Armstrong on Immigration Service
May 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am by David FarrarJohn Armstrong makes the case for a commission of inquiry into the Immigration Service.
Just how bad do things have to get before the Government sets up a full commission of inquiry to independently investigate the mounting allegations of corruption in the Immigration Service?
Despite growing calls for such an inquiry with judicial powers to summon witnesses, the answer is a lot worse yet.
Remember that none of us at all would have any idea about all this, if it were not for some good journalism. For those who missed it, TVNZ also had some further revelations about a $500,000 contract that wasn’t put out to tender and conflicts of interest with staff.
It is understood the Prime Minister, who returned from overseas yesterday, is satisfied that the three separate investigations now being conducted by the Department of Labour, the police and the State Services Commission are sufficient to reassure the public the allegations are being taken extremely seriously.
But the Government is at risk of being tainted as more light is shed on Thompson’s tenure and whether ministers knew what was allegedly going on. It is consequently putting its faith in the department’s recently appointed chief executive, Christopher Blake, wielding his authority and cleaning up the mess in its immigration branch without having to resort to an independent inquiry.
With no disrespect to Mr Blake, but the last time the Department of Labour inquired into NZIS, it was the “lies in unison” scandal and that report was seen as a near total whitewash – the Ombudsman then used his rarely used powers to investigate – uncovering a very different story.
In another Herald story, Audrey Young reveals that a recruitment agency in 2004 is responsible for finding out that Mary-Anne Thompson did not have a PhD, when she applied for DPMC Chief Executive.
It appears she withdrew her application after the then State Services Commission, Michael Wintringham, discussed the issue with her.
Now there are two issues in regard to what Wintringham did. The first is whether he should have ruled her ineligible for any further senior state sector roles, and informed Ministers at the time. Now one can debate whether or not he was right to do nothing – I happen to think he was very wrong, as clearly history has shown us.
But there is another bigger issue regarding Wintringham. While it was his call as to how to handle it at the time, he did have a legal obligation to record in Thompson’s personnel file the issue of the fake doctorate. Anyone with even a minor involvement in HR knows you record absolutely everything as files notes in someone’s file. It would be beyond belief if the most senior CEO in the public sector knew of a fake qualification, and did not record it in her file. If he failed to do so, then the SSC has failed completely as a role model for the public sector. If he did do so, then questions should be asked as to whether the current Commissioner checked Thompson’s file when the allegations regarding her conduct with the Immigration Service became public.
So MPs and journalists should ask whether Wintringham made a file note or not. This is separate to the issue of whether he alerted anyone. The latter issue was within his discretion (even though he used it badly), but if he failed to make a file note, then that is a major credibility issue for the SSC.
Related posts:
- Auditor-General to investigate Immigration Service
- Dom Post on Immigration Service
- Wintringham also at fault
- Immigration Service broke the law
May 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Helen Clark is fully aware of the five complaints of corruption that are lodged with the Police Commissioner as is Key and Cullen.
as adamsmith 1922 says: “This is an appalling situation that requires a robust and wide ranging judicial inquiry into all aspects of this deplorable affair, covering Immigration, Department of Labour and the State Services Commission at a minimum. The issues and problems go far beyond the behaviour of Mary Anne Thompson.”
It is the Mother of all Cover-Ups!
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
.. and the tip of the iceberg.
Perhaps Key could offer a corruption/cover-up amnesty to run for the two months leading up to the election. Fess up and avoid the ’09 purge.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
What do you expect from Labour and thier new standards.
Corruption is thier s.o.p.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
State Sector Act s 32:
Ministers and officials
3.16 The style of the relationship and frequency of contact between Minister and department will develop according to the Minister’s personal preference. The following guidance may be helpful.
a. In their relationship with Ministers, officials should be guided by a “no surprises” principle. They should inform Ministers promptly of matters of significance within their portfolio responsibilities, particularly where these matters may be controversial or may become the subject of public debate.
