[ad_1]
Vernon Small is a journalist and former advisor to Labour Minister David Parker.
OPINION: The strangest thing about Justice Minister Kiritapu Allan’s current woes is the way the issue – though not the details – has been publicly confirmed by the very people you would never expect.
Over the years it has not been unknown for accusations of bullying, shouting, micro-managing or controlling behaviour in MPs’ offices to emerge from individuals or their advocates.
What is unusual this time around is the public acknowledgement of problems – some on, some off the record – by senior public servants who have reported to Allan. The nature of the bureaucratic mandarin is that they would normally rather cut off an arm with a rusty saw than make a public criticism of a minister – even an implied one.
READ MORE:
* A brief history of all the Labour ministers recently in hot water
* PM Chris Hipkins faces questions on Kiri Allan on last day of China visit
* DoC boss raised concern about Kiri Allan after staffer quit Minister’s office
It does not bode well for Allan, who was trusted and earmarked for promotion by Dame Jacinda Ardern. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins clearly shared that view, promoting her to his front bench.
She has a reputation for being smart, able and fun to work with, but also on occasions insecure and with very sharp elbows. “Not collegial when it comes to publicity,” as one insider put it this week.
Her career is in the balance.
Now, and since the Francis report into the culture of the parliamentary precinct, it is widely accepted that major problems need to be fixed. Excuses that it is a high-stress place just don’t cut it. It is also a stupidly hierarchical place where the higher on the totem pole you are, the less fallible you are and the more respect you expect.
Of course, before we apportion all the blame, it must be recognised that staff and officials make mistakes. Policies or programmes are not delivered on time or as requested. Advice is inadequate. Ministers’ wishes can be frustrated.
It seems Allan may have some suffered at least one of these in the past week over the future of Ruapehu Alpine Lifts.
The existence of a third bidder, backed by Tuwharetoa, emerged only on Monday, after the government-mandated bid for the skifields was voted down.
Apparently the iwi had a bid in train, but it did not notify Allan, even during a recent meeting with her in Turangi.
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment made the most egregious knock-on by failing to advise her. Her annoyance was plain in a television interview. The iwi, after all, was the original donor of the mountains that make up the Tongariro National Park.
Late-night Beehive meetings this week saw advice rewritten to dial in the iwi.
But the allegations around Allan’s office go back much further than that.
Most people in an MP’s office know the limits. There can be some metaphorical banging of the table and demands of performance. Strong words are normal. Frustrated ministers and staff might even get away with a bit of sweary-ness, provided an apology is prompt.
Perhaps a one-on-one between the minister and the chief executive might be indicated to sort out the worst of any poor delivery or personnel issues.
So, given most public servants’ instincts for an omerta-like approach to controversies, why have we seen the confirmation of “concerns about working relationships” by several departmental heads?
Perhaps they are getting ahead of a rumoured paper trail that will emerge.
The worry for Allan is that an apparent unanimity may have developed among several senior bureaucrats that things have crossed a line. That accusations of “yelling and screaming” as one senior official has told Stuff, were a rant too far.
So far no formal complaint has been filed. Allan and Hipkins have made much of that. But it does not negate the problem.
Departmental heads and Ministerial Services have a duty of care towards staff. They must tread carefully, not just in relation to existing staff but also future appointees to the same environment.
Faced with that – and more detail to come – Hipkins has little option but to undertake some sort of inquiry.
He may not want another round of ministerial whack-a-mole, but he can scarcely sit back and await a “formal complaint”.
[ad_2]