logo

  New Zealand Immigration Guide









Potato
21st April 2008, 09:42 AM
According to stuff:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4489755a10.html


The Labour Department is refusing to release a secret report detailing how relatives of Immigration Service chief Mary-Anne Thompson wrongly received New Zealand residency.

The Government has washed its hands of the affair, saying it cannot release the report and the matters it raises are "historical".

Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove said it was up to the department to release the files and rejected suggestions that the case might undermine confidence in the department. He said though he had raised concerns about the matter when he learned of it last year, it was a historical matter that had happened under a previous minister and different chief executive and was dealt with at the time.

But he said he maintained full confidence in the department.

The Dominion Post revealed last Wednesday that three members of Dr Thompson's extended family from Kiribati were wrongly given New Zealand residency. A staff member was disciplined but no action taken against Dr Thompson.

In response to questions from The Dominion Post, Labour Department chief executive Christopher Blake said on Friday that Dr Thompson helped her relatives fill in their application forms, and that she declared that on the forms.

The applications were approved despite being lodged late and the quota for Kiribati already being filled. The irregularities were discovered in a routine audit and sparked a secret inquiry into conflicts of interest by former secretary of justice David Oughton. Mr Oughton concluded that Dr Thompson had not sought to influence the outcome of the applications.

National's immigration spokesman Lockwood Smith said yesterday that Mr Cosgrove should explain when he found out about the matter, and give an explanation for the report being kept secret.

"The minister should order full disclosure and tell us what he knows. There will be ways to protect people's privacy. These are serious claims and Mr Cosgrove can't just dismiss them as an operational matter. The public will have real concerns if there is any lingering perception that there are different rules for the family members of senior officials."

But the department is using several grounds under the Official Information Act to refuse to release the report, including the need to protect people's privacy. It is also citing fears that releasing the file would prejudice the maintenance of the law "including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial".

When it was put to the department that no offences had been detected and that there was no trial involved, it confirmed that was the case. But a spokesman suggested it could jeopardise future investigations to release such information.

JandM
21st April 2008, 12:20 PM
Mmmm, a whole other take on family sponsorship, eh?

Interestingly, what it doesn't say is if the family members concerned have been allowed to keep their residency, now it's apparently been established that it was wrongly granted.

IanW99
21st April 2008, 01:04 PM
Mmmm, a whole other take on family sponsorship, eh?

Interestingly, what it doesn't say is if the family members concerned have been allowed to keep their residency, now it's apparently been established that it was wrongly granted.

I did read a similar article on the same subject and it did say that they were allowed to stay.

It should be noted that there was no evidence that the senior official did anything wrong at all, it was actually other staff who allowed the residence to be granted when they shouldn't have. I would guess that they saw her name on the forms and pushed them through.

Ian

Jamie Smith
21st April 2008, 03:31 PM
The person in question was the Prime Ministers right hand woman, former head of PM department, being third most powerful civil servant after the PM and head of State Services Commission that employs all the civil servants.

She was put into the Undersecretary role in Immigration to shut the lid on problems there in the run up to the election that year, as Winston Peters was getting more votes than Labour liked.

In organisational management terms there is no other reason to take #3 person and a most trusted ally and drop them about 5 steps down the seniority ladder - you either use do that to fix a critical issue or you do it as precursor to firing someone - which the civil service almost never do.

My money is on the idea she was the PM's "Ms Fixit".

Thompson had an interesting history, there was another issue earlier where allegations had been made about the PM knowing genetically engineered corn had been planted without public being informed. This was called "Corngate" at the time.

My recollection is a senior PM staffer came forward and said yes I saw that report, and Thompson then categorically denied the report was ever received and that the staffer was wrong. End result was the staffer left or was pushed and there was a personal grievance employment issue settled later. That points to a high level squash/cover up to protect the PM, something that loyal allies do, they burn other people to protect their own interests and sponsors.

I will never believe that a PhD qualified head of the Immigration service didn't know the which quotas were full and when visas were to be processed. If she didn't know this basic info then she would never manage to stay on top of issues and rise to the levels she did.

It looks like the person in question has managed to solve a problem by "using the system" knowing the pressure she would bring on the officer just by her name on the forms, then blaming the staff (her staff!) for not doing their jobs properly! -

The irony is that as head of department she was responsible ultimately for hiring and training the staff...

No doubt her hide is as thick as the that of the politicians she worked for. Wouldn't surprise me to see her enter politics on the Labour party list, few would vote for her in an electorate with that track record, the list is the only way to get into parliament if you're unpopular and have favours owed by senior political figures.

Call me a sceptic....

Nick88
22nd April 2008, 11:20 AM
Call me a sceptic....


I'm glad I'm not the only one. The sooner these crooks are kicked out of govt the better.

JandM
22nd April 2008, 11:31 AM
I guess she's got a few people fairly recently arrived from Kiribati who'll vote for her.

StevieD
22nd April 2008, 12:04 PM
Jamie, you seem to know the political workings awfully well??? ;) :laugh

Jamie Smith
22nd April 2008, 03:28 PM
Hi StevieD

Sort of. Have done my time working in corporations, been involved in political parties, worked in migration industry since 1998, former Board member NZAMI rubbing shoulders with the Minister and Immigration officials....

You get to see how organisations work, how the temptations within the industry prove too great for some including the PM's most trusted deputy, and the cynicism comes from watching the politicians say and do anything to get elected.

For example: Winston Peters was a looming threat to Labour in an earlier election and being anti-immigration was one of his platforms, so Labour decided they needed to steal his thunder.

So IELTS changes were brought in overnight and backdated, to throw out 1500+ LTBV applications in hand.

That abrupt change forced agents to close down overnight due to refund clauses and no visa no fee, several of whom didn't pay my bills, and that killed my NZ planning business overnight, 11 staff were made redundant just before Christmas that year.

My employees were young parents, physically impaired, migrants - all had to go down the road.

NZ now only gets 3-4 LTBV cases per week, just one percent of previous levels. Hardly worth the bother to offer the visa... Our one business used to assist the investment of about $78 million per year of a total $1 billion coming in under LTBV.

The abruptness of the change was all so unnecessary, and the changes were entirely politically motivated. Helen Clark made the call to introduce the changes, not the then Minister of Immigration Dalziel (who was later caught misleading the media).

So yes, I'm a cynic. No matter the economic common sense behind anything, expect a politician to do anything to get elected even if it involves the loss of hundreds of jobs and setting back NZ's migration programme for some time.

dharder
22nd April 2008, 04:45 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one. The sooner these crooks are kicked out of govt the better.

To be replaced with what, though?

Daniela (another sceptic)

StevieD
22nd April 2008, 05:15 PM
Same leopard, different colour spots.

I thought you had some sort of involvement by your tone...

I understand why people are so apathetic about politics and government. It seems "Ms" Clark is the same as the rest, after all she is a professional politician and has never 'worked' a day in her life - is this correct? They award themselves huge pay rises, have their fingers in all sorts of pies, and get away with all sorts. Hardly something that garners respect from the voters. But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely - or am I being cynical too? ;)

skibumwa
22nd April 2008, 08:56 PM
You all think NZ Government is corrupted? :laugh If yes, well then take a trip to Washington DC and soak in the 'mile' deep corruption there. Politicians are in the back pockets (wallets) of large corporations and they don't even hide it. Politicians & corp executives are regularly seen shmoozing one another in 5 star restaurants and taken trips on private corporate jets to Aspen for a just a 'ski trip'. I can even smell the scent of corruption in DC from 11,000 miles away here in Wellington!

:roll

StevieD
23rd April 2008, 12:03 AM
:laugh A bit like Princess Leia and Governor Tarkin???

able
23rd April 2008, 12:07 AM
Same leopard, different colour spots.

I thought you had some sort of involvement by your tone...

I understand why people are so apathetic about politics and government. It seems "Ms" Clark is the same as the rest, after all she is a professional politician and has never 'worked' a day in her life - is this correct? They award themselves huge pay rises, have their fingers in all sorts of pies, and get away with all sorts. Hardly something that garners respect from the voters. But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely - or am I being cynical too? ;)

No you're not Stevie. A rule I like to follow is never to give any party more than two terms in govt. If the rot hasn't set in during the first two terms (it nearly always has) it will definitely start festering in the third term.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15