The Wilce Inquiry Report
October 30th, 2010 at 10:45 am by David FarrarHave now read the full report. What staggers me is not that Wilce got the job, but that NZDF ignored multiple warnings and complaints about him. Such as:
- The SIS were warned about Wilce in 2005, yet did nothing – do not even have a record of the concerns expressed to them. The PM should be concerned by this.
- The chair of the recruitment panel was also told of concerns over Wilce’s integrity and there is no record of him sharing these with other panel members or doing anything about it
- A DTA staffer complained under the Protected Disclosures Act 2000
- A major and a civilian raised concerns in 2009, and nothing was done
- Even more amazingly a DTA staffer went to a seminar in 2007 where they talked about the need to verify CVs and the example was given of someone who had claimed to be on UK bobsleigh team and won a DSO in the Falklands. He confirmed with the lecturer that he was referring to Wilce, and reported this back to his superiors at Defence. Nothing was done!!!
Related posts:
- A further inquiry re Wilce is needed
- Inquiry into Wilce hiring
- SIS failed with Wilce clearance
- The Wilce claims
October 30th, 2010 at 10:55 am
“Nothing was done!!!”
That is amazing and shocking. The head of one of our most secure institutions. What the hell were multiple people who should have known better thinking, for all these years?
Inspector Noddy with the aid of Big-Ears could probably have done a better job, maybe we should ask Momentum if they could find us anyone a bit like that.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 11:48 am
There has been serious management failure here. There have been other serious management failures in Defence recently as well notably the UN issue. I believe the Management in defence has been compromised and a full scale SSC inquiry needs to be undertaken. It may be that there needs to be a root and branch clean-out of a number of people in Defence. Insiders will know what is really going on but it looks very very bad.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Why oh why do government agencies insist on printing an electronic document, scanning it, and putting the scanned version on the internet?
But regardless of their quaint reliance on a paper-base process… It seems as if plenty of people reported Wilce to Defence and they did nothing to investigate. But some un-named person violated all the rules and shopped him to the media and they actually followed the matter up. So well done the anonymous whistle-blower (who almost certainly faced the sack and blacklisting from all other government employment if their identity was compromised), and the media who seem to be more concerned with the security of NZ than either Defence or the SIS.
And what was Mataparae thinking of when he spoke favourably of Wilce’s job performance after the allegations hit the media? Surely common sense would tell him that was a good time to keep quiet. Why didn’t the Inquiry investigate whether someone so clueless should be running the Defence Force?
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
The problem here is that government department recruiters mediocre people that rely on recruitment firms also staffed by mediocre people who know how to make a fast dollar. Of course once the recruiters fail as recruiters what do they do? The take up government positions as recruiters, and so the wheel goes round and round.
The failures are all round, nobody really checks up on anyone much because they don’t know how to or simply don’t care to.
Recruiters on both sides of the counter are untrained, uneducated and unethical.
And the taxpayer pays as usual.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
davidp,
I think they do that so they can demonstrate that appopriate signatories have placed their monikers on the document in the appropriate places – It is better evidence than an unsigned document.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“I think they do that so they can demonstrate that appopriate signatories have placed their monikers on the document in the appropriate places – It is better evidence than an unsigned document.”
Yes, the inability to securely “sign” electronic documents using a common framework is a frustrating impediment to reducing paper use.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
adze,
I don’t disagree. And there are acceptable processes to note electronic acceptance that are used in govt agencies. Unfortunately they don’t lend themselves well to being disclosed along with the document itself. I guess (and it is pure speculation) that is why they continue to scan and pdf the executed hard copy.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Incompetence where diligent service is *required*.
Heads should roll over this. A message needs to be sent to all government departments that repeated sloppiness of this kind will not be tolerated. Government employees are privileged to earn a taxpayer salary. We expect and demand a higher level of service than this!
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
It will be recalled that when (I think it was) the Auditor-General investigated the double-dipping of housing allowances by NZ Defence staff posted to the the United Nations that the report highlight a culture in the military that deferred utterly to rank.
So that whilst a lower level employee might have concerns about something (like the unlawfulness of claiming both a housing allowance from NZDF and the UN) the Defence culture strongly mitigated against their questioning a superior officers decision on the matter, even though they knew it was wrong.
It is likely the same culture existed with respect to staff complaints made about Wilce’s competence – remember how the day after the TV3 story the Chief of Defence went on TV to assert what a great employee Wilce had been. How wrong he was, but I imagine none of his underlings questioned the wisdom of his fronting the media with such an unwise statement when the investigation was not yet completed.
The failure of the SIS vetting is appalling but not surprising given that almost all their vetting staff are old retired military looking for an easy income to supplement their military pensions in their declining years. How convenient the SIS have no record of the 15 minute telephone conversation made to them by someone concerned about Wilce’s security vetting. Either no record was made, or it has been destroyed.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
From the government’s perspective I would have thought the main concern is that this is yet more evidence that large numbers of bureaucrats are focused on maintaining the illusion they do something useful rather than actually trying to do it.
The further up the ladder the worse this gets.
To that end it would seem the more you can embellish your CV (whether genuinely or not) with degrees, MBAs, awards etc etc the further up the food chain and the more money and power you will attain. This “qualifications” industry is a relatively new phenomenon. A piece of paper is no guarantee of competence.
