Mccully must be careful

You would think in the wake of the Don Brash leaks – whether they were hacked or not – ministers would be ultra-cautious about the security of their communications.

Ministerial Services, Parliamentary Service and the various security agencies put huge effort into keeping such things confidential.

Which makes it all the more surprising that Foreign Affairs Minister Murray Mccully would have some of his work emails forwarded to his private Xtra account, which was subsequently hacked.

Mr Mccully is downplaying the sensitivity of any information accessed – arguing that it was basically media clippings and a few administrative emails.

He may in the end be right and be able to show he is right. And Prime Minister John Key has said that, in his view, Mr Mccully’s office handled it well.

But his minister has so far failed to give a definitive assurance that there was nothing sensitive involved, saying he would need to go back and check.

Arguing that cables and cabinet papers only came across in hard copy form is hardly reassuring, because scanners could quickly turn those into electronic form.

And it is reasonable to assume, as Mr Key does, that nothing too sensitive was accessed, or it would be in the public domain already.

It is stretching credulity to the limit to suggest that, when the wheels of the 747 leave the tarmac, travelling ministers no longer have access to Cabinet papers and other sensitive documents – and even if they didn’t, former ministers say it is commonplace to email draft papers, which are sensitive enough.

The fact the Mccully Xtra account was hacked while he was overseas is also a bit of a smokescreen; if the email account was hacked it will not only be the emails that were sent to the account while he was overseas, but potentially others in his inbox, outbox and other folders.

And it is gob-smacking if Mr Key is right to say there are no protocols breached by sending official emails to private addresses outside the Government’s security blanket.

There may have been practical reasons why Mr Mccully wanted emails sent to his private account – the ease of access, the difficulty of reading attachments or whatever. We can all feel his pain on that one.

Public servants are covered by protocols on sending documents, and it is a fair bet that a bureaucrat would face disciplinary action if that was breached, leading to a leak.

Former foreign minister Winston Peters was adamant that sending documents to Mr Mccully’s email account was a breach of protocols ‘‘because it doesn’t have the same safety precautions as the official system has’’.

‘‘Offshore you make sure only one staff member is the conduit of information with as tight security as possible so you don’t imperil your nation’s interest or give foreign governments the view you’re a Heath Robinson outfit,’’ he said.

There may have been practical reasons why Mr Mccully wanted emails sent to his private account – the ease of access, the difficulty of reading attachments or whatever. We can all feel his pain on that one.

But Labour has a suspicion other motives may be at play; that Mr Mccully may have also been keen to keep some information outside the reach of the Official Information Act.

He has a reputation for withholding information whenever possible – reinforced by his heavily edited 2011 briefing to incoming ministers – and for preferring oral briefings to putting some things in writing. But it is not clear just sending official information to a private account would put it outside the reach of the act.

There was clearly considerable unease among officials about the practice of sending official emails to a private address; and that may be just another sign of the souring relationship between Mr Mccully and some at his ministry.

He and chief executive John Allen are in the process of finalising the ministry’s ‘‘change’’ plan that could see 200 jobs go – and Mr Mccully was in the latest meeting on the issue when he was approached to comment on the email issue late on Tuesday.

There is simmering resentment at the ministry about the process and its ramifications for careers.

That includes a suspicion, for instance, that overseas postings will be influenced by factors other than experience and suitability for the job; that the cost of paying extra allowances for spouses and children are also in play, unfairly discriminating against the partnered and those with families.

But that is an argument for another day.

The question to be answered by Mr Key and Mr Mccully now is whether the foreign minister was cavalier in his approach to official emails.

It certainly looks as if he was.