Scampi inquiry damns fisheries officials

By HELEN TUNNAH, deputy political editor

A scathing report has cleared Fisheries officials of corruption in the controversial scampi industry but damned their poor handling of the fishery, saying it unfairly favoured some companies.

The State Services Commission's own inquiry has told the civil servants' watchdog that workers across the public service may need increased ethics training.

The inquiry is the second to clear ministry staff of corruption, but it details a raft of problems in the way officers managed the scampi fishery over several years.

It has also prompted State Services Commissioner Michael Wintringham to offer his own harsh criticisms.

"This is a sorry tale which holds important lessons for the wider state sector," he said.

The inquiries were sparked by claims of corruption and bias in the way the $100 million scampi fishing rights were allocated to companies.

It was alleged that Simunovich Fisheries received favoured treatment over rivals in gaining the rights to much of the fishery.

Although a parliamentary inquiry in December cleared Simunovich of any wrong-doing, it recommended almost $3 million be paid in compensation to other companies, which it said had been disadvantaged by the allocation process.

That inquiry also cleared ministry officials of corruption, although it too accused them of unfair practices.

The commission's report, ordered because of the seriousness of the claims against civil servants, will be released in full on Friday, but a summary of its 19 months of work is critical of the former Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for its management of the fishery.

It also criticises the current Ministry of Fisheries for being too defensive in its handling of complaints.

The report clears two senior staff, Stan Crothers and Dave Wood, of corruption and notes that allegations made publicly had subsequently been withdrawn.

"There is no foundation for the allegations of impropriety or corruption on the part of Mr Crothers or Mr Wood, who were MAF employees."

However, it says, before 1995 "there was a history of inconsistent and poor administration by the then Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries that unfairly impacted on some fishers and undermined trust in New Zealand's fisheries management".

Problems included the inadequate investigation of claims of illegal fishing, and inadequate responses to complaints of unfair or inconsistent treatment by fishers.

The report also says some officials favoured large players in the industry over small.

The management of permits for scampi vessels - which benefited Simunovich - was "grossly inadequate, inappropriate and unreasonable, resulting in uneven-handed treatment among the scampi fishers".

Between 1988 and 1992 the relationships between officials and commercial fishers were not professional and at arm's length.

"One outcome was that Simunovich was treated in a favourable way."

No disciplinary action was recommended by the report, prepared by lawyer Helen Cull and Deputy State Services Commissioner David Smyth.

But recommendations included a review of how scampi quota was finally allocated.

The report suggests the State Services Commissioner consider whether the public servants' code of conduct should be developed to train staff better on ethics and behaviour in a regulated industry.

The report told the Ministry of Fisheries to "reduce its defensiveness" and improve its procedures for dealing with complaints.

Simunovich Fisheries said in a statement that the report confirmed its view that it had always acted "within the law".

The story so far

* Rival fishing companies have claimed corruption and bias by former MAF officials, who awarded much of the $100 million scampi quota to Simunovich Fisheries in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

* A parliamentary inquiry cleared the company and officials of any wrong-doing - but accused the officials of unfair practices and suggested compensation for firms which had missed out.

* A State Services Commission inquiry has also cleared the public servants of corruption but described their decisions as "grossly inadequate, inappropriate and unreasonable".

* The inquiry says relationships between officials and commercial fishers were unprofessional and Simunovich was treated favourably as a result.