There is merit in the “old school” way of someone working up from bottom to top, picking up the relevant skills and experience along the way.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
kaya – that’s quite true about the old ways of working yourself from the bottom to the top, but the problem is that in organisations like Defence, the Police and the judiciary it can lead to mates promoting mates or pals protecting pals.
In today’s paper there is the story of the Police Commissioner and his deputy appointing a pal to London despite a sexual harrassment payout of $20,00 having earlier being made to a soon to be appointed woman Judge because of the London officers harrassment.
Then there is the matter of ex Justice Bill Wilson and his alleged conflict of interest being sat on for so long, and then we discover he and the Chief Justice (“his boss”) are old business pals.
And Wilce himself in being investigated for employing someone outside the rules.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
DPF….
Why does NZ not progress? Because too much time is spent by folks (like us) micro-analising crap like this.
It is NOT important,
Wilce was an idiot.
Anyone who thinks he had access to matters of real import is also an idiot.
Vote:Do we think the US / UK is so silly as to give us real secret data when they already knew of Wilce’s background?
Can we not, now, pay attention to things that matter?
October 30th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Chris2 – fair comment, I suppose these are the challenges in systems. Trying to find the best one that works most often in the manner intended.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
kaya – you are right – the old system worked really well, before the 1984 Labour Government dismantled the Public Service.
Back then the State Services Commission was all-encompassing, they were god, and every public servant had the same set of rules and abided by them. But once Heads of Departments became corporate CEO’s able to set their own hiring policies (terms and conditions) without reference to the old SSC rule book, then everything changed.
An excellent example of this was Christine Rankin’s appointment to head WINZ. Now she did come up through the ranks – from being a beneficiary (they’re called “clients” now) to managing the Grey Lynn branch of the Ministry of Social Welfare (now called “WINZ”) t0 being appointed CEO (used to be Director-General of Social Welfare, for 50 years).
By the time she was appointed, the SSC oversight of Government departments had been dismantled and she was able to do pretty much as she pleased without being contradicted. An example of this was her bringing in a “corporate uniform” at horrendous cost and redesigning the departments logos and stationary. Now none of those expensive changes made one bit of difference to WINZ’s core function, it didn’t get one more person off the dole or an invalid back to work. It was all expensive window dressing that you and I paid for. Under the old SSC she could never have done this, she would have been over-ruled by the SSC who would have seen it as a waste of taxpayer money.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
davidp: The whole printing and scanning thing may well be a security measure. Unless you go through an electronic document with a fine toothed comb you never know what might be in there. Often old versions of the document are included, and occasionally software bugs have resulted in parts of other documents being included. Printing and scanning is the only way to ensure that what they see is what you get.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
MOD in London and Provinces along with the Procurement Agency is actually worse!
They probably have 10,000 Wincers.
Crazy, but it is a Department where work is an optional extra, and Mr Hoon when Defence Minister spent 450k GBP on ‘ART’ when the boys and girls dies through a lack of latest body armour, and had to buy their own boots.
It just defies comprehension. France has a similar problem with their Defence Agencies. The Clipboard Warriors are skilled Sir Humphrey s and don’t give a shit about the rank and file.
Mark Burton was also lacklustre in his role as Defence Minister, and perhaps some of these problems lie with him?
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
bhudson>I think they do that so they can demonstrate that appopriate signatories have placed their monikers on the document in the appropriate places – It is better evidence than an unsigned document.
It isn’t hard to cut and paste a signature image. But even that pre-supposes that I have a real verified copy of the signature with which to compare the document version with. A signature is a sloppy third rate biometric that isn’t proof of anything these days. I’d be quite happy that if a document appears on a government agency’s web site then it is owned by that agency.
(I had a similar discussion with Verisign once. I was the “owner” of a top level Aussie state government domain name space. One of our city councils had approached Verisign to obtain a digital certificate. Verisign wanted me to vouch for the city council being the valid user of the domain name. But… they wanted me to provide this “proof” in the form of a signed statement on letterhead paper, faxed to them. I said they had nothing to compare my signature with, and they likely didn’t have any agency letterhead paper either (altho it wouldn’t be hard to find the agency logo on the internet). It would be trivially easy for a malicious person to design their own letterhead paper, or to cut the top off some official letter and photocopy it on to text, and they wouldn’t know the difference. On the other hand, they’d looked up my e-mail address on the list of domain name managers maintained by the commonwealth government, sent it an e-mail, received a reply, and that should form the proof they wanted. But the kid from Verisign just didn’t get it. And this is the stuff that the whole digital certificate model is built on. Fail!)
Dr Strangelove>Often old versions of the document are included, and occasionally software bugs have resulted in parts of other documents being included.
You’re talking about the artifacts that are sometimes left in Word documents. I think converting them to HTML would solve that problem, provide a better viewing experience, and mean that the document would be discoverable using search engines.
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Well thank god whichever monkeys messed this up so badly aren’t running healthcare, education, internal revenue, transport, and half the major companies in the country.
Oh wait…
Vote:October 30th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
And on the front page of Stuff is this this.
Odds on NZDF f**ing this up as well, and admit he’s straight?
Damned monkeys.
Vote: