The growing cover-ups
May 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm by David FarrarWhen the Mary-Anne Thompson scandal first was exposed (and kudos to One News who did the hard work making this all public), I tended to think it would not reflect much on Ministers, and was a case of inappropriate judgement which had been reprimanded. But the growing evidence is of another shabby little cover-up. Why do I say this? Well let us start with what was said in Parliament yesterday:
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Given those terms of reference, why does the Minister allege that that inquiry was merely a matter relating to the employment of a staff member, when the actual final report of the inquiry was Review of Apparently Unlawful Immigration Decision?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The matter, as the member states, was in relation to an unlawful immigration decision actioned by an individual or individuals.
Note the stress on being actioned by individuals. This leads us to:
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, those members preordain the answer to the question, which speaks volumes about them. The advice that that Minister received was the same advice that I received—that matters related to individual employees are employee matters. He was advised of that. He noted that it was a matter for the chief executive, because there is no employment relationship between Ministers and departments, and that is where it stands. He acted by the book. And I say this: if my predecessor or I had intervened unlawfully against section 33, I bet members $100 that that member would be asking a different series of questions about why Ministers had overreached their authority and breached the law. They cannot have it both ways, and the member knows it.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is this Minister telling the House that the then Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, knew about the inquiry by David Oughton into unlawful decision-making in his department in April last year, yet never asked for or received a copy of the completed inquiry report, nor asked for a full briefing on that final report? Is that what he is telling the House—that David Cunliffe never asked for a full briefing on that final report?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No. I admire the member’s ability to twist words. What I am saying is that in April the Minister was briefed, and, latterly, in respect of the report, the Minister, like me, had no right to demand, and was precluded from demanding, a copy of that report or the contents—
Hon Bill English: That’s rubbish.
One has to stand back for a second to think about this level of sophistry. The issues is here that the NZ Immigration Service broke the law, broke its own policies, and made decisions it had no power to make – only the Minister could make. Now of course any such breaking of the law and policies has to have been done by individuals – there is no other way a Department can act except through individuals. But to then claim that the report is off limit to the Minister is ridicolous.
The Dominion Post reports on concerns (which I blogged on Wednesday) that the SIS did not pick up any issues in their vetting.
NZPA reports on the problems within the entire Pacific division:
Last night One News said it had obtained, under the Official Information Act, information showing about 60 people work in the division, and that in three years from 2004, 19 cases of serious offences were proven including theft, bribery and fraud. From the 19 cases, nine people were fired or resigned. Three were referred to police.
I suppose these are all employment issues also, which means nothing to do with the Minister.
But get this little gem, also from NZPA quoting Mary-Anne’s lawyer:
Ms Aikman said it appeared the SSC had known about allegations against Ms Thompson for four years but nothing was ever said.
Four years? Please tell me you are kidding.
I am not sure the problems in the Immigration Service can be fixed from within. When you consider the lies in unison scandal (which the parent Department also tried to whitewash), I think a Commission of Inquiry may now be needed.
Related posts:
- Police investigate Thompson
- Shabby behaviour as usual
- Auditor-General to investigate Immigration Service
- GCSB acted unlawfuly in Megaupload case
May 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
The establishment of a NZ Corruption Commission is urgently needed, we have to stop fooling ourselves. This government makes” WA inc l” look llike the Avondale Bowling Club.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I thought earlier that Thompsons move to the backwater of immigration after she was a high flier at DPMC indicated someone was wise to her at the time.
As for the other stuff now Lockwood Smith is on the case we will die of boredom.
Its all scandal mongering by national, they all know the Minister cant interfere in the day to day running of the department.
…And I say this: if my predecessor or I had intervened unlawfully against section 33, I bet members $100 that that member would be asking a different series of questions about why Ministers had overreached their authority and breached the law. They cannot have it both ways, and the member knows it.
