Immigration Scandal-Update 14- It gets worse
Video link if this does not work, can be found on this page
More from the twilight zone that is the New Zealand Immigration Service. Just when one might be forgiven for thinking that things could not get any worse, TVNZ reveals on the 6 pm news bullettin the following:-
Disgraced former immigration head Mary Anne Thompson gave a contract worth half a million dollars to set up a new division to a friend, ONE News has learnt.
And later on:-
The Pacific division was set up in 2005 for more than half a million dollars and three years on, that money has bought a whole lot of trouble.
“I’ve got disclosure that told me that a $500,000 contract for the establishment of the division was not publicly tendered,” says Richard Small, Immigration lawyer.
On top of it not being tendered, an investigation was launched into who ended up getting the contract.
ONE News has uncovered it is the current director of the Pacific division Mai Malaulau.
Now this is very interesting because Ms Malaulau has featured in an earlier post by Adam.
In his first post on this subject based on this article on Stuff, Adam had noted the following:-
Stuff had stated in it’s item
Malaulau was appointed to her position by one of Thompson’s inner circle, Kerupi Tavita, who was handpicked by Thompson to help her restructure the Immigration Service when she took over in late 2004. They had worked together in the prime minister’s department.
Initially working on a consultancy basis, Tavita was made “group manager service international” with responsibility for the Pacific and refugees. He is described as fiercely loyal to Thompson.
This caused Adam to raise, in his post, the following questions:-
1 Was his, Tavita’s, consultancy the subject of an independent procurement process?
2 How much was he paid for this consultancy?
3 What were the criteria for assessing tenders?
4 Who approved the tender process and reviewed the outcome?
5 Who approved the conversion of the consultancy into a permanent position?
6 Did this appointment of Tavita meet Immigration policy guidelines for such appointments?
7 Are these guidelines in accord with best public service practice?
But he got in trouble over his appointment of Malaulau to head the new Pacific division because of a conflict of interest.
Malaulau was, and still is, a director of a policy consultancy company Tavita had set up, Pacific Edge International. Tavita had stood down from the company, but his wife remained a director.
Sources have confirmed that then Labour Department chief executive James Buwalda ordered an inquiry and Tavita was reprimanded.
8 How could Malaulau be a director of a policy consultancy company, presumably supplying consultancy services to government and be the Immigration Services Pacific Director.
9 A Google search reveals the company listed in a number of places as providing:-
Public sector, policy advice, community development, strategic planning and needs analysis
Surely this is a conflict?
Malaulau is listed as one of 2 main contacts and against the company’s phone number and with a cell phone number.
10 Yet Malaulau presumably has a full time job with the Immigration Service?
11 Who pays for the cell phone?
12 Who reviewed the hiring process undertaken by Tavita that resulted in the appointment of Malalau?
13 Did Tavita initiate and undertake this hire, whilst still employed as a consultant?
14 On what basis was a consultant, if that was the case, empowered to make hiring decisions?
15 Did the hiring of Malaulau comply with Immigration and Public Service guidelines?
16 Are those guidelines if followed sufficiently robust?
17 Is the report of the inquiry ordered by Buwalda available for review?
18 Were the terms of reference for that inquiry sufficiently broad and robust?
19 Why was Tavita only reprimanded?
Now we learn from TVNZ that Malaulau:-
As well as getting paid more than half a million dollars to set it up, a year later she was given the job to run it.
According to documents obtained under the Official Information Act, the position was advertised but apparently there was a lack of applicants with the right skills and experience.
Malaulau, who had extensive public service experience, was recommended by Immigration Service’s Kerupi Tavita.
This is in line with the Stuff item referred to earlier, but then we hear:-
Both he and his boss Mary Anne Thompson had decided she was the best person to get the contract.
The problem is Tavita and his wife set up a business with Malaulau.
But then he resigned, though his wife is still in business with her.
“I believe Kerupi Tevita was reprimanded over that and ministers I am sure would have been briefed and I am sure ministers would have kept that covered up,” said Lockwood Smith, Immigration spokesperson for National.
Both Malaulau and Tavita are still at the Pacific division of the Immigration Service in senior management positions.
This situation just gets worse. The as noted in the earlier post and confirmed in the TVNZ item:-
An independent inquiry commissioned by the Department of Labour found while there was no obvious wrongdoing, there was the potential for a perceived conflict of interest and so Tavita should not have been involved.
