Immigration Scandal-Update Number 13

John Armstrong in the NZ Herald this morning begins to ask some of the right questions in respect of the Immigration Scandal. It is about time that some of these were asked.

Armstrong begins as follows:-

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.

Naturally people are dubious because the consistent pattern of this administration has been to obfuscate in situations such as this. In particular this department and the Immigration Service. Remember ‘Lying in Unison’, so why would anyone believe Cullen now?

Then Armstrong goes on:-

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 one of the most concerning features of the whole affair.

This needs to be considered in the context of this extract from Adam’s update number 4 on this issue:-

It has led Adam to conclude that there are further questions which he hopes the inquiry underway will address.

Some of these questions are amplifications of issues Adam has discussed in prior posts.

Some are new.

In March 2006, Immigration Service head Mary Anne Thompson went public about an investigation into 92 cases of staff misconduct.

“The department does not tolerate wrongdoing and all our employees know that. We take allegations very seriously and investigate them all,” she said.

The problems, she said, included theft, undeclared criminal convictions and inappropriate processing of family member applications.

So previously, the head of the Immigration Service had been telling the public about the strict standards of probity in force within the department and what from her remarks could be construed by the public as a zero tolerance approach.

Note also the last offence that she drew attention to.

What Ms Thompson did not say was that in that same month residency applications which she had helped fill out for her relatives were approved, despite being lodged too late for the Kiribati quotas, and not meeting policies.

So at a time when she was patting the department on the back for it’s rigourous approach, and by implication herself she was herself at best non-compliant and at worst guilty of offences she was disciplining others over.

Ms Thompson also did not say she herself had been warned about conflicts of interest by her chief executive after she sought help in 2004 and 2005 for visa waivers to get family members from Kiribati into New Zealand.

The hypocrisy was compounded by the warning over conflicts of interest noted above.

The Inquiring Mind is very interested in why Ms Thompson only received a warning. Why was not more severe action taken? Especially as it is implied in the article that she did this at least twice.

The approach taken to Ms Thompson’s actions is astounding. It raises major questions as explored in several of Adam’s other posts as to the culture and mores of the senior management in the Department of Labour.

As Armstrong notes:-

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.

And then:-

What ministers knew about Thompson has been the politically-tasty icing on the cake for an Opposition spoiled for choice.

All week National has taunted Labour as being party to a “cover-up” to reinforce its wider message that Helen Clark and company cannot be trusted.

Given the past record of this government, for example the Setchell affair, why would this not be the message. Adam for one believes that the administration has behaved shoddily in respect of this matter.

The bonus for National is that two of Labour’s newer and more effective ministers are at risk of being tainted by having held the immigration portfolio – Clayton Cosgrove currently and David Cunliffe before him.

Both were briefed by Labour Department officials on Thompson’s actions – Cunliffe in April last year and Cosgrove last December after he became minister.

Armstrong then notes:-

As the incumbent, however, Cosgrove has to front. He has quoted section 33 of the State Services Act ad nauseam as a reason he did not intervene. That section requires that chief executives of Government departments must act independently of ministers when it comes to disciplining or sacking staff. Cosgrove’s line is that he could not interfere in employment matters and Thompson’s actions were an employment matter. End of story.

However, Armstrong points out:-

But it is not that simple. State Service Commission papers offering guidance to chief executives stress it is appropriate for them to consult their ministers on “personnel matters of significance” or about staffing matters “likely to become an issue of public concern”.

Such briefings have to be initiated by the chief executive and avoid any suggestion that he or she has not acted independently.

Presumably, Cunliffe and Cosgrove were consulted on that basis. How much were they told? And was it enough to ring alarm bells and call in the State Services Commission as the body with the responsibility to sort things out? Cosgrove says by the time he was briefed by the Labour Department’s new chief executive, Christopher Blake, the commission was already involved. It is not clear when it did get involved, however.

Part of the problem is that the SSC is not exactly renowned as being an exacting examiner of the facts.

Cosgrove also says he was never shown a copy of the report by David Oughton, the former Secretary of Justice, who undertook the inquiry into Thompson’s lapse of judgment.

Had he seen it, Cosgrove might not have been so willing to stay mum. The report raises more questions than it answers, not least in clearing Thompson with little explanation as to why Oughton took that view.

Regardless of what Thompson did or did not do, Oughton’s concerns about the handling of residency applications from the Pacific Islands by the Immigration Service’s Manukau office cried out for further investigation. That is happening now. But belatedly.

