Who watches the watchers?

Student activists in the School Strike 4 Climate campaign have battled the condescension of some of the more inattentive parts of the adult world who designate them kids dabbling naively in grown-up matters.

For their part, students who may have studied issues more closely than many of their critics, and recognised collective peril, want to be taken seriously. Now we have evidence this has indeed happened. But in a creepy way.

Several oil industry companies hired highly controversial security consultants Thompson and Clark and a two-year Radio New Zealand investigation has concluded that this entailed, in part, keeping tabs on these students’ activities, along with those of other antifossil fuel activists like Greenpeace.

This the companies deny, but the issue has become so fraught that independent scrutiny is surely now needed.

One of the oil companies, OMV, does acknowledge having used the firm, but only to monitor planned protests on public websites, not to target people of any age for surveillance.

However, the public is acutely aware that Thompson and Clark has surveillance and infiltration as part of its toolkit. It’s made use of the expertise built up by at least one former member of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. In recent years the company has conducted close investigation of former Exclusive Brethren members, and dug into the activities of Christchurch earthquake insurance claimants.

Its clients have agendas of their own. Sometimes the purpose has been to counter threats to staff, but sometimes to protect . . . let’s say reputations.

The company has been linked to real scandals, leading to censure for its government departmental clients, though it has never itself been prosecuted for illegal conduct.

Even so, the social legitimacy of its activities has been widely challenged. As long ago as 2008, departmental bosses had been warned from on high that paying for covert information risked bringing state services into disrepute – this after Solid Energy had used the company to infiltrate environmental groups.

But the usage continued on many fronts, amid a far too cosy relationship with many a public official. This eventually led to a withering State Services Commission report, and a Serious Fraud Office investigation into whether official information had been used in a corrupt way.

The upshot was that the ‘‘high evidential standard’’ had not been met, but the Government has forbidden its own agencies from making further use of the company.

Founder Gavin Clark’s assertions that his company has always strived to operate within the law and under industry rules and regulations can be acknowledged, but let’s be frank – this is not an outfit that should be given the benefit of the doubt.

A bit of diligent mistrust is warranted because what we have here, at very least, is cause for acute civil rights unease.

How the alleged Thompson and Clark investigation into school-aged activists has been conducted requires close attention; both for the tactics used to gather information and the uses to which it was put.

Investigative journalist Nicky Hager says if the company’s actions aren’t illegal they are definitely not moral. And when legality sits at the wrong side of what society regards as moral, that’s where legislators should step in.

. . . the Government has forbidden its own agencies from making further use of the company.