Port wit head will Hot resign

Press, 19 July 1988, Page 1

Port wit head will Hot resign

By

The chairman of the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s port establishment unit, Mr Allan Williams, says he will not heed calls to resign over the shredding of a controversial report

The report, prepared by consultants, was used by the establishment unit in its appointment of a chief executive to the new port company. The appointment has been the subject of controversy for months and several board members have repeatedly asked to see the consultants’ report. Mr Williams said the appointment of Mr lan Brokenshire as chief executive had been ratified by the Harbour Board and the matter was “history.” “The report was destroyed because it was no longer relevant,” he said. “I thought the matter was finished.

“You don’t keep documents longer than six months. After a certain time you must destroy documents, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to get in my office.”

Mr Williams said there was no reason to resign. “Everything has been done according to the book. I have done nothing that wasn’t correct.”

Mrs Judy Waters, the board member who has pressed hardest to see the consultants’ report, said she could not believe that the establishment unit had been so irresponsible as to destroy all

copies of the report. "I am disgusted. Allan Williams should resign,” she said. “It means that they have something to hide.”

Several board members have alleged that the consultants’ report was kept secret because it did not recommend Mr Brokenshire.

Mr lan Powell, another board member who has criticised the way the job was filled, said it was incredible that the establishment unit should destroy a document that was so controversial. “Mrs Waters had advised them that she intended to go to the Ombudsman to seek a copy of the report,” he said. “I will ask questions at Wednesday’s board meeting.” The destruction of all copies of the report was revealed when the Chief Ombudsman, Mr John Robertson, told the “National Business Review” that its application for the report was turned down because the report no longer existed. The decision to destroy the report was agreed to by all members of the port’s establishment unit at a meeting in May, said Mr Williams.

He acknowledged that the discussion had arisen because the

report was “controversial.” Mr Brooke McKenzie, another board member, said yesterday he expected Mr Williams to resign without being asked.

“I know damn well that if I was in his position I certainly would,” he said. “I don’t expect there will be a great uproar on Wednesday (at the board meeting). Mr Williams is a businessman and he knows the rules.” Mr McKenzie was critical of the method of selecting the port company’s chief executive from the outset. The $lOO,OOO-plus job was open only to Harbour Board employees, and the establishment unit did not interview the applicants, but relied on the consultants’ report.

Mr McKenzie said he did not care what the report said. It was the principle involved. Mr Williams repeated his “no comment” stance yesterday when asked if the report had recommended Mr Brokenshire for the job. A spokesman for the consultants, W. D. Scott Deloitte, said his company had kept no copies of the report. “Early on in the assignment they said they would like to have all copies,” Mr Stuart Forsythe said.