KEY POINTS:
Corruption in our public service is thankfully rare and will remain so if any suspicion of it is investigated vigorously. The resignation last week of the head of the Immigration Service, Mary Anne Thompson, could not satisfy all concerns raised about the residency permits given to her relatives from Kiribati, especially when it was also discovered that no record exists of a PhD she claimed to hold from the London School of Economics.
But do we need four different inquiries into this affair? The police, Labour Department and State Services Commission were all on the case before the Prime Minister announced the Auditor-General's investigation on Monday. Clearly she has no confidence the other agencies will answer the questions of most concern.
The police are investigating the PhD claim. The Labour Department, which contains the Immigration Service, is reviewing the service's Pacific division. The State Services Commission is examining the Labour Department's handling of an earlier investigation of the apparent favours given Ms Thompson's relatives. But Helen Clark mainly wants to know why her ministers were not told of these matters years ago.
State service appointments are strictly separated from ministerial responsibilities. If doubts arose about Ms Thompson's academic qualifications, it was up to her employer, ultimately the State Services Commission, to establish her credentials and, if a false claim could not be explained, decide what to do about it.
The distinction between politics and public service appointments, though, is hard to maintain in practice. Where an employment decision could cause political difficulties, the head of a department is supposed to warn the minister about it. What is supposed to happen next is not clear. If a minister was told the department intended to overlook a false academic credential, the minister would know that if the word got out, the public would not be as forgiving.
Common sense is usually right on these things. A person who falsely claims a university degree is likely to be tempted into acts of dubious integrity when it matters. Ms Thompson's irregular assistance for her family's immigration applications are of far more concern. Her behaviour was investigated for the Labour Department years ago by a former Justice Department head, David Oughton, but, again, the minister was not informed.
Likewise, it turns out, a 2005 investigation into a possible conflict of interest in the setting up of the service's Pacific division was also kept from ministers. This, too, will be a subject of the inquiry by the Auditor-General, Kevin Brady. His investigation surely renders at least two of the previous three redundant. The Labour Department and State Services Commission reviews are each concerned with part of the picture that Mr Brady will be able to examine in full.
If he finds the Pacific division infested with a culture favouring family connections, it might be hard to prove. The Oughton inquiry found no evidence Ms Thompson had sought to influence decisions on her relatives, though she had signed their applications.
Ms Thompson had a notable career in the departments of Maori Affairs and the Prime Minister and Cabinet before heading the Immigration Service. Her doctorate would have been noted at every post. If her career has compounded an inexplicable embellishment, and family pressures have compromised her public service impartiality, her conduct cannot be excused. And those who concealed what they knew of her have much explaining to do.
