Ms Collins sought the assistance of the State Services Commission in determining who was accountable for what she called "damning failures".
Three months later, the minister felt able to finally express her confidence in Mr Matthews, saying he had done "a very good job" improving the department; there had been many positive changes: "Corrections has entered a new phase where they want to front up if anything goes wrong . . . They are not hiding from bad-news stories, they are letting people know. It actually gives me a lot more confidence."
How curious, then, that the department has been notably reluctant to "front up" to routine inquiries from this newspaper into a relatively minor aspect of its operating costs.
Perhaps it is time the minister took a closer look at how the department is being managed - as close, say, as her colleague Simon Power did when National was in Opposition - particularly with respect to the expenditure of public monies.
The auditor-general's report noted that there were long-running institutional problems throughout the department that would take time to solve, and no-one should be surprised by that conclusion given the successive scandals over several years involving the department, many of them exposed by Mr Power.
Very large government departments are, almost by definition, often inefficient, make decisions that are frequently of a short-term nature or which have serious unforeseen consequences, and in the case of this department it is bound by other agencies to carry out certain activities which may contribute to inefficiencies.
One such is the transport of prisoners from their place of incarceration to their court hearings. Added up over a year, this amounts to a considerable sum both in transport costs and in staff time. But the law requires it.
What are these costs, and is there a better way of performing this function? After all, plans are afoot to introduce preliminary court appearances by video, a long overdue innovation that should reduce the expense.
Similarly, prisoners are often moved from prison to prison around the country, partly for security reasons but also because of pressure on available cell space. What are the costs involved and is there a better way of achieving savings? After all, the minister has been talking about using converted portable shipping containers for cells.
It is thought the department used most of the 13,090 flights around the country in the past financial year (about 50 trips every working day on average) costing $5.3 million, on the transportation of prisoners - but it chose to not immediately provide the specific cost. It also spent money on 175 international flights.
Ms Collins claims the department has reduced its travel spending in the last two years by nearly $2 million - surely "goods news" - but did not explain how or why. The department also says that, given the current economic environment, every aspect of expenditure was being reviewed, including travel.
In fact, the department's answers to our perfectly reasonable questions, and the minister's own remarks, have been distinguished by unwarranted delay and obfuscation. The Otago Daily Times filed its Official Information Act request on June 30.
The department is supposed to respond within 20 working days, but took 32 days to file its formal response with what were essentially quite straight-forward statistics.
Where public information is concerned, it is imperative the public is entitled to access, unless there are compelling reasons for non-disclosure. In this example, there were no compelling reasons for withholding or delaying information: no individual's privacy was involved.
Our experience, commonly shared with other newspapers, is that in 25 years' practical application the Official Information Act has substantially proved its worth in challenging officialdom's love of secrecy and providing greater transparency in government and local government, but that in its interpretation and application it has proved far from perfect.
Officials do their utmost to frustrate access to embarrassing or unexplained data; the previous culture of secrecy the public service enjoyed and exploited for 30 years or more has been exchanged, in part, for a culture of delay and expense to applicants.
There is no legitimacy in delaying or refusing a reasonable request when the principal purpose of the Official Information Act is to promote the accountability of ministers of the Crown and officials to taxpayers.
