked there with no problems under previous Labour Ministers.  But she was turned down for this job also, after Jim Anderton was consulted:

In his view Ms Setchell’s previous experience both as a senior MAF communications adviser and as Communications Manager at Dairy Insight (a key agricultural stakeholder and partner of MAF), uniquely qualified her for the position he was proposing.

So she was uniquely qualified.  But did she get the job or has the Government so politicsed the civil service that she can’t even get a job she is uniquely qualified for?

The Acting Communications Director replied: “Of course I will accept any decision the Minister makes but I am extremely worried about the potential precedent here. We have a number of employees with potential “perceived” conflicts that may come in to play with a change of government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s office’s response.”

The Acting CD understands the wider issue.  If the Setchell test was applied to current civil servants when National wins office, there would probably be hundreds out of work.

The CE again emailed his Director, saying: “I have discussed with (the Chief of Staff) and he has discussed with the Minister. The answer is a clear “no”. I can discuss further once you are back.”

Well that’s clear.

in 8 years as Minister he had had only one such previous case of a politically sensitive employment matter being raised with him by a CE,

Indeed and in that case also, Jim Anderton killed off the career of a respected civil servant who had already had his desire to seek a candiacy cleared with his manager and the CEO.  He was no different to Parekura Horomia and Verna Smith who both stood for Labour, yet held senior roles involving close contact with National Ministers.

Now we have the conclusions from Dr Prebble:

But before discussing the performance of officials, I must first refer to the other person involved, Madeleine Setchell. I found that Ms Setchell has behaved entirely properly. She provided information about the potential conflict at appropriate times. It was not her fault that things did not turn out well.

Don Hunn also makes much the same point.

Third, Mr Logan was entitled to take the apparent conflict into account and to seek to manage that conflict, but I am not convinced that it was inevitable that Ms Setchell must transfer from the position of Communications Manager to another job.

Indeed, and this is important.  Helen Clark and others have said Setchell should never have got the job in the first place.  This is a rebuff to her, clearly stating that such conflicts can and should be managed – as happens every day with hunderds of other civil servants.

Turning to my personal performance, I accept Mr Hunn’s conclusion that I made an error in failing to ensure that the appropriate members of staff in SSC were aware of all the information that had been conveyed to me by Mr Logan. This, combined with my later forgetting the information about the discussion with the Minister, means I am responsible for some of the confusion that followed during July. I regret those mistakes. They do not reflect the standards that I seek to maintain while holding this office.

I was critical of Dr Prebble’s memory lapse, but I can’t fault his willingness to accept responsibility.  I also think the Hunn Report shows him generally as having given very good advice and acted appropriately.

Accordingly, I have decided to act as closely as I can to what I would require of other Chief Executives in similar circumstances. I have consulted with senior colleagues; they agree that in similar circumstances with another Chief Executive I would impose a penalty of around 2.5% of salary. I see no reason why I should be exempt from my own standards, so I have made a payment to our departmental Chief Financial Officer which is equivalent to a deduction of 2.5% from my annual salary.

Hell that I did not expect.  Sure, it is only symbolic – but it is a very powerful symbol and a real mark of leadership – showing accountability for actions.  I’m very impressed.

I consider it reasonable that Ministers should hold me to very high standards. If Ministers, on considering this matter, believe that I should stay in the job I will continue to serve. If Ministers have lost confidence in my performance, I will leave.

That is an offer I am sure will be declined – as it should be.