Alexander Marc: Urgent Debates — Immigration Service—Ombudsman’s Report 
Alexander Marc: Urgent Debates — Immigration Service—Ombudsman’s Report 
[Volume:615;Page:11397] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in this urgent debate regarding the Ombudsman’s report into the “lie in unison” memo. This whole episode arose in December 2002 after a  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial criticised the lack of information released by the New Zealand Immigration Service about Ahmed Zaoui. In response a media adviser with the department Ian Smith wrote a memo stating: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” 
Claims by the Opposition parties in this House of a cover-up were greeted with the release of the Department of Labour’s own internal report into the matter last September. That report cleared staff of a conspiracy. It noted that Mr Smith had shown poor judgment in making the “lie in unison” statement and that he was being sarcastic and humorous. It also cleared staff of deliberately trying to mislead the Ombudsman when they assured him that the memo did not exist. Clearly it did exist and so today we have the Ombudsman’s report into whether New Zealand Immigration Service officials deliberately kept the memo from him. 
The last time the House looked at this issue it was a snap debate in response to the release of the initial report by the Secretary of Labour. At the time we made the point that the chief concern for United Future was that people must be able to have a degree of faith in the operations of the public service and particularly that they should maintain due respect for the law. In this case we are dealing with the Official Information Act the very legal mechanism that allows for transparency which made New Zealand a world leader in facilitating open government. 
Although we were not convinced that the circulation of an email to 300 people qualified as a conspiracy we were concerned that officials did not respond appropriately to the Ombudsman’s request for information under the Official Information Act. Today’s report by the Ombudsman has found that two Immigration Service staff members including Mr Smith failed to display the professionalism expected of public servants; that their actions were contrary to the law and wrong within the context of the Official Information Act; and that there was a deliberate attempt to avoid reference to the real information being sought. However he could not find sufficient evidence to conclude that there had been a conspiracy to deceive the Ombudsman. 
Nevertheless those findings are troubling and lead me to make a couple of points. The first concerns the actions of the departmental secretary both in stating that he found no evidence that officials deliberately misled the Ombudsman and then in refusing an independent inquiry—particularly given that we now know that such an inquiry would have put that first assertion under some strain. My belief is that in that situation—which periodically arises within the public service where departments are perceived to have made mistakes or even indulged in conspiracies or illegal actions—it is best for all concerned to situate any subsequent inquiry with an independent person or body. 
Some might argue that Dr Buwalda displayed the classic public service ethos in defending his department but with that comes the responsibility for the damage to its credibility if that defence turns out to be unjustified. We have seen a number of recent cases such as the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ treatment of Ron Burrows’ call regarding Coral-Ellen and the rape and conspiracy claims against the police which are being investigated independently. I do not think that the use of independent inquiries in any way suggests mistrust in the entities involved but is instead a healthy sign that concerns about departmental actions are treated seriously that our system is responsive and that the outcomes of any inquiry have legitimacy and credibility. I would have thought that that is what Government departments would want as well. 
I want to turn briefly to the matter of the Official Information Act request. There is a clear need for the Immigration Service to treat those requests with the respect they deserve and I note that the secretary has made a commitment that those processes will improve. Parliament needs to make sure that that issue is followed through and I suggest that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee look at it specifically when it examines the department in its financial review and scrutiny of the vote. I ask the department’s officials what concrete measures they have implemented in order to comply with the law in that regard. 
I am sure that all MPs and quite a few interested citizens have had variable responses to their Official Information Act requests of Government departments but in my brief experience the agencies that take it seriously often seek clarification of the information required of the person making the request. If the Immigration Service had done that in the first place we would not be talking about this issue today. 
I close by talking more generally about the attitude that got the department into the mess in the first place—the need to spin or conceal information in which the public has a legitimate interest. Over the past two decades we have the seen the rise of public relations and media management in politics at the expense of directness. Although propaganda is by no means new it disturbs me that it has become almost a compulsory feature not just of political offices but of Government departments as well. In the instance of the Zaoui case and the case involving the Sri Lankan teenager we have come to the point where there is good reason to believe that Government agencies feel the need to win the war of public opinion on any and every issue. To my mind that is not the job of public servants but the preserve of their political masters. 
Political public relations is not used to promote the national interest or to keep the electorate informed. It is used to make politicians look good. How much time and resources would have been saved if the department involved had stuck to its traditional role?