Did the NP minister of conservation know of the reckless decisions when 14 died at cave creek- No
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
If they were wise to her at the time Ghost why did they not fire her?…or is it that you are safe if you are a pal of the PM?
If they “cant interfere” then why did you defend the actions of Benson Pope?
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Boomtown
Very good point, lets hope that Key latches (no pun intended) onto the idea before somebody like Peters or Dunne, there would be a lot of votes in this idea.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
ghostwhowalks3 (250) –1 Says
Did the NP minister of conservation know of the reckless decisions when 14 died at cave creek- No
GWW, that is an astonishing reach. To compare the tragic yet admiitedly avoidable incident at Cave Creek to the systemic and apparently endemic culture of bribery and corruption of the immigration department is an insult to the memory of those who died.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Are the Liarbour Ministers grand masters of negligence or selective ignorance while gallivanting around the countryside under the shield of cover-ups and cop-outs?
FFS every week more dishonesty from gummint ministers on shit loads of taxpayer money. Do they understand the word accountability?
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Oh, and given that this is the Immigration department, I note with interest the continued silence of Winston Peters, long the Immigration Service’s bete-noir
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Polititians eh… will walk over broken glass to get in for a photo that offers fame by association, but more slippery than a greased pig when being called to account for problems on their watch. pathetic. truely pathetic.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
GWW – the National Minister subsequently resigned over the Cave Creek matter (some months later after implementing changes to prevent a similar disaster). Your mates have shown no interest in a. fixing the problems or b. solving the problems let alone taking responsibility.
Anyone remember Ministerial Responsibility? Hint – petrol was under $1 the last time it was seen…
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The Minister is NOT the department head. They cant say so and so in the manukau office is on take , get rid of them.
Until the 2004 or so, Immigration had ONE office in Auckland where you had to turn up by 6.30 am, were given a number to be seen THAT day, otherwise come back tomorrow.
This was the shameless state of the public service left by national, who by their stupid policy decisions let in 10,000s who had no chance of jobs that there qualifications matched, or sham marriages which werent policed, street kids got $10,000 to do a weeding ceremony and then take off.
But what would you expect from the party that charges $10,000- $50,000 for dinner with Brash and Key
…some months later after implementing changes to prevent a similar disaster)
providing the money for a department to operate properly
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“street kids got $10,000 to do a weeding ceremony and then take off.”
My, my, ghostlynitwit what expensive weeds!!
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
ghostwhowalks3 (251) +0 Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The Minister is NOT the department head. They cant say so and so in the manukau office is on take , get rid of them.
True, they also cannot say “That person is in a relationship with a National Party staffer, get rid of her!”
But they did!!
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
ghost
What would you expect from a party that offers a cabinet post for 500K?
Your party is the one riddled with corruption, you are the one who needs to be answering the questions, this debate is not being framed by you or your pinko pals so answer the questions or fuck off.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Jesus this idiot has no bullshit threshold whatsoever does he.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Proof of the pudding? Cover-ups and corruption flourishing?
The following is in the post to the Police Commissioner’s Office. The Police Commissioner’s response is par for the course. The reader of this thread has a preview!!!
17 05 2008
Police Commissioner Howard Broad
Office of the Commissioner
PO Box 3017
WELLINGTON
Dear Police Commissioner Howard Broad
Thank you for your response 12 May 2008 “to my letters to the Commissioner of Police concerning “matters” relating to the Immigration Services” thus:
“A public inquiry is currently being carried out in respect of these “matters”. If as a result of that inquiry evidence of possible criminal offending is revealed Police”may” investigate further.
The “matters” you refer to are allegations of corruption that are levelled at those in the “Service of the Crown” and are contained in the following documents that you have received:
28 04 2008 Allegations to Police Commissioner Howard Broad against NZIS etc.
01 04 2008 Allegations to Police Commissioner Howard Broad against Hon Clayton Cosgrove, Minister of Immigration.
01 04 2008 Allegations to Police Commissioner Howard Broad against State Services Commissioner
Mark Prebble.
