Friday, February 20, 2009

Sack him!

The Herald reports that Barry Matthews, the CEO of Corrections is refusing to resign. The two quotes below will alert readers as to why Keeping Stock believes that the State Services Commissioner should sack him.

Reason #1:

Mr Brady examined 100 parole cases, including 52 high-risk offenders, and reported that in most of them the correct procedures were not followed.

Staff did not even carry out some of the special provisions brought in after parolee Graeme Burton murdered Karl Kuchenbecker in January 2007.

But Mr Matthews told reporters this morning he was doing the best he could and wanted to stay on to drive change in the department.

He said his department had a difficult job to do reaching more stringent standards and monitoring parole after the Graeme Burton case, but it did not have enough resources.

Mr Matthews said the department needed a "step change" and he was "committed to staying on" and driving that change through.



Wrong answer Mr Matthews! You gave the previous Minister an assurance that change would happen in Corrections if you stayed on. You did,. It didn't. The Auditor-General's report makes that abundantly clear.

Reason #2:

He said he did not have "any fears" about what the State Services Commissioner would find in his investigation of who was responsible for the Auditor-General's report.

Mr Matthews also said he did not believe Ms Collins had been trying to get rid of him.


What??!! If Barry Matthews does not believe that Judith Collins wants him gone, when she has pointedly refused to express confidence in him, he must inhabit a parallel universe. He had the chance to stand aside; he declined to take it. Iain Rennie must call his bluff, and soon.

5 comments:

Leg Break said...

Reason 3:

Because of a repeated culture of not paying their bills they are unable to find anyone who is prepared to maintain and upgrade their IT systems.

Rakaia George said...

Of course he's going to hang onto his place at the trough as long as possible and force the taxpayer to pay him off - what else.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't Labour sack him last year? Because they admit to nothing and prefer crims to victims, just look at their loose bail laws. Go National, do the right thing!

pdm said...

Did anyone else see the Dork on Close Up. Based on that I doubt he could run a tap let alone corrections.

showmethetaxcut said...

Anon

The reason he was not sacked by Labour was because he was a favourite bureaucrat of Helen Clark. She expressed confidence in him on more than one occasion when Corrections was under fire.

Corrections - what a dumb name for a govt dept. Prisons.