KEY POINTS:
State Services Commissioner Mark Prebble spins issues so often these days he can probably perform somersaults in his sleep.
His decision to release the commission's "investigation" into the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment after Parliament rose is an act of cynicism.
Allegations that
Cabinet minister David Parker applied ministerial pressure to get Curran - a Labour Party activist - employed to work on the communication of the Government's central climate change policies are far too important for the State Services Commissioner to bury the commission's whitewash in the Christmas rush.
Prebble said Curran was "a person of merit with no unmanageable conflicts, was retained for an appropriate job, [and] did appropriate work on appropriate terms".
But a close reading of the 19-page investigative report by Prebble's deputy Iain Rennie - conveniently dated one day after Parliament rose - and the accompanying documents, reveal that Curran's advice was in fact highly political in nature despite Prebble's claims to the contrary.
Curran initially sought work with the ministry in 2003 after her return from Australia. She sent in her CV and had a discussion with a manager, but nothing eventuated.
It was not until May last year, after Parker had expressed considerable impatience with the ministry's work in conveying the importance of climate change policies, that he suggested Curran as a suitable person to bring on board.
By that stage she had cemented her reputation as a Labour activist, was producing newsletters in Dunedin to pump up the reputation of Parker and fellow Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson and had given a paper to a Labour Party conference.
The signals were that Labour needed to set a much clearer agenda to win next time, said Curran. It needed to develop some new ideas - a fresh approach - that would excite voters and commentators and recapture the debate from National.
Parker cited her experience at the Australian Greenhouse Gas Office (it was, in fact, the Australian Greenhouse Office). Curran maintains she pointed out potential conflicts of interest during her pre-hire interview but the paperwork shows a tick against the question, are you confident there is no conflict of interest for any of the parties?
On May 24, within two days of coming on board, Curran was able to report to Comms Manager Neal Cave that the ministry's work had the feel of the "big issue of our time". It required careful stakeholder management. The ministry had to anticipate challenges, bring stakeholders up to speed and be "ultimately marginalising the ones who were intractable".
Within weeks she was suggesting big-bang announcements that could be made either by the Prime Minister or Parker.
A June 12, 2006 briefing note for Parker acknowledged the Prime Minister's concern that it should not be a big splash, but it was important to get cut-through over other noise and demonstrate the Government showing leadership.
Champions had to be identified. Curran pinpointed supporters - "key players" were Professors Ralph Sims, Jonathan Boston and Ralph Chapman, the EMA, Rob Fenwick (then chairman of the NZ Business Council Sustainable Development), Peter Neilson (NZBCSD chief executive), Henry van der Heyden and Barry Harris (Fonterra), environmentalist Gary Taylor, David Wratt (NIWA), Suzie Kerr (MOTU), Morgan Williams, Alex McDiarmid, NGOs (Greenpeace, etc).
Potential detractors were the Climate Science Coalition ("and members who do not publicly associate themselves with the group"), forest owners, Federated Farmers ...
The coalition "could obstruct" the success of achieving the strategic objectives. The debate needed to be reframed to position the Government's response as "sensible" and isolate the coalition and similar groups. "A dismissive response makes them seem like radicals."
Curran suggested how to explain away the fact that a review of climate change policy was "being done in secret", how to offset questions over New Zealand's growing liabilities under the Kyoto protocol and much more in this vein.
Rennie's report noted Curran's note focused heavily on the proposed tactics associated with a planned launch of climate change work.
"This included minimising the risk of negative comment from 'Greens' (by which Ms Curran meant the Green Party and Green NGOs) and timing the event to dominate the media agenda for that week. While departmental advice on communications can appropriately consider tactical issues, it should focus on the presentation of government policies and avoid the appearance of advice on the political management of government announcements."
The mere fact that Curran's work was not used at that stage, because the announcement did not take place, is no excuse for the commission's whitewash.
Curran was rightly perceived as the minister's right-hand woman because the advice she tendered was mainly couched as assisting the Government in how it could demonstrate leadership, not simply the promotion of a Government policy.
