Public servants sell us short over snooping
One or two senior public servants should be expecting some difficult conversations with ministers, if they have not already had them. The release yesterday of a report into the use of ‘‘external security consultants’’ – private investigators – contains some highly concerning revelations, especially in a country which tries to make out that the arms of the state are held to the highest standards.
Government organisations, which cannot in the normal course of events use surveillance tactics, appear to have somewhat unwittingly done so.
In an age where the use of contractors is already under scrutiny, a string of government agencies have effectively outsourced snooping, in some cases for highly questionable reasons. In some cases this was done with a lack of clear contracts, creating a fertile atmosphere for mission creep.
Private investigators were initially taken on for legitimate reasons, but ended up offering to do work which breached expected standards.
In other cases, parts of the public service have clearly been opened up to accusations of bias towards big business, over groups dominated by volunteers who were simply exercising their rights to express themselves.
State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes called this an ‘‘affront to democracy’’ and offered an unreserved apology. He is right to do so, because it is remarkable that, in 2018, public servants are having to be told that what is thrown up in the report is unacceptable.
While the report found the issues were not systemic, there is plenty of room for stinging criticism. Take Southern Response, a governmentowned insurer created out of the collapse of AMI, which is dealing with customers still trying to settle claims dating back to the Christchurch earthquake. Initially, Southern Response hired controversial private investigators Thompson and Clark (by which I mean highly controversial long before this week’s report) in a bid to identify safety threats from disaffected claimants.
Fair enough. Every public servant has the right to personal safety and at times the threats can be real. But beyond this, and without a clear contract, Southern Response used the private investigators for what amounted to ‘‘monitoring [of] its corporate reputation’’.
Any report which finds that Christchurch earthquake victims were being snooped on will be terrible reading for the agency involved.
When it includes an accusation that it was simply done to try to help massage what people might be saying about the organisation, and involved the use of unlicensed investigators who may have been acting illegally, it is indefensible.
Then there are the findings on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) petroleum and minerals team, in its heading of ‘‘operation exploration’’, a multi-agency project related to 2013 changes to the Crown Minerals Act.
The report found the design of the operation was influenced by Thompson and Clark, with its use of ‘‘issue motivated groups’’, in this case meaning environmental groups pushing back against new areas of oil exploration.
Officials in the MBIE team were found to have blurred the lines between its role regulating the industry and its separate goal of promoting New Zealand as a place to explore for oil, building strong contacts with the industry but having almost no connection with environmental groups.
Elsewhere, a Thompson and Clark analyst – who at the time was also working for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry – created a detailed map depicting the connections and movements of hundreds of people linked to Greenpeace.
This was apparently done to provide ‘‘accurate information to MBIE and Police about threats to the oil and gas industry’’, but it was the oil and gas sector which paid for the research to be conducted.
The conclusion of the inquiry was that MBIE’s action ‘‘contributed to a perception of bias by some stakeholders’’. This is a charitable statement. The report looks like bias to someone with no connection to the environmental groups involved.
For MBIE, the only good news is that the allegations concerning it are somewhat more historic. But the report should still prompt serious reflection from government departments.
Inquiry head Doug Martin said yesterday he did not believe any particular public servant knew they were doing anything wrong. But this may actually make the situation worse. If Martin is right, we are not reading about public servants acting improperly, we are reading about public servants who appeared to be seduced by private investigators, without considering the implications for democratic rights, or the need to remain neutral. Weeding out improper behaviour may take work, but it seems the report exposes examples where public servants need to be told what their job involves, which would be a far more fundamental problem.