- Who does these inquiries?
- What planet do they live in?
- Why was Tavita not more severely dealt with?
- What are the answers to the questions raised by Adam and noted above?
Then we hear the following:-
It’s expected more details of murky goings on at the Pacific Division are still to be revealed.
- Just what further issues are going to be revealed?
- As Thompson was Head of the Immigration Service how can we be sure the cancerous goings on in the Pacific Division are not rife elsewhere?
- Again as Adam has posted several times before what were Thompson’s superiors doing all this while?
- Who knew what, when did they know it and what if anything did they do about it?
Adam has this awful sinking feeling that none of this would ever have come to light and Thompson would still be in her job had TVNZ not broken this story in April.
The culture of obfuscation and deceit infests this organisation.
Again The Inquiring Mind calls for an end to these internal/insider inquiries.
This is an appalling situation that requires a robust and wide ranging judicial inquiry into all aspects of this deplorable affair, covering Immigration, Department of Labour and the State Services Commission at a minimum. To this writer it is clear that the issues and problems go far beyond the behaviour of Mary Anne Thompson.
The government must act and act now to ensure public confidence in the public service is not further eroded.
************************************
Posts on the Immigration Scandal by adamsmith1922 at The Inquiring Mind
Update 6 (essentially a note of an event – not a detailed comment)
Update 8 – similar to Number 6
Still waiting HITMAN007…
HITMAN007 I do hope you will respond.
hitman007… lets see you carry out your threat. I do live in Wellington, so what are you going to do about it? I don’t take too kindly to idiots like you. PUT UP OR SHUT UP YOU LOSER. Name the time and place
hahahahahaha!!!! you guys are all shit and if you carry on with your cry baby ways ill find you and smack da living shit outa you all.if any of you are from wellington just leave me a note and ill find you all….you fucking wimps!!! you make me sick!! hide behind your fake as plastic bullshit life’s!!!
I have known Mai for many years and she is a very experienced and highly regarded person in her field with a strong and proven track record for achievements at the highest level. Many people will try and judge from the cheap seats with their own views and prejudices; but as someone that has worked closely with her for many years. There is none better is this type of work in New Zealand.
People who have judged her; judge her with very limited and in the main inaccurate information based on just one side of the story. However if you knew the whole story you would understand why someone like me holds her in very high regard.
As evidence to what I have said, her reputation has become world wide and has seen her be head hunted to take a position in a world renowned international organization based off shore.
New Zealand’s loss is definitely their gain and we will be the poorer not because of those accusations being true because they were NOT as evidenced by SSC exonerating her but rather because she had enough of the prejudice and the unjustified claims made against her. We are such a small minded country. Good luck to you Mai may you continue to rub our faces in your success.
As the saying goes it takes two to tango and Va’asatia Poloma Komiti the CE of Samoa’s Ministry of the Prime Minister and Cabinet needs to be a man and own up as the one who has been having the unprofessional relationship with Mai and (CORRECTION) its he not Mai that his wife should be slapping and wiping the dirty smirk off his face especially given that he is over 12 years her senior and then afterwards Mai’s husband can do what any decent husband would be expected to do and that is smash him to a pulp. DIRTY OLD MAN!
I NO U 4 REAL
Ioe i moni lau susuga, ala lea i lau mau “I’m too trusting of people”. E pa’u lave ia te au le sese. Fa’amaualalo atu.
Fa’amolemole, pe mafai ona ou talanoa atu ia te oe mo se taimi pu’upu’u. O lo’u email address o lo’u igoa taulealea . ma lo’u fa’ai’u @gmail.com
Fa’afetai lava
Tofilau
Tutonu
Malo le soifua maua. Please remember before you judge there are always two sides to a story. It is clear that you have a particularly strong point of view which you are entitled to but as a fellow Samoan I don’t want to degrade you nor myself by publicly putting you down by outlining all the facutal errors in your account. Therefore I invite you to ring Faalogo mai le tatou Division ma fesili mo lo’u numera ona ou fa’amatala atu ai lea le tala moni ina ia manino le mata o le vai.
