The Ministry of Health has not won itself many friends this week with its failure to inform minister Casey Costello that one of its staffers is related to her arch-rival in Parliament.
Costello has every right to feel aggrieved.
For months, she has been working with health officials on tobacco reform policy, all the while, unbeknownst to her, one of them was the sister-in-law of Labour’s Ayesha Verrall.
It is true, as has been stressed by Verrall and Labour leader Chris Hipkins, that many MPs have relations who work in the public service. Hipkins points out that when he was a minister, he regularly held meetings attended by a National MP’s sibling.
But Verrall has been running a concerted campaign against Costello this term, baying for blood and questioning her party NZ First’s links to big tobacco.
In that context, it is not unreasonable to expect the relationship to have been disclosed to Costello.
The ministry has accepted as much and apologised for the “oversight”.
It says the responsibility lay with the ministry and not with the staffer, who it says followed all the correct protocols.
“The ministry’s conflict of interest protocol is well communicated to all staff and was adhered to by the individual in this case. Specifically, appropriate declarations were made and management plans put in place.”
Given that, the health official herself should also feel deeply let down by her employer.
By the ministry’s account, she did everything that was asked and expected of her.
Despite that, she has had her name publicised and dragged through the mud by NZ First leader and Deputy PM Winston Peters.
Peters maintains that the staffer should have personally informed the minister of the conflict, but as that was the ministry’s responsibility, the official could well have expected her bosses had already done so.
Peters has yet to provide any evidence the woman has in any way abused her position.
Labour has labelled Peters’ attacks “reprehensible”, saying the staffer has done nothing wrong and, as a public servant, has no way of defending herself.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has pointedly not come to the public servant’s defence, but to his deputy’s: “good on him for – highlighting a conflict.”
Labour will also be livid at this week’s events, given how they distract from the party’s scrutiny of the minister and her tobacco policies. They may well blunt any future attacks.
Hipkins has not helped Labour’s case in initially describing the official as Verrall’s “distant relative”. When it comes to in-laws, there are varying degrees of closeness, but “distant relative” is not a fair descriptor for a sister-in-law. Hipkins says he misspoke.
Labour had been on something of a hot streak this week, putting the coalition under pressure through its relentless prosecution of minister Andrew Bayly’s failed attempt at humour.
This has upended that.
Ironically then, it is Luxon and Peters who may well be quietly pleased at the ministry’s error despite the PM proclaiming it to be “incredibly disappointing”.
Few politicians are as adept as Peters in seizing an opportunity to go on the attack as a form of defence. The ministry’s failure handed Peters that opportunity on a platter.
rnz.co.nz