01 04 2008 Allegations to Police Commissioner Howard Broad against Senior Officials in the Service of the Crown who have advantaged relatives of Mary-Ann Thompson
01 04 2008 Allegations to Police Commissioner Howard Broad against Hon David Parker, Minister of Labour.
Commissioner you use the word “may investigate further”. Surely, when you say: “ If as a result of that inquiry evidence of possible criminal offending is revealed Police may investigate further”, it is a question of” must” not “may”?
Commissioner, what is this “public inquiry” to which you refer? Is it the inquiry at present being conducted by States Services Commissioner Mark Prebble, who is at present subject to allegations of Corruption? Does the State Services Commissioner override the Office of the Commissioner?
The Rt Hon Helen Clark, Prime Minister, told the House on 10 April 2003 (Hansard): “All-any allegation of Corruption will be investigated”.
You are letting the team down. Helen Clark, John Key and Michael Cullen received by e-mail on 13 May 2008 copies of the allegations.
Your failure to take action is I allege a cover-up, an attempt to prevent and defeat the course of justice.
Yours sincerely “.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Heh! GWWs talks about people paying $10k to $50k to have dinner with John Key. And all I could think was that nobody wanted to pay 75 bucks to have lunch with Micheal Cullen.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Interestingly, the Department has been setting up a review that would include looking at the corrupt practices since 22 April.
Secretary of Labour Christopher Blake announced the review on 22 April. The terms of reference are available on the DoL website. They include “high level examination of integrity and probity issues and their linkages with work flow management.”
The announcement was framed in a way that hid this aspect. The review, it was said, aimed “to identify areas where it could improve and develop the services it provides to Pacific migrants.” While, “The Division has been particularly successful in building the Department’s relations with Pacific people and employers… we know that we can build on the good work that has already been done, and develop our services.”
They spun this too hard, and buried this part. Bet they wish they hadn’t, now.
Some of the broader issues that deserve to be included in a more open and wider review were traversed on Radio NZ this morning, as I discuss elsewhere.
(Edit) On the side issue: I am also staggered that the SSC could have known about the fake PhD and exercised their “judgement” and done nothing about it. Appalling. Ironically, it would not therefore have been possible to sack Thompson because of the PhD lie. If the employer discovers such dishonesty and does nothing about it, then the courts will interpret that as acceptance of the dishonesty, and determine that the employment contract has not been breached.
The question is, how to change the culture within the public sector, which I do not think is something that has just popped up over the last 8 years?
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
It is now just getting sad and tedious GWW. You have flip flopped so many times now that you could be used as a metronome. Wait until Sunday night and see what NZ thinks of your corrupt and criminal party. BBQ’s all around the next Labour leader hopefuls next week.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Ms Aikman said it appeared the SSC had known about allegations against Ms Thompson for four years but nothing was ever said.”
At what point did Mary-Anne Thompson work in the Prime Minister’s Department and did Heather Simpson and Helen Clark know about her fraudulent claims or did other staff who knew not say anything?
Vote:How much of this is a sisterhood cover-up, and when Thompson is found out regarding her ‘nepotism’, were people just hoping nobody would dig too much further?
It appears she may not have been too honest but what about those others around her?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Sorry Yvette, It appears that it was the State Services Commissioner at the time, Michael Wintringham.
From Radio NZ:
“The State Services Commission has revealed it first knew of questions about the academic qualifications of former immigration head Mary Anne Thompson four years ago.
In a statement, it says the State Services Commissioner at the time, Michael Wintringham, made his own judgement about how to handle the matter at that time.” For more…
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200805161104/13bd5319
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
This is just another of the unending examples of corruption involving Ministers and highly placed State Officials.It must surely be approaching the time when the new Organised Crime Squad has as it’s first task an investigation into this corrupt Liabour Goverment and its handpicked leading Public Servants.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
GWW, by your own reasoning, if Peter Gresham resigned over cave creek, then Cosgrove should resign over this!
