Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

The man who faked his CV to become the first boss of Maori Television believes his sentence was harsh compared with what has since happened to a public servant who falsified her CV.

Canadian John Davy served three months in jail in 2002 for falsely claiming he held a master of business administration degree, had worked for international organisations such as World Wildlife Fund and was a national fencing champion.

At his sentencing, Judge Phil Moran said Davy – who was caught out after a Herald investigation – was a “conman” and there was a clear need to send a message to others who might be tempted to do the same.

In March, Judge Bruce Davidson sentenced former Immigration Service boss Mary Anne Thompson to 100 hours of community service and fined her $10,000 for falsely claiming she had a doctorate from the London School of Economics.

The two cases are not the same.

Mary-Anne Thompson did falsely claim she had a PhD. But she has in fact spent several years studying towards one, and the claim of a PhD was not crucial to her getting the jobs she gained.

Davy was, as the Judge noted, a con-man. His CV was a piece of fiction with numerous fake entries and employers listed he had never worked for. His offending was clearly of a more serious nature than Thompson’s and the sentence reflected that,

Davy would never have been appointed CEO on the basis of his true CV. Thompson would have been appointed to the jobs she held, if she had omitted the claimed PhD.

The NZ Herald has advice for the Catholic Church:

A Vatican newspaper claims the hailstorm of allegations of priestly sexual abuse is a conspiracy aimed at the present Pope and the Catholic Church.

Ironically, it targets the “media” as leading or cheerleading this conspiracy, the New York Times being the latest to publish a historical claim, from up to 70 young, deaf boys who allege abuse by an American priest now dead.

It is unfortunate the messenger is being criticised rather than the message heeded. There is much still to be done for the church to put this sin behind it. …

Some calculate the total number of priests and the relatively small number of offenders over many years and then compare that to percentages for the secular world.

Their argument is that church-linked offending is no greater than the sad reality of society’s norm. But it is a forlorn and defensive mindset.

As the Economist magazine has argued, if you preach absolute moral values you will be judged against absolute moral standards.

The church cannot accept relative failure or relative consequences, particularly under this Pope who argues forcefully for an end to relativism.

If it is true to itself, the Catholic Church cannot be satisfied with being as good as, or not as bad as, other parts of society.

If any conspiracy exists, it is the one in which sexual offenders were protected and victims abandoned by those in authority.

A new conspiracy is needed, one which confirms in deeds the Pope’s words to the Irish. Responsibility must be taken by those who hid wrong.

I’m just glad I was raised Anglican!

The Dom Post focuses on the Mary-Anne Thompson affair:

The most alarming aspect of the Mary Anne Thompson affair is not that a senior public servant falsified her CV, but that the former head of the public service halted inquiries into her falsehood years before it was exposed.

This is the point I made a couple of days ago.

But within minutes of Mrs Bell questioning her about the doctorate she claimed to have obtained from the London School of Economics, Thompson withdrew her application for the post.

Mrs Bell undertook further investigations on her own initiative and advised Mr Wintringham that there was no record of Thompson gaining a doctorate. But, instead of initiating a formal investigation, Mr Wintringham told Mrs Bell to stop her inquiries.

He was, he subsequently said, concerned that further inquiries could “damage both the defendant’s considerable professional reputation and the reputation of the commission as well”.

He was right about the first. He was wrong about the second. What has damaged the commission’s reputation is not Thompson’s fraud, but Mr Wintringham’s failure to properly investigate a matter of obvious concern.

Really it was a disgraceful decision – and one made worse by his failure to even leave a file note on the issue for his successor. You’d expect better from the most junior HR manager, let alone the State Services Commissioner.

The Press hails a triumph for Obama:

The United States health reform controversy continues to swirl with such intensity that it is difficult to decipher the dispositions of the antagonists. However, one thing is sure – President Barack Obama has won his place in history, if only because of the health bill’s emergence into law.

No other president has pushed through such important reform in this field and most have not dared to try. Obama’s handling of the process was less than stellar and it has united his opponents, but the result is legislation that will transform a fundamental foundation of American society.

Hmmn. I wonder if they have read the law change. It isn’t that dramatic.

And the ODT takes issue with Pita Sharples:

The thrust of his speech clearly implied that for tribal Maori, democracy does not work and does not sit comfortably with Maori cultural concepts.

