Press secretary case raises questions for police and officials
The disturbing allegations have sparked a review of vetting processes and questions about the adequacy of our laws, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin.
Allegations prompt questions about police, Beehive processes
The fallout from serious allegations against Michael Forbes, the prime minister's now-former deputy chief press secretary, continued on Thursday, following a damning Stuff investigation released the night before. Forbes resigned on Wednesday after journalist Paula Penfold put to him allegations that he had taken non-consensual recordings and photos of women, including sex workers, in various settings. His phone reportedly contained covert recordings of sexual encounters, images of women at the gym and supermarket, and photos taken through windows – including one of an unclothed, unconscious or asleep woman. Forbes apologised for his actions and said he had sought professional help last year.
The allegations have sparked widespread concern, with questions raised about the adequacy of the law, the Beehive's vetting processes, and why no criminal charges were laid.
Legal grey areas highlighted by lack of charges
Despite the disturbing nature of the allegations, police concluded the behaviour did not meet the threshold for prosecution. On the allegation involving an image of an unclothed, unconscious woman, AUT law lecturer Paulette Benton-Greig told Checkpoint it 'certainly seems to me that [it] could have been chargeable' under existing laws about intimate visual recordings taken without the subject's consent.
But as legal academic Cassandra Mudgway explained in the Conversation, republished on The Spinoff, current law does not cover covert audio recordings, nor most intrusive photographs taken in public spaces. This gap in legal protections has prompted calls for reform, including from the sex workers who brought Forbes' behaviour to public attention. Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said the discussion could be had, but he 'wouldn't underestimate that that's a big change' to what is settled law.
Vetting processes under review
The investigation into Forbes' behaviour began in July 2024, months after he had been vetted for his job with minister Louise Upston, and before he was later appointed to the PM's press team, report The Post's Thomas Manch and Kelly Dennett (paywalled). Despite having a security clearance that required disclosure of any subsequent police contact, Forbes did not tell his superiors about the investigation. 'That didn't happen,' Luxon said on Thursday, describing himself as 'incredibly concerned' about the revelations and acknowledging the 'distress' among Beehive staff.
The Department of Internal Affairs has launched an urgent review into the vetting processes and whether inter-agency systems failed. Luxon, while emphasising the importance of police independence, called it a 'fair' question to ask how such a case could go unnoticed by senior officials and decision-makers.
Why didn't police inform the Beehive?
That question has taken on new urgency amid confusion over why the police never alerted the Beehive. Police seized Forbes' phones and interviewed him, but ultimately decided no offence had been committed, report Manch and Dennett in a separate story (paywalled). Commissioner Richard Chambers said under the 'no surprises' convention with ministers, it is up to the commissioner of the day to decide what to escalate. However Andrew Coster, who was commissioner at the time, said he was never informed of the case.
Chambers first learned of the matter only this week when approached by Stuff, at which point he alerted the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It seems that someone senior in the police may have dropped the ball, but Chambers wouldn't name names, only observing that 'it is important that police executive members alert their Commissioner to matters that may need consideration.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Counting on the census
One of the great pillars on which modern New Zealand society is based has been scrapped by the government in a move which has shocked many. The five-yearly, or thereabouts, census has seemingly had its day, Statistics Minister Shane Reti reckons. He announced on Wednesday that New Zealanders had, for the last time, needed to scurry about looking for a pen to fill out the forms or pray that the more recently online documents would work as intended. Citing the need to save time and money, Dr Reti signalled the census will be replaced with "a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection". This will, according to the somewhat breathless Beehive media release, provide better quality economic data to underpin the government's "growth agenda". In line with this thinking, there will be no census in 2028, with the new approach starting in 2030. The new method of collecting nationwide statistics will sharpen the focus on delivering "more timely insights into New Zealand's population", the minister reckons. Good luck with that. While we should not automatically kibosh something before it has had a chance to prove its worth, it is difficult to see how what may effectively be a scattergun approach will be superior to the system which has developed over more than 170 years. The census has, of course, never been perfect. There were well-publicised issues with the 2018 and 2023 counts, and the five-yearly spacing has been interrupted several times, due to such events as the Depression, World War 2 and the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011. There were also concerns about the robustness of responses when the 2023 census was held the month after Cyclone Gabrielle. Dr Reti also has some justification for being concerned about the cost of the census, which has ballooned during the past decade. According to government figures, the 2013 census cost $104 million, but outlay for the 2023 one was $325m, and the now-ditched 2028 one was expected to cost around $400m. The huge leap in price is certainly concerning. Based on those government numbers, there can be no doubt running a census is a very expensive business. However, we need to remember, and perhaps remind the government, that the policies which are meant to benefit everyone across the country in healthcare, education, housing, transport and so on, actually cost many billions of dollars. The price-tag for a census which informs those policies is definitely not chicken feed, but money generally well-spent. Reaction to this week's announcement has largely been negative and expressing surprise at the move. There is particular concern about how cherry-picking data and using smaller sample sets will affect the rigour of information about Māori and Pasifika communities, and also people with disabilities, rainbow communities, and smaller ethnic groups. Dr Reti's promised land of a "sharpened focus on quality" when it comes to statistics will be extremely difficult to achieve. There are crucial questions to answer around how people's existing data within government agencies will be appropriately and sensitively used, who decides what to use and when, and who will oversee the process to make sure it is as comprehensive and fair as such a potentially fraught new system can be. We are uneasy that this move appears to be another example of this government not being especially interested in the science or data necessary for good decision-making and for making policy which is evidence-based, instead careening ever-more wildly across the political landscape in pursuit of zealotry-driven outcomes. We unapologetically support the census system we had, and believe in the provision of proper statistical data sets for modern-day needs and as a source of valuable information for the historians of the future Beware the old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Former New Zealand PM Helen Clark Blames Cook Islands For Creating A Crisis
