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.

(but certainly not as many ministers (5) as its had in the last 3 years)

I guess the State Services Commissioner isn’t very good at managing deadwood out. Perhaps there is a place to start for Collins.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.