Kiwiblog

The SSC report in the vetting of Stephen Wilce has been released.

The State Services Commissioner notes the following lapses by the SIS:

• that NZSIS did not check with counterpart overseas agencies to see what they knew about Mr Wilce. This was contrary to standard practice in cases where the applicant for a security clearance had worked overseas;
• that NZSIS did not follow up on Mr Wilce’s failure to disclose convictions once the Police check had revealed that he had convictions; and
• that NZSIS did not record or follow up on information received on Mr Wilce after the announcement of his appointment in the NZDF

I have to say these are pretty massive lapses. I mean they discover he had undsiclosed convictions and they did nothing. They had information supplied to them he wasn’t legit and they did nothing.

The SSC concludes:

The Director of NZSIS accepts the findings of both Mr Walter and the Court of Inquiry. He also accepts my finding that the anomalies occurring in Mr Wilce’s vetting process amounted to failings by the NZSIS in the provision of a professional security service.

That is a pretty big slap.

John Key notes:

“The State Services Commissioner has said further action needs to be taken to demonstrate confidence in the vetting system, and he will report back to me in the first half of this year. I have also asked a group of senior officials to closely monitor progress around this issue,” says Mr Key.

Two key initiatives will underpin the programme of action. An independent, international review of the current vetting system, along with other work, will be started in order to provide better information on the vetting system’s performance. In addition, the Director of Security is currently sampling 5 per cent of the Top Secret vettings undertaken at the time Mr Wilce was checked to provide an assurance that the failures were an exceptional event.

We were lucky that the failures only let through a braggart, rather than someone hostile to NZ’s interests.

NZPA report:

The State Service Commission will investigate how Stephen Wilce was able to be hired as the Defence Force’s top scientist without his credentials being properly checked and how he was able to obtain top level security clearance.

Prime Minister John Key, who is also the Minister in Charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service, told Breakfast on TV One that over that weekend he had spoken to State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie who would investigate. …

Mr Key said he was not happy about what had happened.

“Which is why over the weekend I asked Iain Rennie… to conduct an investigation looking firstly at the SIS – so specifically at this issue – but at the wider issue… The bigger worry is actually that this guy had access to top level security and therefore top level information.”

A lot of people are rushing to conclude that the employment consultants must be at fault. I would not rush to judgement there. I’ve employed half a dozen senior staff or CEOs using employment consultants. As the employer, you often do the reference checks yourself, as it can give you a better idea of how the potential employee will work out, any strengths and weaknesses etc.

What will be important is to establish whether any checks were done at all, and if so by whom.

The Herald reports:

A directive from the Ministry of Education telling an Opposition MP that information requests needed to be answered by the minister was a communications blunder, the ministry says.

Labour Party state services spokesman Grant Robertson said he would write to the State Services Commission and ask it to investigate after MP Ruth Dyson made an inquiry to the ministry regarding policy about funding for disabled students.

She said she was trying to support the parents of a student whose support funding had been cut and was told that operational issues raised at a local level by government MPs could be dealt with locally, but requests for information from non-government MPs needed to go to the relevant minister formally for a response. …

The ministry said yesterday the directive given to Ms Dyson appeared to be the result of a staff member misunderstanding the rules.

Senior ministry manager Jim Matheson said the error was “regrettable”.

“The ministry will take steps to ensure such an error will not be repeated.”

It is 99% likely to just be a stuff up, but it is an important principle that MPs dealing with constituents issues are treated equally.

I think it would be useful to have the SSC to investigate – not so much to find any improper behaviour, but to send out a signal to other agencies how important it is not to make mistakes like this.

Grant Robertson blogs:

The end of the State Services Commission?

That might not be a title that sets the heart racing for all but the policy wonks. But actually it is important for the health of all the public services that we rely on everyday that there is someone to balance the power of the Treasury in the direction of the public sector.

