Statement by Ms Edwina Stevens, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations on behalf of Canada, New Zealand and Australia to the Fifth Committee on Item 136. Report of the Secretary-General on Strengthening Investigations
10 March 2008
(As delivered)
I have the honour to speak on behalf of Canada, New Zealand and Australia on agenda item 136 and the report of the Secretary-General on Strengthening Investigations (A/62/582) which annexes a report by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on strengthening its investigation function as well as the related report by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), A/62/7 Add 35. I would firstly like to thank Ambassador Kim Won-Soo, Ms Ahlenius and Ms McLurg for introducing their reports and as this is the first time for us to address Ms McLurg, we extend our congratulations to her on her appointment as Chair of the ACABQ and assure her of CANZ cooperation and support.
Mr Chairman
The matter of strengthening the investigation function of OIOS has regularly been the subject of consideration in this Committee over the past four years and CANZ has always attached great importance to this issue, including the matter of additional resources for this function. While we are disappointed that strengthening the OIOS’ investigation function has not been treated more expeditiously, we also understand that it is of crucial importance to strengthen this area judiciously.
This session the Committee will consider recommendations by OIOS and the Secretary-General. These recommendations appear side-by-side however fall short of working together to present a comprehensive vision of the investigations function in the UN.
CANZ has, in the past, noted what appeared to be the poor relationship between the OIOS and Secretariat management, which we are told relates to a perception of the OIOS as more an external than internal entity. It is clear to CANZ that OIOS is internal, is part of the Secretariat and works under the authority of the Secretary-General. Its responsibility is to support his efforts to improve the UN’s management and CANZ would like to see continued progress in that regard.
Mr Chairman
In his report, the Secretary-General proposes to undertake a comprehensive review on the investigative capacity of the non-OIOS actors involved in Secretariat investigations. Before we set forth on that path, CANZ, like the ACABQ, would prefer to receive information regarding these other, non-OIOS actors and what types of investigations they undertake and the volume of their work. Not until we have this information can we consider strengthening these capacities.
Mr Chairman
In its report, OIOS recommend a number of sound proposals, particularly those OIOS have made related to leadership and management and operational strategies and procedures. We are pleased OIOS will soon recruit the Director of Investigations and thank Ms Ahlenius for updating us on this matter in the formal statement. We support OIOS in its plans to update and improve the investigations manual, assisted by the development of standard operating procedures for the numerous areas relating to work of investigators. We see merit in arguments for resources for enhanced capacity in computer forensic tools and are supportive of better case intake and prioritisation.
Mr Chairman
Turning now to OIOS’ proposed restructure of its Investigations Division, we agree it is essential that OIOS deploys investigators with the appropriate, specialised skills to undertake the task at hand. To make decisions on the restructure, however, we will need to clarify a number of questions.
Overall, CANZ is concerned that the arguments advocating the restructure have not clearly detailed substantive and qualitative examples of how the current Investigations structure has produced sub-optimal performance. This proposal would have been strengthened if supported by specific examples of OIOS field investigators to date.
We would like to learn more about how the location of the investigator affects the quality and timeliness of investigative outcomes. We would also like to better understand the drawbacks of the present structure when compared with the advantages of the new structure. This includes the practical implications of repositioning investigators in the three proposed centres from their current locations in the field, the expected impact on executing investigations in a timely manner and the application of the revised chain of command.
The investigators and the types of cases they investigate is of paramount importance and CANZ would like reassurance regarding the proposed specialisation of the work of the OIOS. Will the cases it intends to pursue be sufficiently broad to cover the full gamut of cases OIOS is mandated to investigate? The GA has mandated OIOS to look at all Category 1 cases involving Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and yet paragraphs 60 and 61 of the OIOS report suggest its role is more limited. We would like clarification on this point from OIOS in the informal sessions.
Similarly, we are interested in the follow-up to GA resolution 59/287 which asked the SG to ensure that OIOS was informed about Category 2 cases. At its 60th session, the GA recognized the need to build skills for Category 2 type investigations and resources were allocated to OIOS to train investigators in Category 2 cases, although we are not sure whether this training was pursued.
Mr Chairman
CANZ looks forward to engaging constructively in these negotiations.
Thank you