I le ava ma le fa’aaloalo tele
Tofilau
1 Was his, Tavita’s, consultancy the subject of an independent procurement process?
Kerupi Tavita was firstly employed in the Department of Labour on a fixed term contract as an employee and not as a consultant. Mr Tavita resigned and gave up all interests with Pacificedge International when he worked at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as required under it’s HR policy over 3 years before he joined the Department of Labour. This can be verified through the Companies Office information file on Pacificedge. But you already knew that given question 7b where you knew that I had stepped down from Pacificedge.
Also if I may add, contray to media reports Mr Tavita did not form Pacificedge International. Liz Tanielu and Mai Malaulau were the founders of the company becuase at that time Mr Tavita was working at the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs as its Chief Policy Advisor.
2 How much was he paid for this consultancy?
Mr Tavita was not paid nor employed as a consultant for the Department of Labour but as an employee which can be evidenced by his Fixed Term Contract that the Department has copies of. As for how muchwas he paid I’m sure he will be happy to tell you after you tell everyone else your full name, where you work and how much you make.
3 What were the criteria for assessing tenders?
No tender process was required because Mr Tavita was employed as an employee of the Deaprtment of Labour through normal employment processes.
4 Who approved the tender process and reviewed the outcome?
Please refer to the answer for questions 2 and 3.
5 Who approved the conversion of the consultancy into a permanent position?
Again please refer to the answers for question 2 and 3.
6 Did this appointment of Tavita meet Immigration policy guidelines for such appointments?
Yes with regards to the postion of Director of Change Management and yes for the Group Manager for Workforce Service International.
For the latter Mr Tavita went through a formal appointment process that involved a panel of 4 which Mary Anne was required to step down due to a declared conflict of interest as his former boss at the Prime Minister’s Department.
7 Are these guidelines in accord with best public service practice?
Yes because the appointment guidelines for the Department reflects the guidelines from the State Services Commission.
A. But he got in trouble over his appointment of Malaulau to head the new Pacific division because of a conflict of interest.
Correction Mr Tavita as identified by the Chemist Investigation Report as having not appointed Ms Malaulau because of a declared conflict of interest that he himself identified. As the Chemist report will verify it was Mary Anne Thompson as Deputy Secretary that appointed Ms Malaulau based on advice from the Department’s Human Resource Group.
B. Malaulau was, and still is, a director of a policy consultancy company Tavita had set up, Pacific Edge International. Tavita had stood down from the company, but his wife remained a director.
Yes, Ms Malaulau is still a Director of Pacificedge but when she took the DoL contract the company agreed for her to take unpaid leave as evidenced by company legal documents until she finished the contract. Ms Tanielu continued as Director of the company that she founded. Ms Tanielu is an experienced and highly regarded professional consultant in her own right having worked in this sector for well over 12 years.
Again I must say that Mr Tavita did not set up Pacificedge becuase when Pacificedge was set up by Ms Tanielu and Ms Malaulau. Mr Tavita was working at the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs.
Sources have confirmed that then Labour Department chief executive James Buwalda ordered an inquiry and Tavita was reprimanded.
You need to change your sources; yes Dr Buwalda did order an inquiry called the Chemist report and no Mr Tavita was never reprimanded as Mr Tavita’s personal file will reveal.
8 How could Malaulau be a director of a policy consultancy company, presumably supplying consultancy services to government and be the Immigration Services Pacific Director.
Ms Malaulau was on leave without pay from Pacificedge and all monies for her services went to her as an individual but no money was paid to the company as the company accountant would attest. Secondly it is not
unusual for Government agencies to contract an individual to cover senior positions. But for the record Ms Malaulau was emplyed as the Establishment Director and not as the Director.
9 A Google search reveals the company listed in a number of places as providing:-
Public sector, policy advice, community development, strategic planning and needs analysis
Surely this is a conflict?
Not at all. There are a number of established companies that do the same work e.g. Pricewaterhouse and Coopers, Ernest and Young, Niu Pacific, Martin and Jenkins and Pacificedge International.
Malaulau is listed as one of 2 main contacts and against the company’s phone number and with a cell phone number.
10 Yet Malaulau presumably has a full time job with the Immigration Service?
Please refer to the answers to question 7b. Ms Malaulau was still listed within the company but it was clear that she was on leave without pay. Which meant that she had no involvement with the comapany at all and her full time job was with the New Zealand Immigration Service.
11 Who pays for the cell phone?
Ms Malaulau had surrendered her company cell phone to the company and was issued a Department of Labour cell phone.