Sigh. I think there are good reasons for and against having the SSC< but really the old bogeyman of anti-Treasury is so 1990s. You don’t spend $35 million a year on a department, just to “balance the power of Treasury”. That’s simplistic and puerile.

First of all the so called power of Treasury is a myth. Cullen ignored most of what Treasury said for nine years. The current Government goes against Treasury advice pretty regularly also.

And right now the SSC is not doing it.  What’s more if we believe the talk, it might not be around much longer in any case. The rumour mill in Wellington is rife that SSC might be merged into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

I think it is a legitimate question. We have three central co-ordinating agencies – Treasury, SSC and DPMC. For a small country, that may be overkill.

And as Grant himself acknowledges, SSC is not highly effective. The Commissioner is well regarded, but SSC as an institution is not thought of very well by many in the public sector. Some years ago it was seen as adding a lot of value, but in recent years I hear more and more complaints about it.

The place of the SSC in our public service has changed a lot. Until the state sector reforms of the 80s it played a very hands on role in terms of everything from setting pay to deciding how and when you could order stationery. There is widespread agreement that no one wants to go back there. But even post the 1980s the SSC had a position as the development and quality manager for the public service.  Now it seems all it does is employ the Chief Executives of other departments.

Umm Grant, under which Government did this all happen? It is a trend that started under Labour. And to some degree, it is because SSC got over extended and was trying to do too much. So they are focusing on doign fewer things well.

SSC has already had the responsibility for E-Government work taken away and given to the Department of Internal Affairs.

And when was this decision made? In 2007. And why was it made? Well the SSC record was somewhat patchy – think the huge loss making Government Shared Network.

SSC being absorbed into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet would be a bad move from my perspective as it would decrease its independence from the Executive of the day. But given its diminished role it is little wonder that this kind of speculation is about.

Oh Grant. You have worked in the public service. So you know better than talking about the SSC being independent from the Executive of the day. The SSC has the same status as DPMC, and is not independent from the Executive – they are part of it.

I don’t know what point Grant is trying to make. Is he saying that Labour was wrong to diminish the role of the SSC? Or is he saying it should be retained, even though it no longer provides much of a role other than employing CEOs?

Why not propose your own preferred state sector structure, rather than just complain about the power of Treasury? Do we have too many, too few or the right number of agencies for example?

There is a need for change and adaptation in the public sector, and SSC should be  big part of that.  I have given some of my thoughts on how this could happen before. We need the Treasury to be carefully analysing all the spending done by the government, that is their job.  But we have seen before the impact when they are too dominant.  In the case of the public service there needs to be someone looking at the health of the overall system in terms of the quality of services New Zealanders receive, not just from a fiscal perspective.   This should, and could, be the SSC in my view.  But right about now they are on the margins, and in the end it is the public services that all New Zealanders use that will suffer as a result.

but Grant doesn’t say why this so called essential role, can’t be done by DPMC (who are highly regarded and respected by those who deal with them)? They are not the Prime Minister’s Office – they are a Department of State.

Anyway I will float an idea of my own, that who knows Grant may even agree with, in terms of “balancing the power” of Treasury. It is to have a Ministry of Social Policy that is so highly regarded, that the top social policy people in New Zealand want to work there, and just as Treasury comments on basically every Cabinet paper from an economic perspective, an MSP would comment on every paper from a social policy perspective.

Not so much a rival to Treasury, as a peer organisation.

This MSP, should replace the multitude of existing small agencies – specifically Pacific Island Affairs, TPK (their policy arm), MSD policy arm, Ministry of Youth Affairs, Ethnic Affairs Unit,  Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Disability Issues Unit etc etc.

I know some people like the identity of having separate ministries such as Women’s Affairs, but with no offence to the staff, they hold almost no weight with Government. The objections of MWA to a policy probably cause a Minister to pause for five seconds at most as they read that section of a Cabinet paper – and no I am not just talking about National. The small ministries and units are not well regarded.

