Power Simon: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Power Simon: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Ombudsmen’s Report 
[Volume:639;Page:9821] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. The Department of Corrections is the department that has in recent months brought to the New Zealand public massive budget blowouts in the building of four new prisons corruption and contraband stories that have spread throughout the media for the last 12 or 15 months and responsibility for large portions of the Graeme Burton debacle and crisis. It was also responsible for reports being written and for follow-up action in the Liam Ashley tragedy about which the Ombudsmen have produced one of the most scathing and direct reports this House has seen in some time. 
We found out today during question time the most interesting thing about the way the Minister has interpreted this report. Despite the Ombudsmen making it very clear that they were very disturbed to discover that their expectations—which they had been led to believe by the Department of Corrections were being met in respect of transport safety—had not been met. The Minister of Corrections as if he was not deep enough in trouble stood in this House during question time today and said that was the Ombudsmen’s fault for misunderstanding what the department had said. Well I know whom I would believe. I know whom the New Zealand public believe when it comes to pitting the word of the Ombudsmen—who were blatantly disappointed at having been misled by the Department of Corrections over its progress on prisoner transport—against the word of the Department of Corrections which has had the worst 18 months of any Government department or ministry. 
The Minister having said in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 that he would implement every single one of the recommendations made by the Ombudsmen in this report stood in this House today and immediately began the process we have seen surrounding the Department of Corrections for the last 18 months. The equivocation began within 10 hours of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 publishing the Minister’s statement that all those recommendations would be implemented. All of a sudden it became a matter of negotiating the implementation of those recommendations as they unfolded. 
This Minister and department over the last 14 or 15 months have adopted three strategies in running that department: deny deny deny. It is always somebody else’s fault and when the Ombudsmen Officers of Parliament table a report that is scathing of the department’s handling of prisoner transport with virtually every page describing the department’s response to these matters as unsatisfactory and with the words “disappointed” or “disturbed” appearing more than once the Minister has the gall to stand in question time and say the Ombudsmen misunderstood the department. 
The public of New Zealand will not buy that for one second and the Minister knows that. The Minister knows that because on the radio this morning when asked whether Barry Matthews would stay in his job the Minister said “He stays for the moment.” When the interviewer pressed Mr O’Connor on that issue and said “For the moment?” Mr O’Connor responded “Absolutely.” So when asked about this matter this morning at the Law and Order Committee during the estimates hearing Mr O’Connor confirmed that the chief executive of the department would stay for the moment. That is hardly a vote of confidence. This is the same man whom the Prime Minister has described as an outstanding or exceptional civil servant. Well I say to the Minister it is a slippery slippery slope. 
The Minister also found himself quoted on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning as saying all senior managers were on notice. When asked in the select committee this morning what that would mean if there was a bungle of similar proportions to this one further down the track he said “Oh we’ll have to see how we get on with that particular issue.” 
Let us not forget that the role of the Ombudsmen is separated from the politics of the day—and thank goodness it is because so many reports into this department have not been up to scratch have covered up some of the more serious issues in the department and have skated over serious matters that have been raised. But the Ombudsmen in a fearless and an independent way have put a report on the Table that is so scathing of the department that the Ombudsmen felt a qualifying statement had to be put at the end of the report saying they hoped it did not look like “criticism for criticism’s sake.” because so much is wrong in the way the department handles problems as they arise. 
On page 35 of the report we see one of the most startling admissions by the Ombudsmen that I have certainly seen in my short time in this Parliament. The Ombudsmen tell the public of New Zealand they were deceived. The Ombudsmen were deceived by the department. Let us spend some time on this matter. The Chief Ombudsman writes in his 2004 annual report “we are pleased to report that the Department has developed and formalised minimum standards including ventilation and temperature control for all escort vehicles.” That is what he was told and that is what the Ombudsmen have recorded in this report. They go on to state: “We have been most disturbed to discover that our expectations were not met and have still not been met.” A more serious indictment of the knowledge and information that a department has passed to the Office of the Ombudsmen would be difficult to come up with in a dream quite frankly. 
