KEY POINTS:
To raise an eyebrow is not always to demand a conviction. Many will have raised an eyebrow at the news that a suspended prison manager is in France with a parliamentary rugby team jointly led by the Minister of Corrections, Damien O'Connor. But how bad is this really?
Wellington's Rimutaka Prison has been an embarrassment to the Department of Corrections lately. Eleven officers have been stood down, four are under suspicion of corruption and two of breaching the prison code of conduct. Questions have been raised about prisoners being allowed conjugal visits while in hospital and about a prisoner's sperm smuggled out to artificially inseminate his partner.
The department has not explained why prison manager Jim Morgan has been suspended but reportedly it involves employment issues rather than allegations of anything criminal. As for any state servant, Mr Morgan's employer is the department, not the minister - who obviously knows him very well. They have both been in the rugby team for several years and Mr Morgan's wife is Mr O'Connor's senior private secretary.
It was probably for that reason that Mr O'Connor passed responsibility for the investigation of Mr Morgan to his associate minister, Clayton Cosgrove. The department has twice briefed Mr Cosgrove on its progress.
Knowing this, what should Mr O'Connor have done about the rugby trip? Should he have barred Mr Morgan from going? Could he have done so? The parliamentary rugby team is in no sense official. It is a collection of MPs, happily crossing party lines, and others in their orbit who enjoy playing rugby together. They raise some sponsorship and otherwise meet their own expenses.
Mr Morgan is a long-standing team member. He was keen to go on the French trip, just before the Rugby World Cup. Mr O'Connor's dilemma can be imagined. He must have known it would raise eyebrows if word got out, which it was bound to do. But was that reason enough to have blackballed Mr Morgan?
Sadly, it does seem to be enough these days. Prime Minister Helen Clark calls it "inappropriate", the Opposition leader calls it "dumb". Mr O'Connor is tipped to lose his job in an imminent Cabinet reshuffle. Possibly, given all the problems in the Corrections portfolio of late, he should lose it, but not for this.
Mr O'Connor and Mr Morgan were playing rugby, not misusing their positions, not conspiring to defeat an investigation. Having "recused" himself from overseeing the department's dealings with Mr Morgan, Mr O'Connor believed the two of them could reasonably go on the rugby trip.
Perhaps he was naive; in today's politics any action that raises a question of impropriety is a sackable offence. This certainly raises a question, which is the issue in the news, but the answer is not clear cut. If the worst that can be said of Mr O'Connor is that he has created an embarrassment or a "perceived" problem, it is not enough.
Worse, it is a recipe for injustice. In any walk of life, circumstances sometimes present difficult choices. Politics should be governed by the same principles we would apply anywhere. A man in difficulty with his employer would not necessarily be barred from any social activities with the employer's associates. Unless his behaviour had been particularly objectionable, colleagues would let him stay in the team.
We do not yet know the reason Mr Morgan has been suspended. We can assume Mr O'Connor knows and he went on the rugby trip. Until Mr O'Connor's critics know more they are in no position to demand his dismissal. It may be a case of harmless mateship.
