According to the Prime Minister, the Maori Language Commission chief executive, Haami Piripi, needs to decide whether he is a public servant or a political activist. Clearly Helen Clark is annoyed at Mr Piripi's view, expressed to a select committee, that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill could spark a civilwar.
It is easy to understand her agitation - the remark is clearly over the top - but the thrust of her response was equally ill-conceived.
In the first instance, Mr Piripi's role in an autonomous Crown entity sets him apart from core public servants. As such he is not directly subject to the public service ethical constraints of loyalty, neutrality and anonymity.
The Maori Language Commission might be part of the state sector but its chief executive does not fall under the mandate of the State Services Commissioner.
In fact, Mr Piripi was quite clearly speaking as chief of the Northland community of Ahipara. That, in itself, represents a strong defence. Yet so far removed is the language commission from the core public service that it can also be argued there is little reason he should not be allowed to express his professional view.
Others of the vast array of Crown entities - the Law Commission, perhaps - must surely have made submissions on issues similarly tangential to their own core interest. As, presumably, the new Families Commission will want to.
Of course Mr Piripi's transgression was, whatever the Prime Minister's denials, his strong criticism of a controversial bill. The upshot will doubtless be a stronger Government push to pass legislation that will see Crown entities fall under the wing of the State Services Commissioner and become subject to core public service ethics and standards.
If that leads to the reining in of straight-shooters like Mr Piripi, it will be going too far. The whole point of Crown entities is a degree of independence that sets them apart from the public service. Public debate will be the poorer if their executives have to toe a narrower line.
