KEY POINTS:
Revelations regarding the Immigration Service are rightly a cause of considerable public concern.
As a recent appointee to the chief executive role in the Department of Labour, I am determined to make whatever changes are necessary to restore public confidence in the service.
This week the Auditor-General has
been asked to conduct a full inquiry into the integrity of decision-making processes in the Immigration Service, with a particular focus on the Pacific division. I welcome this inquiry, as it provides an opportunity to conclusively deal with the allegations around this.
At this stage, I think it's helpful for the public to understand what the department has done about these matters to date and why, as well as what the department intends to do in future.
The following is not meant to excuse in any way the improper behaviour of individual staff members. I find this conduct completely unacceptable, and I expect to be judged on the efficacy of any changes I make to root it out.
Having said that, I know that the overwhelming majority of Immigration Service staff are doing a competent, professional job. They, like me, are appalled at what has taken place and are as determined as I am to sort these matters out.
I first began to learn of issues around the Pacific division and the Deputy Secretary Workforce, Mary Anne Thompson, soon after I started in October last year, although the full extent and complexity of them were not clear to me until early in the new year.
In February, I decided that a full review of the Pacific division was necessary to identify what was contributing to these problems and constraining the division's performance. After further preparatory work, I advised staff of this review in mid-April.
Last week, I appointed an external reviewer to complete the first, full scoping stage. When that is completed, we will appoint the review team, under the supervision of a panel that will include outside appointees.
While this was happening, I was also dealing with matters to do with Mary Anne Thompson, who has now resigned. The circumstances of this have been well rehearsed publicly and I won't repeat them in detail here, but there are a few points I want to make.
First, these matters were only ever brought to light because concerned staff and an internal audit raised them within the department. It was this that led directly to the report last year by former Secretary of Justice David Oughton.
The department was aware of the issues and did deal with them at the time - subsequent media coverage has brought these matters to public attention.
Second, there was no basis for me to reopen this investigation. I looked into this possibility carefully and took legal advice which confirmed there were no grounds for doing so. This would have been akin to trying someone twice for the same offence.
Third, it has been suggested that the department has in some way "covered up" these matters. I reject that completely. The department has responded to every formal request for information on these issues as required under the Official Information Act.
But we have not released the names of individuals included in reports, nor any information that might identify them. To do so would break the Privacy Act and justifiably expose us to legal action.
No responsible employer would behave in this way, especially not one with statutory responsibility for employment law issues, as this department has. There has also been publicity about conflict of interest allegations involving two other Immigration Service managers, Kerupi Tavita and Mai Malaulau. Again, the department was aware of these concerns back in 2005 and commissioned an external inquiry to look into them.
The inquiry, by Buddle Findlay, found no wrongdoing, although it did say that Mr Tavita should have played no role, or a lesser role, in contract negotiations between the department and Ms Malaulau. Contrary to media reporting, Mr Tavita was not reprimanded over this matter.
Finally, there has been publicity about 19 cases of bribery, fraud and serious misconduct involving Pacific division staff. I repeat that I do not excuse that behaviour at all - it concerns me greatly, and I am determined to do what I can to prevent any recurrence of it.
But the public should understand that these matters are all historic and have all been dealt with. The evidence shows that our performance in this area is already improving.
Ten of the cases occurred in 2004-05, and the number of substantiated misconduct claims has halved in each of the ensuing years. Three cases have gone to the police - the one New Zealand case has resulted in a conviction, while the other two involved overseas-based immigration staff and have been referred to local police.
Some media have lined up these 19 historic cases alongside the current divisional staff total of around 60 to draw the absurd conclusion that around one-third of staff are guilty of misconduct.
A much higher number of staff have passed through the division since its establishment and, in any event, some of the individual staff involved were implicated in multiple cases.
There has been much debate about appropriate roles, responsibilities and accountabilities in these matters. Let me make it clear that in all these operational issues, responsibility rests solely with me as the chief executive.
This department performs a vital service for New Zealand, and I am determined to make sure we do that job to the best of our ability. The review I have commissioned will be externally driven and far-reaching, and I am prepared to go wherever it leads us in order to fix the problems we face.
* Christopher Blake is chief executive of the Department of Labour.
