Editorial: A nod and a wink not good enough

By releasing a heavily censored version of a previously secret report on the Immigration Service, the Labour Department thought it was assuaging public concern about one of its divisions, The Dominion Post writes. It was not.

The facts, as they have been admitted by the department, are these: in December 2004 and May 2005 Mary Anne Thompson, the newly appointed head of the service, asked immigration officers to help arrange visa waivers for members of her extended family in Kiribati who wished to come to New Zealand. The waivers were granted, despite normally being available only for emergencies.

When James Buwalda, then head of the Labour Department, learnt of her representations he warned her "not to become involved in decision-making regarding any person with whom she had a personal relationship" because her actions had raised perceptions of a conflict of interest.

A few months later the Immigration Service's Manukau office received applications for residency under the new Pacific Access Category from three of Dr Thompson's relatives. Included among the applications was a form signed by Dr Thompson saying she had helped them to fill in the applications.

The applications were lodged nearly eight months after the closing date for entry under the quota and after the quota had been filled. But despite that, and despite three staff in the Manukau office voicing concerns about the case, residency was granted after a superior directed that the applications be processed.

A subsequent inquiry by former justice secretary David Oughton found Dr Thompson's relatives had been given preferential treatment. A Manukau staff member was disciplined but no action was taken against Dr Thompson because Mr Oughton concluded she had not tried to influence the way her relatives' applications were dealt with in Auckland.

The department considers that the end of the matter. The State Services Commission, which is investigating, has rightly decided it is not.

The case raises questions about Dr Thompson's conduct, the conduct of the staff member who ordered that the residency applications be processed, the culture within the Immigration Service, Dr Thompson's bosses and the adequacy of the inquiry itself.

Put bluntly, it is not acceptable for public servants to use their positions to advance personal or family interests. Nor is it acceptable for senior public servants to leave doubt in the minds of staff about their intentions when personal or family interests are involved.

Dr Thompson should have refused to play any part in her relatives' bid to come to this country and, when her connections became known, she should have made it explicitly clear to staff that their application was to be treated on its merits just as every other application should be.

By failing to do so she has damaged her reputation and public confidence in the Immigration Service.

To restore it, public service bosses have no choice but to take drastic action. If they do not, service staff will continue to wonder about what a nod or wink from the chief executive means and migrants will continue to suspect that it is not what you know but who you are related to that matters in New Zealand.

- © Fairfax NZ News