But if you had an MSP, that attracted the very top social policy analysts in NZ, that was the place where almost all social policy graduates want to work at for at least a few years (as Treasury and MFAT is for many people), then that would carry weight with Government. The “gender equity” team of an MSP, would have far more influence withing Government that the MWA has. Because when their analysis goes out, it goes out with the authority and credibility of the entire MSP and its Chief Executive.

So my model for the public service would be:

1. Merge existing small social policy ministries and units into one top class Ministry of Social Policy, that is resourced to be able to contribute to Cabinet papers to the same degree Treasury is. Treasury’s job will be to report on the economic effects of a polcy, and MSP on the social policy effects.
2. Merge SSC into DPMC.
3. Admit National was wrong in breaking up large Departments like Justice into stand alone agencies (Courts, Corrections, Justice etc) in the 90s and continue the trend started by Labour to merge agencies in a sector together with an eventual goal of a larger number of super-ministries such as the existing MED, DIA, and a smaller number of stand alone agencies. Eventually one might have a dozen super ministries – economic, law& order, health, education, business, social policy, service delivery etc. This should reduce backend costs, but also lead to better leadership and co-ordination.
4. Reduce the number of Ministers in Cabinet so there is one per super ministry.
5. Increase the number of Ministers outside Cabinet who may have delegated responsibility for units or branches within super-ministries, but be accountable to the Minister within Cabinet for them. This is a bit like the UK system where you have two tiers of Ministers – a small Cabinet with Secretaries of State, and a larger external Ministry with Ministers of State.

I’m not wedded to the exact model above, but I would love to see a party or Government give it a serious examination, look at pros and cons, costs and savings etc.

Computerworld reports that Laurence Millar, the NZ Government Chief Information Officer, following the Walter Report into contracting between the SSC and Voco for the Government Shared Network.

The report found there was no deliberate wrongdoing or improper behaviour, but that procedures were not followed adequately and it shouldnot have been a closed tender.

I have a lot of respect for Laurence Millar, and his departure is a loss. Plus it is to his credit that he has resigned to accept responsibility for the problems. This is something that has been all too rare. Laurence has said:

The material details a number of areas where the project was not managed to the standard that New Zealanders’ would expect for a project of this size. As sponsor of the GSN I accept full accountability, and advised the Commissioner of that when I offered my resignation, which he has accepted.

“Mr Walter’s report confirms that there are no instances of any lapse of personal integrity, which is of fundamental importance to me personally and for the State Services Commission. The reports also comment on the challenges faced by the project and the commitment from individuals working on the project in responding to these challenges.

“I joined SSC from the private sector in March 2004, and have been involved in a wide range of successful initiatives, and been privileged to have worked with outstanding individuals and teams across New Zealand’s State Services.

“Along the way, I have taken some risks and made some mistakes. I have learned from these experiences and have used them to improve the way that we use ICT. I think the State Services is in better shape as a result of my contribution over the last five years.

I beleive it is. There have been many good initiatives in that time. But kudos to both Laurence, and his boss Ian Rennie, for this display of accountability for when things go wrong.

The Dom Post has a headline about how the SSC is having its budget cut 45%. Now before my friends in ACT have wet dreams about this being the start of the revolution, you need to look beyond the headline.

First of all, the IT delivery function of Government is merely being shifted from SSC to DIA. So there is not a cut of 45%, just a transfer of functions.

Also a large segment of the 45% “cut” appears to be the $28 million saved from terminating the loss making Government Shared Network. It seems almost no Govt Department wanted to use it. So no service is being cut, as Govt Depts will be getting high speed Internet access direct from ISPs – but for a much much cheaper cost.

There are some genuine “cuts” but it is impossible to know from the story how big or small they are.

The Herald reports:

The father of Karl Kuchenbecker says Corrections Minister Judith Collins is “all bark and no bite”, after she failed to remove Barry Matthews.

Paul Kuchenbecker said Mr Matthews now appeared to be “untouchable” as the department’s chief executive, despite presiding over a string of failures such as parolee Graeme Burton being left free to murder his son.