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa's questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence. The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been honoured. Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters. "There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand's back," Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday. Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time. "It is the Cook Islands government's actions which have created this crisis," she said. "The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China. Brown told parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming. He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand has entered also deals with China that the Cook Islands was not "privy to or being consulted on". A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations. Auckland University of Technology (AUT) senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is "a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages". "Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it," Tekiteki said. Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point. The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out. "There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration," the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said. "An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency". Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not "legally binding" per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in "recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years". He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security. However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to "consult regularly". This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, this is where Brown misstepped. Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal "clandestine" which has "damaged" its relationship with New Zealand. RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.
The Spinoff
3 days ago
- The Spinoff
Census scrapped as Stats NZ eyes cheaper data future
The government has announced a major overhaul of population data collection, but experts say the new approach carries serious risks, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. See ya, census After nearly 175 years, New Zealand's national census is coming to an end, reports Kelly Dennett in The Post (paywalled). Statistics minister Shane Reti confirmed that the five-yearly population count will be replaced with an annual survey model from 2030, which will mainly rely on data already collected by government agencies, known in the trade as administrative data. Reti says the move reflects the need for more timely and cost-effective insights, pointing to the $325 million cost of the 2023 census and an expected $400m for the next. Under the new model, a smaller sample survey will be combined with existing government datasets – from tax records to school enrolments – to produce population statistics on an annual basis. Reti described the overhaul as a reset of Stats NZ's priorities, saying it would 'get back to basics – measuring what matters'. He also provided details of the plan to start delivering a monthly Consumer Price Index from 2027, which was announced in Budget 2025. The government will invest $16.5 million to adjust the CPI from quarterly to monthly, 'bringing New Zealand into line with other advanced economies'. A troubled recent history The census has played a central role in shaping New Zealand's social and political landscape since 1851, albeit one that initially excluded Māori. But its recent history has been plagued by controversy. The failed digital-first approach of the 2018 census produced the lowest response rates in decades, especially among Māori and Pasifika, and government statistician Liz MacPherson resigned amid the fallout. Five years later, the 2023 census saw a marginally improved response, but was marred by a data breach involving subcontracted collectors at Manurewa Marae. A public apology followed, and chief executive Mark Sowden stepped down. The repeated controversies have shaken confidence in the census, laying the groundwork for its eventual demise. Bridging the trust deficit Despite a 99.1% total population coverage in 2023 thanks to the inclusion of administrative data, the census response rate sat at just 88.3% – well below the 95.1% recorded in 2006. So-called 'hard refusals' more than doubled from 2018 to over 10,000 in 2023, with anti-government sentiment cited by over a quarter of those refusing to participate, reported Laura Walters in Newsroom. 'People are busier… there is suspicion about giving their data to Government Inc,' Sowden told a select committee last year. The anti-government sentiment was likely magnified by the 2022 Parliament protest and the proximity of the Covid-19 pandemic, he said. The huge increase in cost between the 2018 census ($123m) and the 2023 version ($326m) was directly attributable to the challenges of getting people to take part, Sowden said. Stats NZ needed to double the number of field workers, and did about five times as much community engagement. Though Stats NZ has legal powers to fine non-compliers, it chose not to issue infringement notices in 2023, citing resource constraints. A bold experiment with high stakes Writing in Newsroom, former government statistician Len Cook warns that the shift to a survey-based model carries serious risks. Unlike countries such as the Netherlands or Israel, which use surveys alongside compulsory population registration, New Zealand has never maintained a formal population register and does not issue identity cards. As a result, Stats NZ will struggle to ensure data quality is maintained – yet it's vitally important that the government has the demographic data it needs. Leaving policy settings as they are in the face of falling fertility and rising life expectancy 'will have the same effect as a fall in government revenue of more than 30% by 2045', Cook warns. 'Almost all publicly funded services will face pressures of a far greater magnitude than we are currently seeing. Without regular knowledge we can trust, we will have little information to plan with.'