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Ghostwhowalks3
“Did the NP minister of conservation know of the reckless decisions when 14 died at cave creek- No” but Dennis Marshall offered to resign nonetheless (once the Cave Creek enquiry was over). I wont be holding my breath waiting for David Cunliffe’s second ministerial resignation.
Oh and underfunding by National in the 90′s is a legitimate excuse for corruption and cover ups under Labour 10 years later? What are you saying – Mary-Ann Thompson was forced to lie about her credentials and grease the path for her rellies because someone had to front up at 630am to an Immigration Dept office and take a number? Listen to yourself!
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
In my day, your departmental personal file damn near followed you into the toilet. On application for your first job you supplied *all* the details for your qualification claims.
That file followed you everywhere in govt service. In the mid 70s I got fined $10 for exceeding 50kph in Carterton, a day or so later I got rung by the Conservancy Senior Clerk in Palmerston Nth who demanded an explanation.. he read all the papers for his area.. Wellington, Wairarapa, Kapiti Coast, Hawkes Bay, Wairoa, PN, Wanganui, Taihape, and he cut out the names of any officer who appeared in them, and added them into personal files. In my case, I also got a letter from the PSA taking me to task for Conduct Unbecoming…
Now, I’d hardly recommend a return to that level of scrutiny, but it does show how careful the SSC, PSA and Departmental officers were in protecting the image of public servants and self regulation of departments.
In the 1980s, the Labour Govt changed this self regulation and scrutiny so that departmental heads no longer reported directly to the SSC but to a Minister of the Crown. This was on the not so silly basis that if a Minister had to take the flak for his dept, he had a right to have more say in how it was run. That’s cool, but it cut out self regulation, the stone hand of the PSA and SSC and exposed the dept to the foibles of the Minister.. esp. his qualities and character. What was worse, a dept was also then exposed to the power cabals within the Govt who could appoint a weak minister and then ride roughshod over him/her in pursuance of it’s ideologies.
Immigration is the dept in trouble at the moment, so look for weaknesses in Cunliffe and the cabal behind him for the answers and the problems.
JC
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I can see how an employer, be it the SSC or anyone else, could be reluctant to cast aside an executive they considered to be capable and competent, based on considerable direct experience, because part of their CV wasn’t kosher. The CV is the advertisement for the “product”. If the ‘ad’ is flawed, but the product is performing up to expectations and perhaps beyond, how much fuss do you make?
It is not strictly right, and should at least have been dealt with in some way if not by dismissal or prosecution. Keeping her on could be a viable and practical. approach and makes a certain kind of sense if good execs are in short supply in the state sector or NZ generally. However, it also appears to have hinted at a character flaw that popped up in other ways….I’m not saying the issue of her CV was handled properly. I’m saying I can understand why it might have made sense to keep a ‘good’ person in the role and let it ride. I’ve seen similar things in private business. Someone who is delivering to expectations gets credit for it. The CV issue would be a bullet in the head for a person who was NOT delivering.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Ghost Who Lies:
After nine long years, hasn’t “it’s all National’s fault” and “they did it too/first” reached it’s use by date as an excuse for Labour’s incompetence? At the moment, I’m just willing to say string of escalating cock ups trumps conspiracy of silence. But what a cock-up! And not for the first time, we’re seeing a Minister trying to be a smart arse during Question Time, when it surely would be simpler (and safer) to just give a straight answer to a straight question and be done with it.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
This smells and has done from the start. A quick sweep up under the carpet was the result of the initial investigation – the question is – did the minister know 4 years ago that there was some very strange stuff happening at the department of immigration? Is seems everyone did. Why wasn’t the boil lanced? Who else is implicated? Where is Taito?
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I won’t even pretend to understand where the trail of bread-crumbs will lead in this particular case. i can only offer personal reflection.