To be fair to Matthews, the story notes:

Mr Rennie noted that Mr Matthews had failed last year to get the Government to fund 61 extra staff to monitor parole.

Ms Collins said she had asked for extra funding in this year’s Budget and the Government would be responsible when considering it.

So maybe the former Minister has some responsibility? But having said that, the Auditor-General made it clear that the failings can not be attributed to lack of resource alone.

John Armstrong also comments:

The “crusher” crushed? Well, for the time being at least.

But don’t expect Judith Collins to take defeat sitting down. Though the Corrections Minister may have been comprehensively wiped in her battle to have her department’s chief executive Barry Matthews removed from his position, he would be fooling himself if he thinks he has won the war. …

She said later that she had told him exactly what she was telling the media. If so, she would have served notice on him that he would not have her confidence until he had rebuilt public confidence in the department. She would have dropped a strong hint that requires a clean-out in the department’s senior management which has been seen as an obstacle to the “culture change” she is seeking in the way the department operates.

She is not the first minister to demand that. Labour’s Damien O’Connor pleaded with Matthews to do it. Unlike O’Connor, Collins is not going to allow herself to become a victim of the department’s failings.

As I said yesterday, the improvements need to continue. If so, that is a win-win. If not, then I see more interventions by the State Services Commissioner.

Also worth highlighting a comment by former State Services Minister Trevor Mallard on this blog:

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.

Reasonable advice, but does it apply when you think the criticism is fair, and you don’t have confidence?

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.

The Dom Post reports that not only will MPs probably not be getting a pay rise this year, neither will state sector CEOs.

It is no surprise, that expectations are that overall state sector pay increases will be modest, if at all. The PSA decided to visit another galaxy by exclaiming:

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott warned if civil servants were denied pay increases, there could be an exodus from the sector.

As wages are higher in the state sector than the private sector, I somehow don’t think this exodus will be very large.

NZPA reports:

State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie has ordered an independent review of the way the commission handled multimillion dollar contracts with a private consulting firm.

The company Voco has worked on the commission’s $28 million Government Shared Network (GSN), winning contracts reportedly worth $8 million.

That is a fairly high proportion of the cost of the network having gone on consultancy fees. But that is not what caught my interest.

The newspaper also said the SSC’s ICT finance manager David Eagles tried to end the relationship with the company four times but was blocked by the SSC.

It reported Mr Eagles was now on sick leave after an alleged assault at the commission.

But a spokesman for the SSC today told NZPA Mr Eagles was no longer employed there. He refused to say whether he had been sacked, or had quit.

He said the allegations of assault had been promptly investigated.

“The investigation did not establish a basis for any disciplinary action to be taken against an SSC employee as a result of the alleged assault.”

It sounds like there is a very interesting story to be told. I look forward to the independent inquiry and most of all its report.

The Dom Post reports that police checks on candidates seeking high profile public sector jobs have become routine since the Mary-Anne Thompson affair, along with verification of qualifications.

This seems pretty sensible to me, and kudos to the State Services Commissioner for initiating it.

One aspect seems to be a bit mistaken though:

He said people currently going for senior positions in the state sector – in ministerial offices at Parliament, for example – were now being carefully looked at.

When I worked in the Beehive I needed both a Police check and a “secret” security clearance. In the PMs Office one needed “top secret” so you got vetted far more rigourously than just a Police check. However these checks did not normally take place until some months after you had started work!

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.

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.

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 Government announced yesterday that Iain Rennie has been appointed State Services Commissioner.

I regard this as an excellent appointment. Rennie is held in high regard in Wellington, and is a straight shooter. I can’t think of many people who would have a bad word to say about him. People who have worked with him also say he is very affable and approachable.

His appointment was recommended unanimously by a panel of Jim Bolger, Dame Margaret Bazley, Stan Rodger and David Parker. I think it was wise to not just have it done by the Minister. Hell, we may have ended up with Mike Williams as State Services Commissioner then