Historical fact suggests this argument does not wash in national politics, since Maori candidates have long been elected to general seats and the specific provision of Maori electorates has ensured at least a foothold in Parliament.

The notable absence of Maori at local body level has been regrettable, but why that is so cannot merely be attributed to “prejudice, cultural arrogance, and institutional racism”.

Relatively few people are aware that in Parliament, Maori are over-represented in relation to their proportion of the adult population.

So I find it hard to see how the democratic system is failing Maori.

The Dom Post reports:

A woman who blew the whistle on Mary Anne Thompson’s doctored CV six years ago was hushed up by the country’s top civil servant and told to stop digging further.

Thompson was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and do 100 hours’ community service after pleading guilty yesterday to one charge of using a document with intent to defraud.

An appropriate penalty.

In an exclusive interview with The Dominion Post, Thompson says she is hoping for a second chance and would desperately love to return to the civil service, where she carved out a reputation as one of its brightest stars.

What may weigh against this is not so much the fake CV, but the issues around the immigration Service, while managed by Thompson.

Executive recruiter Lilias Bell was the first to stumble on Thompson’s secret, after a tipoff caused her to question Thompson’s claim to a doctorate from the prestigious London School of Economics.

Mrs Bell had been hired by the State Services Commission to recruit a new chief executive for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – one of the most prestigious and sensitive jobs in the civil service. Despite Thompson having clearances from the Security Intelligence Service, digging by Mrs Bell revealed that there was no record of her ever receiving her doctorate.

But after Mrs Bell flagged the issue with then state services commissioner Michael Wintringham, Thompson withdrew her application and Ms Bell was told to cease her investigation. In court documents, Mr Wintringham revealed that he was worried about the damage that news of the inquiries would do to the reputations of both Thompson and the State Services Commission.

So he hushed it up, and in the end did far far more damage by doing so. If Wintringham has done his job, this may have been all avoided.

He left the commission shortly after, passing on Mrs Bell’s inquiries to his successor, Mark Prebble, only when Thompson landed in strife at the immigration service.

Prime Minister John Key said he was “extremely surprised” that Mr Wintringham did not pass on the information earlier, “and a little disappointed”.

That is putting it mildly. Wintringham was the head of the civil service, responsible for all senior appointments and he failed HR 101 – file notes. Even the most junior HR person knows you do file notes on anything like this. He effectively hid information from his successor, through his failure to do a file note about the doctorate.

Mr Wintringham said yesterday that he had questioned Thompson about her doctorate and she was adamant it was legitimate. After that, there had been no reason to pursue the matter.

I’m sorry – but how can one conclude this. If someone is adamant it is legitimate, then the obvious response is to ask them to prove it, and ask for a copy of their degree.

Thompson is at fault for claiming she had a degree she did not have, but Wintringham shares some blame for knowing the truth, and covering it up.

The Dom Post reports:

Former Immigration Service boss Mary Anne Thompson has pleaded guilty to using her CV fraudulently, enabling her to get senior government positions.

Thompson, 54, of Karori, had claimed she had a doctorate from the London School of Economics.

In Wellington District Court this afternoon, Judge Bruce Davidson gave a sentencing indication that Thompson would be fined $10,000 and given 100 hours’ community work.

She pleaded guilty before trial, in a deal that saw the three charges she faced reduced to one.

In a way it is a pity there is no trial, because I was interested to hear how this all happened – ie what led Thompson to claim she had a Doctorate. Now we may never know.

While Thompson did not perform at Immigration, she was highly regarded in her former roles at Treasury and DPMC. The whole affair has been quite strange.

The Dominion Post reports Mary-Anne has agreed there is a case to answer at depositions:

A who’s who of Wellington bureaucrats is lined up to give evidence at the trial of former Immigration chief Mary Anne Thompson for fraudulently claiming she had a doctorate.

Among them will be Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard and chairman Arthur Grimes, former State Services commissioners Michael Wintringham and Mark Prebble, Victoria University emeritus professor Sir Frank Holmes and New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Malaysia, David Kersey.

The media are going to love this trial.

Dr Bollard said Thompson worked for him as a research economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

He said he met her in 1987 and was aware she was in the process of completing her PhD thesis for the LSE.

He said he would have believed she had her PhD because she would have told him she had. He said he would feel let down and deceived by her.

Dr Prebble said he would not have appointed Thompson as the manager of the policy advisory group in his department if he had known she did not have the qualification she claimed.

Interestingly Mary-Anne (in my experience) was exceptionally good at that role. If she had never claimed the PhD, she might still have got the job.

NZPA report:

Former Immigration Service boss Mary Anne Thompson appeared in court on Friday on fraud and dishonesty charges.

Ms Thompson faced two charges of using a document with intent to defraud and one charge of dishonestly attempting to use a document without claims of right. …

Ms Thompson is next scheduled to appear in Wellington District Court on December 12.

It will be interesting to see the exact details of the charges. I presume it relates to the claimed doctorate, that wasn’t.

As this is before the court, please restrict comments appropriately.

The SSC Report is online here. Here are the conclusions of Commissioner Iain Rennie:

Mr Shanks’ report shows that Mary Anne Thompson was involved with six immigration-related procedures relating to members of her family in 2004 and 2005. Although the investigation finds no evidence that Ms Thompson’s family members were seeking preferential treatment, the report is clear that her involvement resulted in them receiving personal benefits that they would not have normally received if she had not held her position in the Department.

A clear statement of fact that there was preferential treatment.

Ms Thompson’s behaviour was wholly inappropriate on two counts. First, it consistently breached the Department’s clearly-stated requirements for staff to disclose potential personal conflicts to their manager before taking any action. Secondly, the long-standing expectation of State servants, outlined most recently in the Code of Conduct for the State Services, is that they are trustworthy. This includes not acting in a way that may improperly benefit our family or friends or groups in which we have a personal interest.

Ouch.

Overall, the Department did not deal with the issue in a timely or effective fashion up to the end of 2007 and because of ineffective investigations Ms Thompson was consequently dealt with in a manner that was too informal and lenient in relation to the conduct she displayed.

In particular, the actions taken by Dr James Buwalda, the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour until May 2007, were not effective in terms of clearly establishing what was happening and dealing with the conflict of interest. Concerns about visa waivers were first raised with Dr Buwalda, in 2005. The informality of Dr Buwalda’s engagement with Ms Thompson around his concerns at that time led her to consider that he thought the issue was of little consequence.

Now that Departmental CEOs are being paid over $500,000 a year salary, we should be expecting much better from them than this.

If you read the report in detail you see that Dr Buwalda deserves most of the criticism. He had numerous reports coming to him from staff concerned about Thompson’s involvement, and he did little to manage the problem or to assert authority.

Thompson made some serious errors of judgement. She did not seek special favours, but should have been aware that her involvement would create problems. If her CEO had been more onto it, then it might have all been sorted at an earlier stage.

Ouch.

John 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.

John Armstrong puts the Mary-Anne Thompson issue into context of what responsibility Ministers have:

Try as he might, though, Cullen’s assurances to Parliament on Wednesday were never going to negate National’s assertion that Cabinet ministers were aware of the improper conduct by the head of the Department of Labour’s Immigration Service for months but did nothing about it until public exposure of that conduct forced some action.

It would be going far too far to say there has been a cover-up by ministers in the normal meaning of the term – a deliberate and sustained attempt to conceal what has really been going on.

But neither did those ministers go out of their way to reveal what had been going on.

Neither the Labour Department nor the State Services Commission felt any compunction to inform the public of last year’s inquiry into what was an astonishing breach of public service standards by someone running a major branch of a government department.

This is part of the wider problem in the public service, and the Government. The main focus has been on keeping things quiet and how to “politically manage” serious issues rather than actually confronting the core problems, and subjecting them to public scrutiny.

Ministers should have insisted that these breaches of law and policy be made public. They could have blanked out the names of staff involved.

Were it not for some concerted digging by journalists, the public would still be completely unaware of Thompson’s blatant conflict of interest in filling out residency application forms for close relatives. She would still have her job.

Once the details of the Thompson affair broke through the bureaucratic wall of silence, the two Cabinet ministers who already knew about the investigation inevitably looked complicit in officials’ inept and shoddy handling of the matter.

I think there is a growing realisation that one cannot trust internal inquiries anymore. National should seriously look at a replacement to the Serious Fraud Office which can also investigate the Government. I’ll post more on this at some later stage.