A chief executive should exercise judgement when deciding whether to inform a Minister of any matter for which the chief executive has statutory responsibility. Generally a briefing of this kind is provided for the Minister’s information only, although occasionally the Minister’s views may be a relevant factor for the chief executive to take into account. In all cases, the chief executive should ensure that the Minister knows why the matter is being raised, and both the Minister and the chief executive should act to maintain the independence of the chief executive’s decision-
The then State Services Commissioner, Michael Wintringham had a clear responsibility to inform his Minister
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Who was head of DPMC at the time and did s/he know? What about the new one? Does level 9 know (unlikely I suspect – plausible deniability etc)
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I would be careful of putting “Wintringham” and “credibility” in the same sentence, or even the same page, especially after the way he treated Christine Rankin!!
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Do all the people involved in the Mary-Anne Thompson scandal comply with the State Sector Code of Conduct? Therein lies the answer.
“Whether we work in a department or in a Crown entity, we must act with a spirit of service to the community and meet the same high standards of integrity and conduct in everything we do.
We must comply with the standards of integrity and conduct set out in this code. As part of complying with this code, our organisations must maintain policies and procedures that are consistent with it.
Fair:We must:treat everyone fairly and with respect -be professional and responsive -work to make government services accessible and effective-strive to make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand and all its people.
Impartial: We must:maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future governments carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs -support our organisation to provide robust and unbiased advice-respect the authority of the government of the day.
Responsible: We must: act lawfully and objectively -use our organisation’s resources carefully and only for intended purposes-treat information with care and use it only for proper purposes-work to improve the performance and efficiency of our organisation.
Trustworthy We must:be honest -work to the best of our abilities -ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships -never misuse our position for personal gain -decline gifts or benefits that place us under any obligation or perceived influence -avoid any activities, work or non-work, that may harm the reputation of our organisation or of the State Services.”
Laugh of the week?
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Come on now, I think you will find the immigration service is only guilty of trying to help people. Let them all have 18 months of gardening leave and as long as they don’t threaten to stand against the govt they will be fine. Move on.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Clark works on the maxim that time is a greatest healer. Over time the problem minimises of its own accord. She stalls any process by throwing ever larger morsels, holding the vultures at bay as their appetites are met until another carcass appears. Fortunately (or not) there is always another field with enough carcasses to go around.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Gerry
You are talking about the Labour part Three D approach to management of scandals.
Deny, Delay, Denigrate.
Deny the allegations, Delay the inquiry, Denigrate the accusers.
Spin Dr. 101 – Pity they never actually care about what is best for NZ, only what is best for the Labour party.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Did she use the fake Doctorate for the job in Treasury for instance. When she filled out the application form for the CEO of DPM&C did she use it then. She has been treated extremely lightly if she merely had to withdraw the application. Why did the Commission NOT go further and see whether this fake Doctorate was used in other Senior State Sector Appointments. I am thinking especially her term in the Treasury whereby a Doctorate for a Senior Position is almost mandatory. All this reflects VERY badly of the culture of sweeping things under the carpet under Labour. Why didn’t Ministers who knew of her problems NOT insist a more rigorous approach be taken. That is why the Labour Government is copping some flack over this and will continue to cop flack over similar issues, such is the3 state of public opinion regarding the Labour Government.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The whole episode stinks of Incompetence, cover up and corruption time for a truth and retribution tribunal.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Incident recounted by J Paul Getty years ago. Promising young manager was in line for promotion when it was found that he was putting his private mail through the company franking machine. It was suggested to him that he resign which he did. A few years later he was found to have defrauded his new emploer of $20,000 or so (say $200,000 in today’s money). His moral is if an employee steals once, the employee is likely to keep repeating it.
As the Chapman case some years ago showed, if Mary-Ann had landed a CEO position, the temptation may be too strong, and behaviour too difficult to challenge. I understand that the guy who ‘whistle-blowed’ on Chapman suffered some damage despite doing totally the right thing.
Vote:May 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I don’t believe Winteringham would have kept this information to himself. It would be more than his job was worth. I smell direction from the tyrant herself. She is a compulsive control freak and would have wanted the lowdown on all the applicants for the DPMC position.
Vote: