SSC says Matthews to stay
The State Services Commission has said it is not sacking Corrections CEO Barry Matthews. The Dom Post reports:
Corrections boss Barry Matthews’ job appears safe after the State Services Commissioner found he was not to blame for major failings in the management of parole.
Commissioner Iain Rennie said that after assessing the department’s performance following a damning Audit Office report into parole, it would not be justified to dismiss Mr Matthews.
“While the levels of non-compliance are higher than either the department or Auditor General desire, there is substantial evidence of a significant improvement in compliance over 2008 and a consistent and energetic focus on compliance issues by the chief executives and the managers of [probation services].”
In other words the peformance has been bad, but improving.
I suggest it would be a very good thing if it keeps improving. If it does not, I suspect the Minister will re-ask the SSC the question.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
So much for accountability and leadership
March 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
DPF
Why can’t Collins just sack this idiot?
[DPF: The law. She is not the employer]
March 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I would sugest that China is “improving” but still a shit house of human rights abuses and not a country I’d invite round for dinner.
Corrections is killing the New Zealand public with its crap skills and at some time the person at the top must fall on tehir sword. I’d sugest that time is long past.
And I’d also like to ask the question would anyone question whether or not Helen Clark had the power to get rid of anyone she didn’t like. Hell people even though she could fire the elected officals of the Labour Party.
Its called accountability and there is none here.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
And there I was thinking Judith Collins simply wasn’t “man” enough to do her own sackings, and that was why she got the SSC involved. I humbly withdraw that theorem which I advanced the other week. It turns out the SSC really was investigating what had happened.
Good to see that in the real world, the knee-jerk bayings of “sack ‘im” that we see in some circles are still no substitute for a sane assessment of what happened and why.
(I seem to recall that every time the left failed to sack someone like this, it was always YET ANOTHER example of the corruption and “jobs for the boys/girls” hegemony of the evil feminazis. Perhaps someone could explain how this is different?
)
March 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Oh dear! I’m crushed.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
We can only hope that Matthews has a few underlings lined up for the chop – after all, SOMEONE must be accountable for the failures within Corrections.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
We wish.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Simple really, sack Iain Rennie as well.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
It looks like Clayton Cosgrove’s hysterical and wild claims that Judith Collins had left the SSC with no other option but to dismiss Matthews and that she had exposed the government to a constructive dismissal case have come to nothing. Clearly Cosgrove doesn’t understand that National doesn’t pressure an independent civil service the way his government did.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Apparently Matthews has been going around the traps telling other high ranking public servants that his interviews with State Services went well and that he hoped he’d swayed them by proving that Corrections was now meeting its obligations 80% of the time.
My response to that is, would it be acceptable for a Navy captain to report to his superiors that things were going acceptably well because he was only crashing his frigate into the wharf 20% of the time when docking?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
So who will be on the new SSC?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
# greenfly (581) Says:
March 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Oh dear! I’m crushed.
Dreams do come true.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Tim Ellis – I seem to recall DPF as also saying that the terms of reference given to the SSC made it pretty clear a sacking was all but expected if matthews couldn’t explain himself!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Rennnie like the chump Prebble before him have no understanding of good governance. Both are example of the worst of the beige cardy wearing Sir Humphries that thumb their noses at the citizens and taxpayers and treat them like a dog turd on the soles of their shoes.
On can just see Rennie with his G&T chortling to his mates and matesses at their ‘Club” about how she saw off Crusher and sent a message to the Right Wingers at Kiwiblog that HE rules the fiefdom that is the SSC.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
And it seems Matthews could point to significant improvements since then. As I said, the improvements should continue – that is the actual important thing. If Matthews can’t continue to improve the performance, then he will end up going at some stage. If he can continue to improve performance, then that is good.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Wycroft has it.
Who else could keep their job after an expensive high level enquiry of any kind found they were incompetent but improving.
Who exactly is responsible for management of parole issues then? the fuckin’ tea lady?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
People are dying.
this isn’t a case of the toasted panini went out to the customer cold.
[DPF: I agree. But employment law is very unforgiving. If someone is not performing, you need to give them a chance to improve their performance before you can sack them. That even applies to CEOs. So if the SSC sacked him, with performance improving, then he would get a big payout in court]
March 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Ah National starts to discover the limits of political power
March 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Ratbiter, it appears that Matthews did put up a good case to the SSC that his performance had been improving. He was given a far better opportunity to explain himself than, say, Madeleine Setchell was given.
The fact that Collins hasn’t dismissed the SSC report, or pre-determined its outcome, shows that she does have confidence in the independence of the public service.
I understand some of the feelings here, but in effect Rennie is putting his own performance on the line as well by backing Matthews. If Matthews’ performance doesn’t improve, then Rennie will be facing the chop as well for giving Matthews another chance.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
greenfly said “Oh dear! I’m crushed.”
Good for you greenfly – so much for the supposed compassion of the left.
I’m sure that the whanau of Karl Kuchenbecker, Liam Ashley and Debbie Ashton will be genuinely crushed when they reflect that little in Corrections has changed since the death of their respective family members, and that no-one seems to be being held accountable.
You, by contrast, seem more interested in making political capital. That makes me want to puke.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Give him 90 days to clean up his act or move on.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
What are “Improvements”? Only ten paroled crims committing new crimes in a week? How about recalling criminals on parole who commit fresh crimes back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence – whatever that is.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Slowly slowlee catchee monkey.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Does Collins have confidence in him now? Has she the spine to say, publicly, one way or the other?
She’ll have her tail between her legs now.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“And I’d also like to ask the question would anyone question whether or not Helen Clark had the power to get rid of anyone she didn’t like. Hell people even though she could fire the elected officals of the Labour Party.”
MURRAY:………..The answer is that Helen CLARK was prepared to stoop to lying covertly to pet reporters in order to get rid of a Commissioner of Police she didn’t like, and to pressure the head of the SSC with complaints about dress and style to get rid of the head of WINZ whose femmininity offended her sense of proprietary.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
And how many others did KLARK/KULLEN get rid of in the civil service that we werent told about I bet there were plenty who were paid off to go quitely
They are the type that if you looked sideways at them at the wrong time you were a gonna.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Baxter she also managed to foster a culture in which people including the subjects themselves simply assumed that the entire public service were employed at the pleasure of Helen Clark.
I present embattled party Mike Williams talking to reporters about he had to talk to clark to see if he still had a job. I’d remind all that he was elected to the position, not appointed by Clark.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Inventory2 – you know I am compassionate and want to see the best possible safety systems in place around parolees.
My comment (I’m crushed) was an empathetic one – I was putting myself in Ms Collins’ shoes.
I was ‘making political capital’ not over the sad fate of those families you cite, but over Ms Collins’ behaviour. Her actions were wrong. The SSC response bears that out. That shouldn’t make you puke, maybe grind your teeth a little.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
There is no culture of CE’s resigning in the NZ public service for issues of failures happening on their watch. Cave Creek made this clear.
Part of this is the application of employment law to CEs. But it is subtler than that. Ministers, as a rule, are not prepared to enter the witness box in wrongful dismissal cases.
Chris Rainkin’s case is telling here. The government of the day went to the extraordinary length of actually abolishing WINZ as a department and merging it with the Social Policy Ministry to avoid a wrongful dismissal case. It was only the ruling of the chief judge of the Employment Court that she was entitled to her day in court, even though it was impossible for her to get her job back, that resulted in Steve Maharey and Mark Prebble having to front the Court.
Crusher Collins might be an exception, but it will take a few cases in which Ministers are prepared to stand up in open court, swear an oath and say what they really think of their CEs before there is any change in attitude.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
greenfly said “My comment (I’m crushed) was an empathetic one – I was putting myself in Ms Collins’ shoes.”
Bollocks! You were having a dig, and you know it. Hardly the honesty and ethics that the Greens are famous for eh?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Inventory2 – yes, I was having a dig at Ms Collins. Can’t she take it?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
So it’s this then: Underperform and you’re OK (no matter the consequences of the underperformance), and remain safely employed so long as you show some improvement off that self-defined low base. Work the system to deliver the least with the highest level of job security. And we wonder why our national productivity is so low.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Surely we should celebrate having a public service where there is an independant Commissioner and that we don’t have the corruption in the system that there is in Aussie and the US. As well as being Minister of State Services for most of the last government I’ve probably been involved in 30 performance reviews and generally the system works well. Nominations for CE appointments or reappointments were often not the person I would have chosen if I’d had the role and I’ve certainly worked with people I considered less than ideal.
Judith Collins mistake was being drawn into commenting on the confidence issue. My advice on colleagues was always to say :- “Matters of confidence in Chief Executives is a matter for the State Service Commissioner.” And nothing else. It didn’t always feel great especially when I thought a CE was being unfairly criticised but is really the only approach if one wants to maintain the integrity of the appointment system.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“Surely we should celebrate having a public service where there is an independant Commissioner and that we don’t have the corruption in the system”
Ha ha ha, if I had not read that with my own eyes I would not have believed it.
Labour and corruption go hand in hand, I find it incredible that a former Labour minister would come here and claim that we are free from corruption.
I wonder how Trevor and Labour would feel about a Royal commission into corruption?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Trevor
Welcome to kiwiblog.
Ignore some of the static and debate the issues.
In regards to the people you considered less than ideal, did you put these concerns in writing to the SSC and would you have been prepared to swear an oath in the employment court, repeat those concerns and allow yourself to be cross-examined by a QC?