12 Who reviewed the hiring process undertaken by Tavita that resulted in the appointment of Malalau?
Again as evidenced in Ms Malaulau’s contract, Mr Tavita did not appoint Ms Malaulau but she was employed by Mary Anne Thompson as the Deputy Secretary and the procedual processes was the reponsibility of the Deaprtment’s Human Resouce Group to check.
13 Did Tavita initiate and undertake this hire, whilst still employed as a consultant?
Mr Tavita was never hired by DoL as a consultant he was employed as a DoL employee on a fixed term contract.
14 On what basis was a consultant, if that was the case, empowered to make hiring decisions?
That was not the case.
15 Did the hiring of Malaulau comply with Immigration and Public Service guidelines?
Well the hiring process was lead by the Human Resource Group for DoL I would expect that that was so.
16 Are those guidelines if followed sufficiently robust?
The process was signed off by the former Chief Executive.
17 Is the report of the inquiry ordered by Buwalda available for review?
Yes
18 Were the terms of reference for that inquiry sufficiently broad and robust?
The TOR was managed by the Chief Legal Advisor and signed off by the former Chief Executive.
19 Why was Tavita only reprimanded?
Mr Tavita was not reprimanaded.
Thats only half the truth. Kerupi is a generous and kind man, his fault lies in trusting people. Mai, on the other hand, is a cruel and malicious woman, whose time will come. Perhaps at the hands of the wife of the man she is conducting unprofessional liaisons with. She needs that smirk wiped off her face.
You people are so far up yourselves its hard to see the light of day isn’t it? You haven’t a tiny wee minute insty wintsy pintsy speck of a clue as to what is going on and here you are drawing the typical “blind idiot let by another effing blind idiot” self righteous up your you know what opinion on people you know absolutely nothing about. Get over it and get over yourselves! Why not wait till BOTH sides of this unfortunate media beat up and election year scapegoating saga as you call it, is heard……And you wonder why Mai & Kerupi are still employed?
As for you Tutonu, all I can say to you mate is this…”a le iloa se mea, kapugi lou akoako aua e iloa ai e isi tagata e te le iloa se pa’upa’u”. Speak for yourself, don’t generalise because not all Samoans hold your pathetic opinion.
It’s not just Mai Malaulau. Kerupi Tavita circle of friends all came from MPIA and Api Fiso from the Police Department were all hand picked by Kerupi to work in the Pacific division. Where is the work ethics and state services commission policy on hiring staff? Out the door! Kerupi just wants the world to know that he was handpicked to the position of Labour international or whatever it is.
This whole saga stinks and Kerupi should have delat with severely.
Another question for Adam, Why was a person who had never worked for Immigration before the Pacific division appointed to be Manager of the NZ Immigration office in Samoa?
Mr. Ati Ilaoa was picked over a lot of people who have worked for immigration for years. So why was he appointed with no experience? The answer is simple, he is a mate of Kerupi the most unprofessional employee in the NZ market.
The last question is – so Why are both Kerupi and Mai still working for the Labour and Pacific Division?
The other issue to consider is during the Samoa quota in 2005, the Pacific division staff travelled backwards and forwards between NZ and Samoa which did not happen before the Pacific division.
When they introduced recruitment drive for NZ companies through the quota in Samoa 2005, the Pacific division rang every person in Samoa who put their name down for consultation, from their office in NZ just to tell them the venue, date and time fo the meetings. What happened to contacting the NZ immigration office in Samoa to advertise by radio or telephoning becuase its cheaper than calling from NZ?
The mighty Mai Malaulau so I heard marched into the office of the NZ Immigration in Apia and decided that she did not like the head of the office then. She came back here and ordered a Mate of hers and Kerupis to pack his bag and go to manage the office in Samoa for 12 months!! The poor man struggled as he did not have any management skills and let alone immigration experience.
So, again, why are Kerupi Tavita and Mai Malaulau still being employed by the Labour Department when they turned work ethics upside down and do whatever they wanted to do? Who do they think they are to fool the NZ people? They should be ordered to go back to where they come from. They not only riped off the government of NZ but they are so blinded by the sweetness of the power handed to them on a silver plate. Go Home you bloody day light robbers!! You Kerupi and Mai Malaulau are a disgrace to the Samoan people!!
Do the words “not in the public interest” ring any bells? hmm?
Complete unanswerable case of bribery and corruption. I can’t fathom why Police won’t have a bar of it?