Debbie Gee
The high-profile $725,000 fraud perpetrated at the Ministry of Transport by its former GM Organisational Development Joanne Harrison had many victims.
Those Ministry staff who tried to escalate her continued non-compliance were ignored and subsequently disadvantaged through Harrison’s actions.
Former colleagues, who felt a keen sense of betrayal and shame.
Auditor General leaves
The wider New Zealand public sector, in which public trust and confidence had been shaken.
The biggest price of all was paid by the Ministry’s former Chief Executive, Martin Matthews.
By the time Harrison’s offending became public, he was the Auditor General, the highest watchdog in the land.
He was ultimately forced to resign that position due to fall out from the case. This despite taking swift and decisive action when evidence emerged that what he had previously believed to be lax non-compliance was actually calculated fraud.
Habitual fraudster
The point of examining this case is not to apportion direct blame to anyone other than Harrison herself. She is a skilled and habitual fraudster and manipulator with previous convictions for which she had name suppression.
But lessons can be learnt. This case raises questions about the adequacy of whistleblowing legislation and policies. It also highlights the importance of organisational culture and leadership in creating and maintaining workplace environments that support ethical behaviour and protect staff who flag inappropriate behaviour.
Harrison had been a highflyer, regarded by many inside and outside the organisation as innovative and inspirational. She helped the Ministry to achieve the highest staff engagement scores in the public sector.
Yet there were clear and repeated instances of her non-compliance, such as no contracts for work. These had been noted in internal audit reports and raised by one staff member as a protected disclosure.
Misplaced trust
Matthews said he chose to trust Harrison, having no information to cause him to question whether services she invoiced for were provided.
“Naturally, if I did have such information I would treat it with deep concern and seriousness. To act without good cause, however, would have equally serious implications for the perceived trust and confidence I have in one of my senior managers,” he said.
However, as former Auditor General, Lyn Provost, had previously observed, “It is also important to remember that trusting staff is not a fraud control. Systems do not commit fraud, people do. Public entities need to ensure that they have the right systems in place.”
Future directions
Among the rich possibilities for study raised by this case can be grouped under the following headings: Whistleblowing, Governance, Organisational Culture, Leadership, Obedience to Authority and Change Management.
Under these headings, areas of exploration, personal reflection and learning from this case include Individual-level factors that shape employees’ ability and willingness to identify and report inappropriate workplace behaviour by colleagues; ‘Formal’ organisational-level factors that permit, encourage and discourage such reporting, such as policies, codes of conduct and procedures; ‘Informal’ organisational-level factors that permit, encourage and discourage such reporting, for example, power and politics, culture, group dynamics, conformity and leadership; Wider systemic factors that permit, encourage and discourage reporting, such as public sector governance legislation and societal/ cultural understandings.
Consideration of the inter-relationship between these levels can provide insights to develop action plans for creating organisations where staff are morally attuned and empowered to speak up about inappropriate behaviour at work.
Debbie Gee is a Member of Transparency International New Zealand with Delegated Authority for Whistleblowing. The above article appeared in Transparency Times, August 2018.
