Not Happy: Winston Peters has every right to be outraged at the way his interactions with the Ministry of Social Development were drawn to the attention of Government ministers. It is only in dictatorships that state officials regard the private and personal information of the citizenry as a resource for advancing the interests of their political masters.
THAT THE STATE SERVICES COMMISSIONER placed Winston Peters’
superannuation difficulties within the ambit of the “No Surprises Rule” is
deeply troubling. Clearly, both the Commissioner and the Solicitor General
(whom he consulted) considered the imminence of a General Election an
insufficient reason for keeping what was, essentially, a matter of routine
administration, confidential to the Ministry of Social Development and the
citizen directly involved. Their decision to allow MSD officials to brief the
Social Development Minister, Anne Tolley, that the leader of a rival political
party was about to be interviewed by her ministry concerning superannuation
overpayments, can only be construed as extending the scope of the No Surprises
Rule into extremely dangerous territory.
Hitherto, the No Surprises Rule (which isn’t, in fact, a
rule at all, but a convention dating back to the prime-ministership of Helen
Clark) was only applied to the imminent public release of potentially
controversial information pertaining to government administration. The classic
example given is of a ministry which has just received a formal request for
sensitive official information from the news media. Rather than have the
minister “ambushed” by journalists, Prime Minister Clark argued that Cabinet
members should be given a “heads up” by their officials. That way, rather than
be caught on the hop, ministers would have plenty of time to be brought up to
speed.
There is certainly a strong element of political logic to
this expectation. What Minister wouldn’t feel blind-sided and seriously let
down by their officials if the first he or she knew about a serious
bureaucratic bungle was when the parliamentary wolf-pack came clamouring for
explanations?
On the other hand, a stickler for the Westminster tradition
of full ministerial responsibility might argue that any Minister inattentive
enough to be surprised by the consequences of his or her own decisions deserves
to be embarrassed by the news media. Such a constitutional pedant might further
object that, practically speaking, the No Surprises Rule offers every bit as
much protection to derelict public servants as it does to elected
representatives? Yes, it may save the politician’s face, but may it not also
cover the bureaucrat’s arse?
There are many in the journalistic profession who will
attest to the malign transformation which has been wrought to the principle of
political accountability by the No Surprises Rule. From a simple heads-up, it
has mutated into the practice of no-holds-barred “perception management”.
Public servants have morphed into PR mavens. The old maxim, “Information is
Power”, has been used to justify an unprecedented “mind-meld” between the
Executive Branch of government and what used to be this country’s neutral civil
service.
Set in this context, the unwisdom of the State Services
Commissioner’s dramatic extension of the No Surprises Rule’s scope is clear.
Quite simply, the Minister of Social Development had no ministerial
responsibility whatsoever for the discussions which were about to take place
between her Ministry and Mr Peters. Or rather, she had no responsibility so
long as those discussions remained – as they should have remained – completely
confidential. The only possible justification for a “heads-up” from her
officials would be if there was a reasonable possibility that the details of Mr
Peters interview with the MSD were on the point of entering the public domain.
In other words, the State Services Commissioner reached the
alarming conclusion that senior civil servants must now assume that all state
ministries and departments are utterly incapable of protecting the New Zealand
citizen’s right to privacy; and that any and all politically “juicy”
information will, inevitably, find its way into the public domain.
But this is a calamitous assumption, which strikes at the
heart of the public’s trust and confidence in the security of private
information entrusted to the state. Worse still, it suggests that the
“Information is Power” maxim has so taken hold within the ranks of ministerial
advisers that they now feel professionally obligated to empower their political
masters with the sort of information that neither public servants, nor
politicians, have the slightest legitimate reason (or legal right!) to possess.
It is only in dictatorships that state officials regard the
private and personal information of the citizenry as a resource for advancing
the interests of their political masters. The State Services Commissioner had
an opportunity to strike a blow for New Zealand democracy.
What a pity he didn’t take it.
This essay was
originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The
Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 1 September 2017.