This has been an appalling week for Labour, with high-profile job losses, appalling retail sales data, the failure to be totally upfront about how much was paid to buy back the country’s rail services, further equivocation from Cullen on tax cuts just days out from the Budget, and yet another death knell-sounding opinion poll.

But hey Labour are helping with housing affordability a – a bold scheme to help oh 700 families out of the 1.5 million families in NZ!

When 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.

The London School of Economics has confirmed that Mary-Anne Thompson did not gain a PhD from them, as publicly advised in the past, and allegedly claimed to gain employment in 1990 and 1998.

There was a rumour yesterday there was no record of the MA from Victoria either, but VUW have confirmed that degree was conferred.

Mary-Anne was in DPMC and eventually headed its Policy Advisory Group. This would beyond doubt require a top secret security clearance. There may be questions for the SIS about whether such clearances do or should involved checking claims of qualifications etc.

Good God. The State Services Commission announced yesterday that it has referred Mary-Anne Thompson to the Police in reference to her claimed academic qualifications.

If this is correct, it is very concerning, and even sadder.

Meanwhile The Press covers the cover-up:

In Parliament, Acting Immigration Minister Michael Cullen admitted the Government found out about the allegations against Thompson in April 2007, but said it was a matter for the department’s chief executive. …

Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove is overseas but said through a spokesman that he became aware of the allegations against Thompson only when he was briefed by Blake in December. “He did express his concern about it (to Blake), but he cannot get involved in an employment matter.”

While the Minister can not direct the CEO to take action against any individual staff member, a Minister could very easily say that he regards the situation as totally unsatisfactory, wants action, will make the report public etc etc.

Oh yes. Ministers can only get involved when a staff member has a boyfriend who works for National. But hey having staff in a Department break policies, intimidate staff and give preferential treatment to family members is not something they can get involved in.

It is with sadness that I see that Mary-Anne Thompson has resigned her job as head of the Immigration Service and Deputy Secretary of Labour. She finished work yesterday

It was the right decision. There had been a lack of judgement by getting involved with applications from family members. And while she did not ask anyone to bend the rules for her, they did, and that reflects adversely on the culture of the NZ Immigration Service which she headed up. And she put staff in a difficult position by even getting involved.

By resigning, Mary-Anne is putting the reputation of the agency and public service, ahead of her own security. She could have demanded a negotiated settlement but chose to simply resign.

As I have mentioned before she has had an excellent career in the public service, and it a shame to see it end over uncharacteristic errors of judgement.  I hope she does very well with her future endeavours.

Today’s Dom Post editorial is on the Immigration Service:

The case raises questions about Dr Thompson’s conduct, the conduct of the staff member who ordered that the residency applications be processed, the culture within the Immigration Service, Dr Thompson’s bosses and the adequacy of the inquiry itself.

Put bluntly, it is not acceptable for public servants to use their positions to advance personal or family interests. Nor is it acceptable for senior public servants to leave doubt in the minds of staff about their intentions when personal or family interests are involved.

Dr Thompson should have refused to play any part in her relatives’ bid to come to this country and, when her connections became known, she should have made it explicitly clear to staff that their application was to be treated on its merits just as every other application should be.

By failing to do so she has damaged her reputation and public confidence in the Immigration Service.

To restore it, public service bosses have no choice but to take drastic action. If they do not, service staff will continue to wonder about what a nod or wink from the chief executive means and migrants will continue to suspect that it is not what you know but who you are related to that matters in New Zealand.

It really was an extremely serious failure on judgement to get involved in any way with your own family’s application.  And the wider issues of the culture are the bigger concern – how many other times are policies broken to do someone a favour?

The Sunday Star-Times reveals more information about the Immigration Service, and with great sadness I am starting to conclude that Mary-Anne Thompson’s position is becoming untenable. She appears to have shown a lack of judgement which is incompatible with the role she holds. What is strange is how out of step this lack of judgement is, with what has been a very successful career founded on sound judgement and ability. I can just presume people develop a blind spot when it comes to trying to help their own family.

In one article, the SST reveals:

It was December 2004, Christmas was fast approaching and, in an email to an immigration official, Thompson made it clear that the matter was urgent.