In the absence of such a committment, I put it to you that the NZ system is also broken, (not corrupt, but just not working as well as it should) in that there is no culture of CEs taking personal responsibility for their own performance and that of their organisations. And that is because at the end of the day, they know that they will never to held to account.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Trevor Mallard thinks he can come here and explain things in simple language that anyone can understand. I’m disgusted!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The cheek of Mallard talking about a corruption free country. What a bloody disgrace the man is!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Hi Trevor, good points, though I don’t think Judith ever waded so deeply into dangerous territory as to make the comments by your colleague Clayton Cosgrove (in his press release earlier) an accurate reflection of the situation. But then, such is politics, right?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
It’s amazing that Trevor Mallard, in print, should describe political systems of our major allies (Australia and USA) as corrupt. That’s not an action of a man who expects to want warm relationships in Canberra or Washington DC anytime soon.
I place no credibility in Iain Rennie’s report. As employer of Barry Matthews, Rennie’s team’s own judgment is called into question, yet it has acted as judge and jury in its own cause. It had a serious conflict of interest, should have declared that conflict (if it had any understanding of accountability and equitable process) and commissioned an external agency to carry out a truly independent review.
The Auditor-General’s office is the place for that kind of inquiry.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
calendar girl has nailed the alient point here. In asking the SSC to investigate the competence of a chief executive one is, in effect, asking it to judge its own appointment and performance monitoring procedures.
Matthews had proven woefully inadequate, overweeningly arrogant, and an utter failure in every position he’s held in the past (head of INCIS, Commissioner of the WA Police) and ought never to have been appointed in the first place. That he was highlights substantial flaws in the SSC’s appointments process.
Had they bothered to pick up the phone and ask his last employer (then WA Police Minister Michelle Roberts, with whom he had an appalling relationship), his subordinates (the WA Police force effectively went on strike, and he had to resort to ordering them back to work) or checked thee report of the Kennedy royal commission, which found that “poor management within the service had allowed corruption to continue unimpeded” then surely the SSC wouldn’t have advised the Minister of the day to go ahead with the appointment?
Since you’re here, Trevor (and congratulations for engaging and for being so frank) do you believe the SSC met reasonable standards of performance in its handling of Matthews’ original appointment, given that the above is reasonable easily ascertained?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Watched Collins on the news. She didn’t have any spine.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Please don’t be rude to Mr. Mallard.
Not so much on the basis of common courtesy (although he is due a modicum) but more on the basis that these people should be encouraged to come into the light.
It will do us good to see how they think, and them good for the fact that they’re probably hearing views and opinons they would never have come across previously in the dark and smokey backrooms of the Labour party or in their narrow sheltered little left wing lives.
Give the man a go. After all, he’s suffered almost a lifetime of contempt and sneers from his colleagues for being a straight man in the Labour Party.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Redbaiter said: “It will do us good to see how they think”
I smell epiphany!
March 10th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Rennie didn’t employ Matthews. He was appointed before Rennie.
And to Georgebolwing – The way the process works is that at least once a year Ministers are approached by the Commissioner as part of the CE’s performance review. The resulting interviews are written up by the Commission and signed off by Ministers. It is not unusual for the Commissioner to seek Ministers’ views when there is some public controversy. The only case I was involved with that went to the Employment Court was Rankin – and it is a matter of record that I was not called.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Matthews is obviously a liability who knows how the rules of ‘the system’ work.
I guess the State Services Commissioner isn’t very good at managing deadwood out. Perhaps there is a place to start for Collins.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Trevor – I’m interested in your response to Rex’s question at 6:09 PM
March 10th, 2009 at 8:22 am
getstaffed, and as you allude to, perhaps Collins should look at the capability of the SSC in hiring deadwood in the first place.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:27 am
agree about SSC expat. how many CEO’s have they been through is the last while. I think they’re in to their 3rd or 4th at MfE in the pat 3 years
(but certainly not as many ministers (5) as its had in the last 3 years)
March 10th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Mallard’s right – Rennie didn’t hire Matthews – that folly fell to his predecessor, Dr Mark Prebble, close associate of the former Prime Minister.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:22 am
aaaah, it all makes sense now.
I seem to remember Mr Prebs being a jolly good cover-er-upper of any hint of a SS managment scandle.
Still, looks like Rennie needs to get with the brun the deadwood program. Sorry Barry but you do need to go.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:52 am
getstaffed + Rex W- The information was certainly considered by Mark Prebble. Again it is a matter of timing, progress and opinion. My main point is that if Ministers make those calls we end up with the politicised systems of Aussie and US – and my view is that while life would be easier for politicians the country would be poorer for it
March 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
So Trevor, you’re saying that under the previous government key appointments weren’t politicised… or they were, and it made your life easier?
March 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
…. and that Aussie and US systems are now “politicised” rather than “corrupt” as asserted earlier?
March 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
They weren’t politicised – that sometimes made relationships more difficult, but meant that our system has the integrity and continuity and avoids the payback that politicised systems are based on.