Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Last week the Ombudsman released his review of the Rebstock inquiry. He concluded that the inquiry contained numerous flaws. He has made four recommendations to the State Services Commission: a public apology to the diplomat criticised in the report reimbursement for his expenses compensation for damage to his reputation and a review of the legislative guidance for future inquiries. It is just as well we once thought fit to emulate the Nordic model of Government in setting up the Ombudsman's office so that the corrosion of public standards of this kind can be halted and hopefully reversed.The Rebstock review of 2013 was an example of the politicisation of New Zealand's public system. I am not sure which is worse: the Henry report or the Rebstock report. One was referred to the Privileges Committee; one to the Ombudsman. Both revealed a hubris on the part of those close to Government. Both have been subjected to criticism and remediation. But the criticism in this case does not stop at the vindictiveness of the author and the truculence of the State Services Commissioner; it extends to ministerial cynicism and spin.Yesterday the current Minister of State Services offered her view. If you read [the report] carefully" she thought "what it says is that there were certainly some procedural matters that we should be learning from and that shouldn't have happened in that way. But I actually think there's been a misinterpretation of the report itself in that it's saying it made allegations against people that shouldn't have been made and that's certainly not the way I read it." I invite the Minister to have a more thorough read. The conclusions of the Ombudsman's report on page 3 are these: the Rebstock inquiry's finding exceeded its terms of reference the diplomat criticised in the report was not treated fairly in terms of natural justice the manner in which the evidence was portrayed was skewed the manner in which the diplomat's actions had been addressed was disproportionate and the publication of the final report was unjust. Specifically Minister read paragraphs 166 to 186 and 192 to 197.Last week the Prime Minister viewed things from his end-of-the-day position of personal comfort. Paula Rebstock "made one mistake" he said. "Clearly people need to take some learnings from it but I don't think it's terminal in terms of her capacity to work for the government." It may indeed not be terminal for her capacity to work for this Government. That is the political concern. This Government has hoisted "New Zealand Inc." to the top of its flagpole. It has strengthened the role of the executive in relationship to the legislature. It has allowed political interests to intrude into the Public Service. It has thrown a business model at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has vilified sought to crucify two top diplomats of unimpeachable integrity.The first half of my career was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The thought of applying a business model to the professional diplomatic method that prevailed in the institution back then would have drawn incredulity and revulsion and it should do so today. I knew—still know—the two diplomats who have with their families been to hell and back as a result of the work of Paula Rebstock and Iain Rennie at the behest of this Government. There are no finer people no finer New Zealanders than Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe.What can we glean from this sorry affair that might improve our system of governance? Once the apology the reimbursement and the compensation are taken care of we shall all need to focus on the fourth recommendation: a review of the guidance contained in the State Sector Act for future such inquiries. In the name of natural justice and good governance we cannot allow this kind of thing to occur again."