KEY POINTS:
After closely studying the State Services Commission's whitewash investigation into the Clare Curran affair, I've now come up with an alternative hypothesis to Deputy State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie.
To recap: the SSC investigation released into the dead zone (Thursday afternoon before Christmas) was remarkable for Rennie's failure
to draw obvious conclusions.
Curran is the Labour Party activist who was hired by the Ministry for the Environment after a nudge from Climate Issues Minister David Parker. But despite her advice that the ministry should marginalise critics such as the Climate Science Coalition, minimise the risk of negative comment from the "Greens", and time events to dominate the media agenda, her actions were not considered to overflow into the nakedly political realm by Rennie or SSC boss Mark Prebble because planned announcements did not take place.
My alternative hypothesis based on the report's timeline and emails from Parker's private secretary is different. It's my opinion that Parker (champing at the bit after sitting on the sidelines while Pete Hodgson ran his portfolio) injected close political ally Curran into the Ministry for the Environment in late May 2006 to make sure he got the spin he wanted on the Government's climate change agenda.
Parker had been frustrated at the ministry's efforts on that front. But he crossed the line by promoting Curran to senior officials then getting his private secretary to follow through with those officials.
He did not canvass the issue directly with the acting CEO, nor did he wait to discuss this important role with incoming CEO Hugh Logan who took up his appointment just two weeks later.
Officials fell into line with Parker's nudge and got Curran on board. But some in the ministry became uncomfortable with Curran's direct line to Parker, with whom she had discussed climate change issues outside of normal reporting lines. And that she used her connections with Parker to try to get an off-the-record meeting with Logan.
There have been suggestions, again not deeply traversed in Rennie's report, that Curran's style of tactical management, as evidenced in her written reports, caused discomfort.
My sense is that Logan, a long-time public servant with an unblemished record to that date, would not have been comfortable with Curran's role and would have taken behind-the-scenes action to restore normal reporting lines and minimise the perception among his officials that she was a ministerial appointee.
The kiss-off note sent to Curran when the ministry decided it was not going to renew her contract, said the ministry had sufficient dedicated climate change comms staff who could deliver the support it needed. The nature of the work she had been engaged in was not going to be a priority for the ministry in the next period, and, her additional travel costs did not compare favourably to the travel costs of a Wellington-based contractor.
This was a major comedown for a woman who just weeks earlier appeared to be calling the behind-the-scenes shots on the communications of a major Government strategy.
When National raised the issue of political patronage in Parliament it was a simple matter for the SSC to hone in on Logan, who had already blighted his copybook in the Madeleine Setchell affair, rather than hit up Parker and Curran.
Parker comes in for mild chastising in Rennie's report and Curran is completely absolved of any suggestions of political massaging (Rennie says officials should have removed any obvious political tactics from the contractor's report).
The relevant context is buried in the appendices to Rennie's report.
It's there we learn that Parker had been invited to report to the Cabinet policy committee by April 3 on the Government programme for climate change. But Parker was stood down from the Cabinet on March 21, 2007, while an investigation was carried out into allegations by Investigate magazine about his commercial affairs.
A Cabinet paper was prepared in his absence and pressure went on the ministry's communications team to deliver an over-arching strategy. The timeline also makes clear the ministry had obtained quotes for hourly rates from contractors Wheeler Campbell and Momentum.
On May 3, Parker was reappointed Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. One day later Parker was briefed by the ministry on the policy development. Strategic messages and the need for a communications programme were also discussed.
On May 9, Curran - who had been carrying out Labour Party comms work for Parker in Dunedin - arranged to meet him to discuss Otago issues. She had comms experience at the Australian Greenhouse Office, was onsong with Parker's ambitions, and was well ensconced with the Labour Party.
Two days later Parker suggested Curran's name to officials as someone who could undertake climate change comms work for the ministry.
On May 15, Parker's private secretary followed through with email reminders to senior ministry officials Neal Cave and Dave Brash : "The [minister] wondered if there was a prospect of potentially engaging Claire [sic] to help with the communications work now that [Erin Leigh] is close to departure."
Justine Daw later clarified there was no problem with the ministry engaging someone else if the MFE were aware of other external consultants who were similarly placed to do the work at low cost. But the earlier email stipulated Parker's expectations of what the work programme should entail.
"With that in mind and given some feedback over the weekend on the draft comms work programme, the minister has suggested that you both meet [preferably together] with Claire Curran from Inzight Communications when she is in WTN this coming Thursday/Friday 18-19 May."
Parker also called Curran that day to let her know he had mentioned her name.
The trouble with Rennie's report is that it skirts over the real substance of Daw's emails. It doesn't say who provided feedback to Parker on the draft comms work programme (was it Curran for instance?). Parker's important caveat that other external consultants would be no problem if they were similarly placed to do the work at low cost, is also left out of the formal report.
On May 16, Cave called Curran and arranged two meetings for May 18 in Wellington. The next day, Curran briefly covered climate change issues in her meeting with Parker.
After three separate meetings over May 18 and 19, Curran believed she was to be contracted. On May 22, she confirmed her availability and a verbal contract was agreed for her to provide strategic communications advice and support in relation to the post-Cabinet announcement of future climate change policy direction, and the development of a communications and stakeholder engagement programme.
Cave tendered his resignation. Rennie's report suggests work pressure rather than Parker's interference as the root cause.
On May 23, the Cabinet approved Parker's paper and officials from the Department for Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry for the Environment were charged with co-ordinating the development of a whole of government communication and stakeholder engagement programme on climate change matters.
The following day, Curran emailed her initial response to the strategy: Officials from DPMC and other departments were asked to provide feedback to the Ministry for the Environment on Curran's work.
Curran later talked with Parker about her thoughts on climate change comms on the plane home to Dunedin on June 12. A week later, Daw emailed Logan's executive assistant trying to set up an off-the-record meeting between Curran ("David Parker's right-hand woman") and the CEO. On June 30, Cave rescinded his resignation.
Curran presented on the strategy to Parker on July 24, and was advised two days later by the acting comms manager that her contract would not be renewed.
Unfortunately for Logan the fact that Prebble announced Logan's resignation as ministry chief executive just hours ahead of the Rennie report made him look like the public fall guy for events that were set in motion before he took up his position.
