3. Auditor-General's Appointment—Joanne Harrison CaseRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterAuditor-General's Appointment—Joanne Harrison Case3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so why?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; because unlike the member I believe what I say because what I say is believable.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case if on 17 May he said that he was not familiar with all the details of the Joanne Harrison case and that it had been dealt with satisfactorily which showed the system was able to pick up problems why for so long did the system miss every malpractice fraud and warning sign after warning sign in the Joanne Harrison case?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If any new information comes to light of course that should be looked at by the State Services Commission but I understand these matters were canvassed in a process—it is nothing to do with the Government—and that is the process of appointing the Auditor-General where the MPs' committee on which that member was represented if he was not present was briefed by the Serious Fraud Office in full about all these matters. The member may know more about it than I do for that reason.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Amongst other things as well.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes that is OK but he was being a smart alec when he replied.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will give him a chance to just stand and ask the supplementary question without that sort of introduction.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What sort of circus was his Government running when the man in question was the head of the Ministry of Transport (MOT) when a now convicted fraudster guilty of workplace harassment and three honest civil servants losing their jobs was nevertheless appointed to investigate another department for—of all things—a workplace harassment case? What sort of circus is that?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know anything about those allegations. What I do know is that part of this process was that a civil servant with a positive reputation was found to be engaging in fraudulent activity. My understanding is that—and the member could correct me on it—in the process of the appointment of the Auditor-General all parties of Parliament were briefed by the Serious Fraud Office about those circumstances.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the front page of an 89-page report entitled Investigation report for the Department of Conservation concerning workplace harassment complaint" dated March 2016 co-authored by Joanne Harrison general manager of organisational development and shared services for the Ministry of Transport and a legal firm partner we have redacted to protect their identity.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular report? Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister defending Auditor-General Matthews given that in 2014 Mr Matthews was aware that the Victoria Police fraud unit was investigating Joanne Harrison yet Mr Matthews despite that serious warning sign gave her a clearance?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a fair point because the Auditor-General is the servant of Parliament not the Government. That has always been the case because the role of the Auditor-General is to independently scrutinise the activities of the executive. Whatever issues the member has raised have been either raised or dealt with or should have been in the process that Parliament followed in appointing the Auditor-General. It would be quite inappropriate for the Government to take a position over that process because it is a parliamentary process.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could a parliamentary committee make a decision when it was not given information—for example as to why when Joanne Harrison was defrauding the taxpayer and dismissing honest Ministry of Transport staff right under Mr Matthews' nose he showed absolutely no competence whatsoever to know what was going on and instead gave her a total acquittal at the time—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that committee.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Serious Fraud Office was working with Mr Matthews on a plan to discover Joanne Harrison's criminal behaviour—which is what the Government is saying—how then does he explain Mr Matthews approving Harrison to conduct an investigation at the Department of Conservation well after it was brought to his attention that she was suspected of serious fraud?Mr SPEAKER: Again in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think I have already pointed out the Government has no role in oversight of the parliamentary process of dealing with those matters as part of the appointment of the Auditor-General. That is purely the property of Parliament. It is not accountable to the Government for that and nor is the Government accountable to the Parliament for what the Parliament does.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters' question there was asking the Prime Minister to defend the actions of the gentleman concerned when he was a departmental official and employed another departmental official. It was not a question about his competence as Auditor-General or that appointment.Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the question and I listened very carefully to the answer and the question on this occasion has been addressed by the Prime Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it being said here by him that the Minister of Transport and no other Minister owed any obligation to Parliament in the sense that they were never informed that the MOT had document after document showing appalling lackadaisical financial controls and processes at the MOT when you were the Minister when Mr Matthews was in charge alongside you? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the answer.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect that as part of the process of initiating a Serious Fraud Office investigation which is a pretty serious matter for any Government department—I cannot recall actually off the top of my head other occasions when it has happened—that the Minister of the time would have been fully informed. As for any new or different issues that have not been raised before then the State Services Commissioner particularly in defending fairness for public servants ought to look into those matters if they are new.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister saying that his Government takes no responsibility whatsoever for an appalling chapter of maladministration under the head of the Ministry of Transport which even saw him not acting when there was a complaint of inferior materials being put into seven railway bridges? Does he take no responsibility at all for anything?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure about the last allegation the member has made there but of course the Government is responsible for the proper operation of government the Government machine and the Public Service and this Government has set a lot of store by paying a great deal of attention to it. When people behave in a criminal manner it is entirely appropriate that those matters are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and that is in this case the Serious Fraud Office and there was a successful prosecution for what was criminal activity.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In addition I seek to table three photographs of inferior products going into railway bridges built under this Government's administration which may well be a great danger to the New Zealand public travelling by rail.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three photographs which may be of interest to members. Is there any objection to them being tabled? Yes there is objection."