Firstly; Mary-Anne Thompson is being hung out to dry. Not only has she resigned, but now here whole chartacter is being assassinated with a series of leaks and tit-bits about her credentials. You can put this down to good NZ journalism, but after reading ‘Absolute Power’ am afraid that term reads as oxymoronic.
Secondly: So, who is repsonsible for carting Mary-Anne through the streets to the waiting guillotine? It has to be person or persons hoping that this tiddler- sacrifice will suffice to quell the inquisitve masses.
Thirdly; Cullen being very ‘scripted-indignant’ about National’s enquiries suggesting that any Minister was aware of Mary-Anne Thompson’s lack of credentials – when it was uneccessary – smelled to high heaven of Labour-speak to media ‘Don’t touch this or we will be very angry.”
Fourthly; the N(a)ZIS (Me and the wife’s pet name forthe Immigration Service) are evidently corrupt, te staff overworked and underfunded, and wasn’t it only a few years ago that male staff membeers were sacked for stamping visa in return for oral sex from attractive female applicants – this speaks volumes about the service.
Fifthly – and here is the biggie: If Mary-Anne (ex mate of PM) was dodgy and Helen Clark knew, it suggests that she may have also known more than she stated about Taito Phillip Field. Which means she may have perjured herself or at the very least, directly created a misinformation strategy over the Ingram Report, in the hope that Field’s misdemeanours could be viewed asa ‘lone assassin’ rather than as symptomatic of endemic corruption within the Immigration Service.
So that is why they are burning Mary-Anne at the stake.
Lee – MWT
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Immigration went bad during the 84-90 Labour govt, and has never recovered.
I wrote to the Minister of Immigration around 89/90 (Roger Douglas was it at the time but handed over to Stan Rodger during the time it took for a reply if anyone wants to date it accurately). I provided details of payment to immigration staff for work permits ($2,000 a head in the dollars of the time) for sweatshop labour in Thai restaurants in Auckland, that I was aware of through contacts in the Chinese community. I also attached a clipping from The Dominion avertising “Thai girls available 7 days a week” in a local massage parlour.
I asked for clarification on the immigration policy related to Thailand, eventually I received some pamphlets from the Ministers office. Also I received word by way of the inital contact (who was unaware that I had complained) that the owner of the original restaurant had been in Wellington dining with Roger Douglas, letting it be known that he was aware of a complaint and was untouchable.
I find it incredibly sad that an immigrants first contact with the bureaucracy in this country requires a bribe (albeit paid to an immigration consultant) to get in. Clearly it is going to colour their expectation of how to deal with other contacts in NZ and is not going to be reversed easily.
And no, while most here would be consider me right wing. Roger Douglas standing for ACT is no sort of an inducement for me to vote for them.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
As much as it appears MAT has climbed up her own petard, I still have a nagging feeling there’s been some Dooneing going on in the background here…can’t wait for all the OIAs to start coming out (probably in another couple of months, just in time to push Labour down below the Greens)
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
ghostwhocrawls said:
“Until the 2004 or so, Immigration had ONE office in Auckland…blah blah blah…This was the shameless state of the public service left by national.”
So did Labour do nothing about for their first five years in (so-called) charge? Or were they too busy trying to help you find Thai tilers/Russian brides?
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
According to Labour it was the Nats standing on the grassy knoll!
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Interesting comments 1984. I worked as an Immigration Consultant for several years in the late 1990′s (without ever taking or offering a bribe!), and although the Immigration Service was a constant source of frustration, I never sensed any illegal or unethical behaviour. There was an abundance of incompetence, and some very curious decisions, but nothing to suggest the culture that has been alleged this week. This was however, prior to the establishment of the Pacific branch, which seems to have taken on a life and culture of its own.
Vote:May 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
oooh, inv2, the black helicopters will whisk you away for re-education at waikaremoana.
i hope you feel white middle class male guilt. vote laybore…ha ha ha.
Vote: