State Service head testifies

Press, 11 April 1984, Page 8

State Service head testifies

PA Wellington The chairman of the State Services Commission, Mervyn Charles Probine, gave evidence yesterday that he had interpreted the expression “heads must roll’’ as meaning people should be dismissed. However, he said he would accept the possibility it might mean that people should be disciplined. Dr Probine was giving evidence in the High Court at Wellington, where the Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison, is hearing an application by Russell Owen Bullen, District Commissioner of Works at Dunedin, and Colin James Reid, water and soil engineer at Dunedin. Each man seeks a declaration that the decision of the State Service Commission to transfer him is invalid, or an order under

Section 4(2) of the Judicature Amendment Act setting aside such decision. The hearing will continue today. In evidence, Dr Probine said that a Cabinet decision was announced on December 10 or 12 not to proceed with the full Maniototo schema Asked by Dr George Barton, counsel for Messrs Bullen and Reid, when the “heads shall roll” statement was made by Mr Cooper (member of Parliament for Otago), Dr Probine said, “That, I think, wa ; at the beginning of the week which terminated on February 17. . Dr Barton: Was that the first time, so far as you were concerned, that this colourful expression, “heads must roll,” was used? — I think so. What meaning did you attach to that expression?

— I would interpret it to mean that people should be dismissed. Would you accept the possibility that it might mean that people should be disciplined? — Yes, I would Asked by Dr Barton what other Minister had used the expression, “heads must roll,,” Dr Probine said, “I think that only . Mr Cooper used that specific expression, but the Minister of Works and Development had used the term — I am speaking from memory — ‘gross negligence’. I lumped those two statements together, I guess.” Dr Barton: Did you agree in the assessment, “gross negligence”? — No, I did not I think there was certainly very poor management, but I would not put it in the gross negligence category. Referring to a memoran-

dum to the Commissioner of Works, Mr R. G. Norman, which said that consideration must be given to either moving or disciplining people whose performance had been poor, Dr Barton asked, What do you mean by “whose performance has been poor”? Dr Probine: I had before me the report of the review team. I found that a very disturbing record of mismangement, of poor advice given to the Government when it had to make critical decisions. I therefore at that stage — and this was probably about two weeks after I received the report — had not dismissed the possibility of disciplinary action. Dr Probine said the question of Mr Bullen and Mr Reid being moved had been discussed “between myself and the Commissioner of Works before Christmas.”

Dr Barton said Dr Probine had referred to unease at actions of Mr Cooper. “What were those actions?” he asked. Dr Probine referred to radio and television “commentaries” with Mr Cooper. “I cannot at this time recall exactly what those statements were,” Dr Probine said. “But I deduced that others might see this as bringing pressure on the commission in an area where it must act independently of Ministers and the Government.” Dr Probine said the Minister or member for the district should be perfectly free to express concern about what had happened in a management or performance area. “These statements only concerned me where they touched on an area where we must decide in respect of individuals,” he said.