Brownlee Gerry: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7922] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Given the events of the last few weeks in the Department of Corrections and the events of the last few months in the Department of Labour a look at this report from the Government Administration Committee on the States Services Commission in 2005-06 paints a very bleak picture of the activities of the State Service and in particular the office of the State Services Commissioner. 
Today in the House we heard a stout defence of Mr Barry Matthews who is the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and a gentleman who is directly employed by the State Services Commissioner. Although his report is to the Minister of Corrections it is also to the State Services Commissioner. It is interesting to note that in this report long before the debacle over the parole of Graeme Burton and the subsequent tragedies that occurred at his hands when the Department of Corrections should have ensured that he was incarcerated the State Services Commission had had to justify some very considerable blowouts in the budget for the development and building of prisons. 
Here we have a State Services Commissioner who has to acknowledge in the financial review of his department that there are problems around contracting that go right to the capability of management in his department and he does nothing. He simply goes out and produces a report that says even though the Department of Corrections engaged in the activity of building prisons without a fixed price and simply accepted the bills willy-nilly as they came in from the builder it was not the department’s fault. There was nothing wrong with that—every cost was justifiable etc. But this was not a small blowout. This was a whopper—well over $100 million. That amount I might add is similar to the blowout in the INCIS computer program that caused so much flak among the Labour Party members about 7 or 8 years ago. 
Interestingly Mr Barry Matthews was right at the heart of that problem as well. But today we heard a stout defence of him by the Prime Minister. No doubt she would make a similarly stout defence of the commissioner Dr Prebble. One has to ask why these people who have a track record of bumbling remain in prominent public positions. It is because the current Government has politicised the State Service and the office of the State Services Commissioner. The State Services Commissioner has allowed that to happen; in fact he has encouraged it in my view. 
Recently one of our members wrote to the State Services Commissioner expressing concern about the Department of Corrections and 22 hours later that member released that letter publicly so that we could be seen to be doing the job politically that we are elected to do. The State Services Commissioner decided to reply to that particular member of Parliament that he not only was whitewashing the particular issues raised but also was immediately releasing this correspondence to the media because that appeared to be where the member wanted to conduct the business. That is completely unacceptable. 
I note that in the year under review the State Services Commissioner undertook to develop a code of conduct for employees in State services and in State entities and I would presume for anybody covered under the State Sector Act 1988. I wonder how he would measure himself against his code of conduct. I would think that Dr Prebble as a man who is well interested in codes of conduct would fall well short of the mark. I do not see how we could have a year when so much could go wrong. Remember the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) debacle. Effectively the chief executive of TVNZ came along to Parliament and lied to the select committee. Dr Prebble excused that by saying it is very difficult for these guys because they have to represent the position of their Minister. Represent not misrepresent—that is what a code of conduct would suggest should be done. 
The question for Dr Prebble is how good his code of conduct is now when he has the TVNZ issue the Department of Corrections issue and the Department of Labour issue. The Department of Labour issue is very interesting. Dr Prebble has recently sacked the chief executive; he has given him his marching orders. Yet the sacking is dressed up as some sort of voluntary exit. Over the next short while in the Committee some of the reasons for that action will be made clear. It is not a pretty picture at all. I think everybody in this House should be very concerned that the State Service an organisation that has a large number of people in it who are very dedicated and capable State servants unfortunately is led by a State Services Commissioner who is happy to see his role politicised. I do not think there is any defence he can mount in any case that relates to his activities where a question has been legitimately raised by the Opposition that he can truly justify according to his code of conduct. 
When we look back at the last year we see that the whole concept of misleading Parliament developed quite strongly. Remember Immigration New Zealand—“If we lie in unison we will get away with it.”? That was in the same year. So we have layer upon layer of bureaucrats deciding that they will mislead Parliament bureaucrats deciding that they will engage in the building of State-owned buildings without contracts simply with a sign-off and all because they know they have a State Services Commissioner who no matter what they do will leap in to defend them. 
That is what interests us most about the predicament of Dr James Buwalda. He has been sacked and no one has been told the full reasons why. But of course over the next couple of days those members over there who want to question the veracity of this will find out. The Minister Annette King knows and the Minister will be required to answer questions in this House. We will see how well the Minister is served by her civil servants in that regard. 
I come back to Barry Matthews. It perplexes us that no action at all appears to have been taken against Mr Matthews for appearing at a press conference and making that most insensitive claim that there is no blood on his hands. That is going a heck of a lot further than simply saying: “I can’t be held responsible for someone who breaks out of prison when I’ve done all I can to keep him there.” It almost implies that it was expected that this particular prisoner would engage in the sort of activity that resulted in the tragedies we learnt of in late January. That is unacceptable from this particular department. I think it is high time that Dr Prebble enacted his code of conduct and asked Mr Matthews to reconsider his future. We know that he will not do that because it would appear that Mr Matthews is a good friend of the Prime Minister and a good friend of the Labour-led Government. These days being political in one’s work as a State servant brings rewards rather than the sort of condemnation that it should bring. 
As I said earlier this criticism is very narrowly confined because we have some excellent State servants and I am sure there is every chance that under a new Government the State Service will return to the sort of standard we expect of it.