The Minister instead of saying he backs the independence that Parliament puts behind the Ombudsmen and will deal to the official who told them that deceitful statement rose in the House in question time today and said the Ombudsmen had misunderstood the department and it was not the department’s fault that the Ombudsmen got it wrong. Well I say to Mr O’Connor that I am sorry but the public of New Zealand believe the Ombudsmen not the department and not that Minister. We will take the Ombudsmen’s word over that of the Minister and his department any day. Let us not forget how serious the matter is when the Ombudsmen feel compelled to spell that out in such bald terms. For the Minister to come to this House and tell the Parliament and the people of New Zealand that the Ombudsmen got it wrong is not even worth the paper it is written on. 
More disturbingly the report goes on on page 92 to talk about the way head office communicates with front-line staff. This is a major issue that I know Ron Mark has felt pretty strongly about over the years. You see what the Ombudsmen find is: “Throughout the investigation we were saddened to find a theme of lack of communication between National Office and front-line staff which has resulted in numerous different practices developing at the front line.” The problem with that is the report goes on to state “We find an echo of our remarks in the 2005 Report”. In other words 18 months ago the same issue was raised with the department and its officials. The reports say that 18 months ago the relationship between head office and front-line prison officers was dysfunctional and what has changed? Nothing. Nothing has changed. Every time this Minister gets on his feet and says there will be a review and that everything will change now that he has been made aware of the problem. How can the public of New Zealand trust this Minister to follow through on those undertakings when he has not done it in respect of the relationship and communication between head office and front-line staff and the Ombudsmen feel compelled to point that out? 
What is more even if the Ombudsmen or the New Zealand public did believe Damien O’Connor and the department were capable of changing the culture we cannot trust them to tell the Ombudsmen the truth about what has changed in the guidelines or in the way that the department does its business. As the Ombudsmen stated in this report they were misled. So this Government’s ability to deliver on promised change is nil—it is absolutely nil. 
The report goes on to ask a series of very very serious questions. But before we talk about those it is worth just noting that in relation to the communication between head office and the people on the front line the chief executive officer of the department during the time the Ombudsmen were investigating this matter decided to write a letter to the Ombudsmen stating that in his view “I do not agree that lack of communications between National Office and front-line staff is the reason why we have not developed national standards in the prisoner transportation area.” Deny deny deny! Every time a problem is put in front of this department it says there is no problem. And how did the Ombudsmen respond? This is interesting. The Ombudsmen say “We note the response of the Department but consider our remarks fair and appropriate.” In other words the Ombudsmen do not believe the department. 
The fact is that that problem remains and the Minister’s assertions or the fact that he is prepared to go into print and say that is not the case hold no weight with the Ombudsmen who investigated this department. That is a crisis of confidence not only in the chief executive of the department but also in a Minister who has been driven to the position where he defends his department day after day rather than giving it political direction and political leadership. He is incapable of getting above the day-to-day bungling of the department and wresting political control back from the senior management which is driving the department into the ground. The confidence of the New Zealand public in this department as we know from polls is at an all-time low. 
More concerns though from the Ombudsmen involved things such as no specific duty on custodial staff to take any notice of judges’ statements that relate to the status of prisoners—whether they are at risk and whether they need extra attention. The thing I found curious about the Ombudsmen’s report was that they felt compelled on page 22 to point out that the time taken by the department to answer questions put by them led to this very report being delayed. Now that is nothing to be proud of at all. How can we have any confidence that the department is capable of managing an increasing prison population? How can we have any confidence the department is capable of implementing the Government’s flagship Effective Interventions scheme when the Ombudsmen do not trust its word when the Ombudsmen have been deceived when the department disregards comments from the chief executive trying to put at ease the Ombudsmen’s minds over national office and front-line communication lines? 
We have here a department that is totally dysfunctional and independent Officers of Parliament tabled a report in this House yesterday that confirms that fact.