“We would like them to stay with us for three months for a significant family function, and then return to their families,” she wrote, adding “my husband and I are flying to Nadi to meet them (a surprise for them).”

The Fiji-based official, whose name is blanked out in documents released under the Official Information Act, was only too eager to help, arranging visa waivers, usually reserved for emergencies. He even provided his mobile and home numbers in case the family ran into any trouble on arrival in Fiji.

About four months later, Thompson was at it again, asking for assistance to get more family members to New Zealand. “My preference would be a visa waiver, given the certainty of [names deleted] returning back to Kiribati and given that they will live with me and our family,” she wrote.

I am amazed that Thompson was personally e-mailing staff (something which I am sure is not available to members of the public) asking for visa waivers. It doesn’t matter at all that she was not explicitly asking them to break any rules. When you are effectively the Head of the Immigration Service, you can not be and should not be in any way involved with immigration issues concerning your family. The mere fact that a staff member is dealing with their ultimate boss can only be seen as pressure on them.

Thompson should have got another family member (such as her husband) to do the applications, and deal with Immigration Service staff members. It is just incredibly inappropriate to do what she did.

They also talk in some detail about the application which was approved outside the rules:

Flesher says she told the branch manager, Nancy Sandoy, that the application was outside the timeframe. Sandoy said the application should be processed, but said she would make a call, Flesher says. According to Flesher, about a week later Mai Malaulau, the Pacific division director based in Wellington, appeared in the office, brought the file to her desk and said: “Put it in the system, there are slots available in the grid.”

This is what happens when you are the head of the Immigration Service and you get involved in applying for your family. You may not have asked anyone to do favours for you, but who really wants to turn down the boss’ family?

Ever since the “lie in unison” scandal it has been apparent not all has been well with the NZ Immigration Service. As more is revealed over the preferential treatment given to family members of the NZIS Head, the need for a full inquiry into NZIS grows.

Immigration staff were ordered by a senior official to override normal policies to process late residency applications by Kiribati family members of top immigration official Mary-Anne Thompson. …

In the report, former justice secretary David Oughton said he was concerned about a more widespread problem, saying staff told him the order to breach policy was “not an isolated case”.

Mr Oughton said that when staff were ordered to make decisions they felt breached policy, they wrote “as instructed by” to indicate they had not made the decision themselves.

And even worse:

“The report shows an official had the practice of going round the office until they found someone prepared to take the direction. The fact that staff said this was a reasonably common practice is very serious.”

That is amazing. How can Ministers not think such a culture is an issue?

TVNZ had a major story last night focusing on Mary-Anne Thompson, the head of the Immigration Service. They report:

Documents obtained by ONE News under the Official Information Act reveal the head of the Immigration Service organised visa waivers for her nephew Katekeimoa and another relative from Kiribati to come to NZ on holiday in 2004.

Visa waivers are usually only granted in emergencies. But emails obtained by ONE News show the waiver was granted to save the family the inconvenience of getting proper visas. …

But there were big problems with Katekeimoa and his family’s residency application. The quota from Kiribati was full and New Zealand was not accepting any more immigrants from there, and the application was lodged outside the allocated timeframe.

Despite all these issues, the head of immigration’s family were fast-tracked through and made New Zealand residents.

This is not a good look.  When you are the CEO of the Immigration Service you need to be cleaner than clean when it comes to any Immigration issues concerning your own family. I would have expected formally notifying your boss (Labour Dept CEO) that family members are making an application and ask your boss to ensure than decision making is done in such a way that you are not involved and no-one reporting to you feels any pressure, and most of all no deviation from normal practice happens.

I’m very surprised that someone as competent as Thompson would follow less than bess practice. Thompson is one of the top female civil servants. She was a high flyer at Treasury and then ended up helping manage Winston’s office when he was Treasurer (no mean task). After that she headed up the highly respected policy advisory group in the Dept of PM and Cabinet.
I didn’t know her well, being a very junior political flunkie in the PM’s Office, but Thompson was highly regarded as astute and professional.  Since then she has been a bit of a trouble-shooter, cleaning up after the lies in unison scandal in Immigration etc.

The allegations are pretty serious in that there appears to have been a serious lack of judgement involved, something which in Immigration especially can undermine confidence. I think this issue will not go away for a while.