Precisely, the Oughton report appears to have been somewhat strange in it’s conclusions. What is even stranger is the lack of action taken on what findings it did make? Why did the CEO of Labour not ensure action was taken? As Adam has previously noted this affair raises many questions as to what the management of the Department of Labour was doing, or not doing.

Then Armstrong says:-

Public interest considerations clearly overrode Thompson’s rights to privacy. The flurry of investigations and reviews now under way following public exposure of the case are a pretty good indication that the public interest was being ignored and the whole affair was handled badly.

But as noted by Colin Espiner very strongly, earlier in the week

That the whole thing was then swept under the carpet was a disgrace, and a sham for which the government must take some responsibility. Hiding behind ”privacy” arguments and the provisions of State Sector Act which forbid ministers interfering in employment matters is pretty farcical. It’s never stopped them before, either.

At the very least the government could have demanded that the inquiry into Thompson’s actions be made public, or threaten to make it public themselves if the Labour Department refused to. Instead it has sat by and watched as the department fought tooth and nail to avoid the Official Information Act requests made by media trying to get to the bottom of the story.

Even yesterday, Cunliffe was trying to wriggle out of admitting to reporters just how long he had known about the cloud over Thompson’s employment. He was then undone in Parliament by Acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen, who admitted the Cunliffe had known since April last year.

The current minister, Clayton Cosgrove, meanwhile claims he only found out about it in December when he was briefed by officials. It’s amazing that his close friend and colleague David Cunliffe had never mentioned it.

This wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t involve a department with a history of obfuscation bordering on outright dishonesty. Immigration has a record of blocking media requests for information. In 2003 its then communications manager Ian Smith made his infamous “lie in unison” comment.

and echoed by Armstrong here:-

The Labour Department, however, took a “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” attitude to the public, rather than come clean and ‘fess up to the embarrassment and place it firmly in the public domain.

If it is the State Services Commission’s job to engender public confidence in the public service, how can that happen if things that are embarrassing to a department, an employee or a minister are kept secret?

Of course, the public may have never known. But that is not a satisfactory defence. And, anyway, the Labour Department was unlikely to get away with hiding what had happened forever.

The attitude adopted though is in itself a massive indictment of the culture present in the Labour Department and perhaps also at the SSC and more widely within the public service.

This is why Adam renews his call for an independent and very wide ranging judicial inquiry.

Armstrong goes on:-

Thompson – said to be imperious and inflexible – made too many enemies. Sooner or later, inside knowledge of the Oughton investigation was going to leak out – just as Thompson has been rumbled over her non-existent PhD from the prestigious London School of Economics. The only surprise is that in both cases it took so long to happen.

So, if she had been more liked she would still be there? Another indictment of the culture within the public sector.

If she was imperious and inflexible why was she promoted so often?

Why was she seen as so competent?

Those characteristics do not seem ones expected in a high flyer in the type of roles she performed.

Armstrong then sticks it to the Labour Department and the SSC here, and rightly so:-

When the story did leak out, the Labour Department continued to fight a rearguard action by blocking the release of the Oughton report. When that failed, the department released it without forewarning on the Thursday evening prior to the long Anzac Day weekend in a blatant attempt to minimise news coverage.

Such cynical, butt-covering behaviour demonstrates a contempt for the public’s right to know.

Adam’s emphasis, and then:-

That action alone should have brought the State Service Commission down on the department like a ton of bricks. However, as long as the commission continues to function in namby-pamby fashion, the culture of secrecy and obstruction will persist in parts of the state sector.

Well said Mr Armstrong. The SSC should be providing leadership and not performing investigations which have all the efficacy of a slap with a wet bus ticket.

Indeed, given the revelation yesterday that the SSC had doubts about Thompson’s qualifications some 4 years ago, Adam believes that their lack of action then means the SSC as an investigating body is now hopelessly compromised.

Armstrong concludes:-

The commission’s forthcoming report on the Labour Department’s handling of the Thompson case will therefore be a litmus test of whether the new State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, is a new broom or just the same old flannel.

One must ask is Iain Rennie, the Hercules who is required to cleanse the Augean Stables of the Department of Labour and the Immigration Service.

Clearly there is a massive task to be undertaken and undertaken it must be.

*******************************

Other posts by Adam on this matter

Immigration Scandal

Update 1

Update 2

Update 3

Update 4

Update 5

Update 6 (essentially a note of an event – not a detailed comment)

Update 7

Update 8 – similar to Number 6

Update 9

Update 10

Update 11

Update 12

UPDATE 14

Update 15 – New Questions

Update 16 – New Inquiry Announced

Update 17 – Another Herald editorial