NZ Herald editorial: Resignation no excuse to hide report

Auditor General Martin Matthews. Photo / Sourced via Twitter

Martin Matthews was head of the Ministry of Transport in the years that one of its senior staff, Joanne Harrison, stole $750,000 from the taxpayer using false invoices made out to non-existent companies. She was found guilty in February and jailed for four years and three months. Documents released since she was convicted show that ministry staff had been alerting Matthews to her suspicious activities as early as 2013.

It was not until April 2016 that he became concerned and called in the Serious Fraud Office.

Until then he had continued to regard her as "an able high-performing member" of the ministry's leadership team and there have been suggestions staff who raised earlier concerns about her lost their jobs for it. Yet on February 1 this year Matthews became New Zealand's Auditor-General, the office responsible for monitoring the probity of the public service.

The office is responsible to Parliament and his appointment was approved by party leaders, some of whom later claimed they would not have done so had they known the questions being asked about his oversight of the Ministry of Transport when Harrison was stealing money.

In May, after agitation by Labour MP Sue Moroney in particular, Matthews stood down and wrote to the Speaker of Parliament asking for an independent review of his handling of complaints about Harrison.

The review by Sir Maarten Wevers, former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, produced a report that was tabled in Parliament last Thursday. An hour before it was tabled, Matthews resigned, saying his position was "untenable". The same party leaders who had approved his appointment as Auditor-General, constituted as an Officers of Parliament Committee, then decided the Wevers report would not be made public. The Speaker, David Carter, said the committee members "saw no value" in releasing it once Matthews had resigned.

This is an extraordinary way to treat the public who have a right to know how this proven case of corruption was handled when suspicions were made known to the head of the department concerned, and how he came to be appointed Auditor-General no less, when something such as this had happened on his watch.

This is not to suggest any impropriety on his part but it is fair to suppose the report is being suppressed for his sake.

Matthews said he deeply regretted and apologised for the fraud that happened while he was in charge of the Ministry of Transport.

"I wished it had never happened and I accept I am accountable for everything done in and by the ministry when I was CEO and I am ultimately responsible," he said. But if that word, "accountable" has any meaning, the report must be made public.

It is not for Parliament's Speaker to decide whether releasing the report has any value, the public pays the wages of all these people and has a right to information that will allow it to make its own judgment.

Matthews believes he "acted swiftly and thoroughly to detect the fraud" so he can have nothing to fear if the report is released.

Who, then, is being protected?