Slide into politicisation

Inland Revenue’s foray into political polling raises some awkward questions for public servants, even if the official story is believed. Earlier this month Stuff revealed that, in the course of a $125,000 examination of New Zealand’s ‘‘tax morale’’, pollsters for IRD asked the public where they saw themselves on the political spectrum, as well as their views on globalisation, whether New Zealand spends enough on public services, whether we trust Fonterra, and whether big companies pay enough tax.

While it took the best part of a week for IRD to work out it had made a mistake, State Services Minister Chris Hipkins immediately wrote to State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes asking him to look into the matter. Hipkins had little option given that National was already demanding the same thing, as the Opposition questioned whether government departments were doing political polling for the Government.

Hughes has now revealed that while he will oversee the ‘‘examination’’ – rather than appoint someone independent – his work will look into whether other government departments have done the same as IRD.

The question on where you sit on a political spectrum may seem innocuous, and some observers have pointed to the usefulness of the information to researchers. IRD does, after all, have a role in monitoring whether the public has trust in the tax system, in part to guard against a willingness to evade it.

But it is the very usefulness of the information that is the issue. On its own, the political spectrum question will tell us little that is not available in many opinion polls.

But the data which Colmar Brunton would likely pass over would be far more detailed. By examining the combination of answers in the poll, far more useful information would be available, such as what particular groups of people thought about particular issues. Colmar Brunton also conducted interviews and focus groups.

This is where the value of the political information is exposed. It could be the poll revealed that, say, women aged over 65, who described themselves as being in the centre of the political spectrum, were more likely than other voters to believe big companies are not paying enough tax, while men aged 30-50 may feel more strongly than other groups that New Zealand does not spend enough on public services.

Or it might find the opposite. Either way, in an age of targeted political campaigns, knowing what a certain group of the population thinks, be it based on age, region or ethnicity, is extremely valuable political information. This is especially the case as the Government prepares to propose tax reform, possibly significant reform.

This week Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the issue was fundamentally about fairness. But people have different views about what exactly fairness means when it comes to their money.

IRD’s official position appears to be that it did not even think about whether the information it was gathering would be politically useful.

The official leading the research project initially denied there were questions in the poll (having, incredibly, agreed to do an interview without bothering to check what was in it), then appeared confused about why it might be a problem.

Chances are, this will be deeply troubling for Hughes, who, as head of the state services, carries the can for failure to maintain neutrality. This is because politicians of all types are inevitably going to pressure government departments to help them fulfil political ambitions.

Shane Jones famously said he wanted to ‘‘soften the line’’ between government and public servant, preferring a model he saw in Australia where ministers ‘‘bring in their s...-kickers to get things done’’. He was only saying in public what countless ministers of all parties would love to do.

For this reason it is critical that the public service pays close attention to this pressure, so as to prevent it happening. The fact that senior officials say they did not really consider the political value of the polling – delegating the approval of questions to researchers – shows some may be blind to the risk.

Time will tell whether Hughes’ investigation uncovers the same thing in other departments. If so, he will be forced to respond forcefully.

Late last year, a report into the use of private security companies by government departments highlighted not only a number of unsavoury examples, but also that public servants had, in several cases, failed to consider that they put protecting the reputation of their employer ahead of their duty, first and foremost, to serve the public.

Ardern should be thankful IRD did not make the mistake of including a question about whether increases in asset values should be treated like other types of income. Had it, the case for a capital gains tax would have been dealt a severe blow.

Given that the official position of IRD is that it didn’t think about the issue, it seems it was only luck that this did not happen.

Knowing what a certain group thinks, be it based on age, region or ethnicity, is extremely valuable political information.