4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
When will the State Services Commissioner complete his investigation into concerns about the handling by the Department of Labour of matters relating to family members of the former head of the Immigration Service?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
The State Services Commissioner advises that his investigation is making good progress but he is not yet in a position to provide a date for the completion of the investigation.
When did the Minister of State Services become aware of allegations of inappropriate behaviour relating to the head of the Immigration Service?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am not sure I can answer that question. I am not quite sure what the member is referring to. If it is the matter in relation to family members, then I have no information on that matter. If it is in relation to the more recent accusations, that would be within the last couple of days or so.
Why cannot the Minister give a straight answer to the very important question of when the Minister of State Services first found out about allegations relating to Mary Anne Thompson and the advantage that may or may not have been given to her family; and why is his memory so unreliable when there are public statements from Clayton Cosgrove, David Cunliffe, and the Prime Minister on this matter?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
One of my colleagues has helped me by advising that probably the Minister found out when he became the Minister in November last year, and when he was presumably briefed on matters concerning the State services.
Why did the Minister of State Services not then launch an immediate investigation into the allegations and how they were dealt with, rather than waiting for Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to uncover the wrongdoing and for the Prime Minister to indicate that an inquiry should be undertaken, in an obvious effort to avoid further embarrassment around the Public Service in New Zealand?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I will try to run through the chronology again. Some matters were raised, as I understand it, which led to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour commissioning an inquiry. That was appropriate, because the chief executive was the person responsible for employment matters in relation to Mary Anne Thompson. That investigation was carried out, and reported to the chief executive. The report was his property. He took the action he deemed appropriate. In the light of subsequent information coming to light—the other information coming to light—there was obviously significant further concern. Eventually the State Services Commission decided to investigate the investigation itself—that is, whether the chief executive had carried out his functions properly. It is not a matter for the Minister; it is a matter for the State Services Commissioner, because the commissioner is the responsible person for the employment of chief executives.
Can the Minister confirm that the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, Dr Buwalda, became aware of these allegations sometime towards the end of 2006 or in 2005; that he subsequently required Mr Oughton to undertake an inquiry; that, first, Mr Oughton reported on an interim inquiry to the Minister in May 2007 and, second, he gave a final report in July 2007; that the Minister decided to sit on that report until it was handed over to the new Minister in December 2007 and the new Minister also decided to sit on that report; and that it was not until investigative journalism by Television New Zealand uncovered the full extent of the potential for corruption that the Prime Minister finally decided to give up the cover-up and undertake a further investigation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think there are roughly about two yeses at the start and the rest of the answers are noes, because the member made one significant change during the course of his question. The chief executive ordered the inquiry. The inquiry was carried out by Mr Oughton. Mr Oughton reported to the chief executive, not to the Minister. The Minister did not receive the report.
Is the Minister asking the House to accept that very serious allegations about the head of the Immigration Service were investigated by Mr Oughton at the behest of the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, that at no point did the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour tell the Minister of Immigration, the Minister responsible for the Department of Labour, the State Services Commissioner, or the Minister of State Services, and that when the Minister finally got the report in July he saw no particular reason to be surprised or concerned or to ask a few more questions?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The then Minister of Immigration did not receive that report. I find it extraordinary that a party that for the last 2 years has been chasing any number of stories, partially true or completely untrue, about ministerial interference in the employment of staff should suddenly turn round and say that the Minister of Immigration should have had his fingers all over an issue relating to the employment of staff within the Department of Labour.
Can the Minister not see the position that we are trying to get to here and, perhaps, the double standard that his Government operates under: we have serious allegations of corruption against a senior public servant, and Ministers want to dismiss that as being an operational matter and nothing to do with them, but just last year a person working in a ministry had Ministers meddling all over the top of it, not because she had done anything wrong but simply because she knew a person the Government did not like?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Well, I think that the double standard was actually brought right into that question, if I understood the question correctly. The member needs to understand that this was entirely a matter for the chief executive. It was not a matter for the Minister—not a matter for the Minister—who did not receive the report. If one does not receive a report, then it is very hard to cover it up.
Can the Minister of State Services explain why the Prime Minister said that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove had received the report, that that report was handed to him by the Hon David Cunliffe, and that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, like the Hon David Cunliffe, was keeping his colleagues informed, or was the Prime Minister simply desperately saying anything she could say to avoid the allegations of a cover-up?
Hon Dr Nick SmithHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
One has to make special allowances for that member. There is no report handed by the previous Minister of Immigration to the incoming Minister of Immigration. When new facts became available, the State Services Commission launched an inquiry into whether the former chief executive had carried out his investigation properly. The chief executive, in Mr Cosgrove’s understanding, tried to see whether, in fact, he could reopen the original investigation and was advised by Crown Law that he could not do so because of employment law matters.
Does the Minister think it is appropriate that all that now appears to be on the record as Government action in this case is the ordering of an investigation into an investigation, and no particular investigation into the validity of the allegations that are being made and as to whether there is widespread corruption inside the Immigration Service?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
We have moved from one set of allegations about actions by Ms Thompson to, I assume, another set of allegations about Ms Thompson, and to a much wider set of allegations about the entire department. At this point, of course, like all conspiracies, it is feeding off itself. However, I am sure the member is aware—he ought to be—that in fact the current chief executive has ordered a full review of the operation of the Pacific branch of the Immigration Service.