Accusations of cronyism are very risky for all politicians – it’s a finger that can frequently be pointed back at the accuser, sooner or later.
And accusations of poor process often cannot be isolated to the opponent being targeted, the public servants responsible for carrying out the process cannot avoid being assocated with the criticisms.
The Herald in Labour: Cronyism in spy job appointment
Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson said today that Mr Key’s intervention in the appointment process reeked of cronyism and was further evidence of a disturbing lack of transparency.
“This looks like a jack-up to get John Key’s mate appointed as our top spy. He was not even an applicant for the job, and ended up being the only person interviewed. The public of New Zealand deserve far better than this kind of cronyism, especially in a sensitive position such as this.
“Are John Key and Iain Rennie really trying to suggest that Mr Fletcher was the only person who deserved to be interviewed? And why was the position not re-advertised if the shortlist of applicants was rejected? That’s certainly what would normally happen in those circumstances.”
Grant Robertson includes Iain Rennie directly in his accusations here, questioning the integrity of the State Services Commissioner.
The integrity of the selection panel was “beyond question”.
Robertson’s accusations cannot avoid casting aspersions on the selection panel, although Robertson has tried to isloate them from the focus of his attacks. Last night he tweeted:
this isnt about integrity of panel. They were in impossible position when only presented with Key’s candidate
The panel of three interviewed Fletcher and recommened his appointment, so their integrity is unavoidable being questioned by Robertson. Andrea Vance replied to Robertson:
isn’t it questioning their integrity to say they didn’t have minds of their own? Cld hv said no.
If the panel – and Rennie – had integrity they would have rejected any imappropriate interference by Key.
If Grant Robertson wants to pin cronyism on Key he cannot avoid pinning the same on Rennie and the selection panel. So he cannot avoid targeting public servants in his campaign against Key.
Robertson is very familiar with the public service, he has been closely associated with it:
Robertson joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade after leaving university. His overseas postings included the United Nations in New York. Robertson also managed the NZ Overseas Aid Programme to Samoa – a $7.7 million fund with projects in diverse areas such basic education, healthcare, public sector capacity building, small business development, empowerment of women.
Robertson returned to New Zealand during the first term of the Fifth Labour Government to work as a Ministerial advisor to Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs and later Prime Minister Helen Clark. During his time in Clark’s office, Robertson was rumoured to have the nickname “H3” during the 2005 General Election (H1 being Clark, and H2 being Chief of Staff, Heather Simpson).
If Robertson becomes deputy Prime Minister – or Prime Minister – how will he avoid “cronyism”? He must know many people who have worked alongside him, with him and for him in the public service.
But back to the current scandal-mongering, to avoid “lying by omission” Grant Robertson should be clear about what he is accusing Ian Rennie of. He has already said:
This looks like a jack-up to get John Key’s mate appointed as our top spy.
That is clearly a serious accusation aimed in Rennie’s direction.
Are John Key and Iain Rennie really trying to suggest…
Robertson has clearly associated Rennie and questioned the integrity of Rennie. For an ex public servant and current high ranking politician this is serious questioning of the integrity of a high ranking public servant.
On Firstline David Shearer has just said his biggest concern is in having confidence in “the chain of command”.
Robertson needs to say if he has confidence in Iain Rennie. And in Ian Fletcher.