The actions of Prime Minister’s media advisor Michael Forbes may not have passed the test for criminal charges, but they were more than peccadilloes: They were gross breaches of privacy. Forbes also breached his fundamental professional responsibilities.
He had an inalienable duty to conduct himself in a way that would not potentially damage the standing of the office he served, the reputation of its incumbent, or their ability to continue normal business. If he failed in that duty, he had an undeniable responsibility to inform his superiors of his misconduct.
Creating audio recordings of encounters with sex workers and covertly photographing women in public places and in what appeared to be private places falls squarely into the category of conduct that crossed that line. It was, of course, also completely unacceptable on so many other levels.
Among other things, he laid himself open to sinister possibilities. Tracy Watkins, who edits both The Post and the Sunday Star Times, said in her Sunday editorial that Forbes potentially opened himself to blackmail and manipulation that could have seen sensitive material falling into the wrong hands.
As Watkins said: The security implications had beltway insiders abuzz when the story broke in The Post.
However, let’s stick with professional responsibility.
Forbes’ covert actions may have psychological roots that mean he could not see they were wrong. By his own admission he has since undertaken counselling. However, the laying of a complaint with Police – irrespective of the outcome – triggered an entirely different imperative.
His role at the time, as press secretary to the Minister for Social Development Louise Upston, meant an inevitable impact on her if the Police enquiries became public knowledge or if complainants – dissatisfied with the decision not to lay charges – had taken the matter to the Privacy Commissioner. A privacy breach would have a significantly lower threshold than criminal charges. At the very least, Upston would have appeared blind-sided if she had been unaware of events that became public knowledge.
Forbes should have seen he had no option but to inform the minister’s Senior Private Secretary that he had been subject to a search warrant and interview by the Police. That obligation would have been self-evident under the State Services Commission’s Standards of Integrity & Conduct. Two of its provisions had been breached:
- Ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships
- Avoid any activities, work or non-work, that may harm the reputation of our organisation or of the State Services.
He made no disclosure to Upston’s office last year, nor did he raise the matter when interviewed for a temporary media advisory position in the Office of the Prime Minister in February. If he thought it would simply go away, he was wrong. It came back and triggered Forbes’ 11th hour resignation last week.
His actions have also demonstrated the impact that failure to meet professional standards can have on those served. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was put in an unenviable position. Blindsiding does that. He was embarrassed, he was angry, and he was alarmed that the vetting processes for Parliamentary staff had failed to uncover Forbes’ activities. He voiced his frustration to an impromptu media conference and instituted urgent enquiries into the vetting process. His reaction made it as far as BBC News. You might like to blame Luxon for many things but none of this was his fault.
The fault lay with Michael Forbes, although there will be some searching questions over why Police did not inform Upston’s office or the State Services Commission as soon as they knew Forbes’ professional position. They must have known his role at the time. He had disclosed it to one of the sex workers he recorded and that was a significant part of the decision to lay a complaint.
Irrespective of the duty that Police may have had, Forbes had a separate and compelling responsibility to inform his minister because of the role he played in her office.
The Parliamentary bureaucracy nowadays is largely made up of faceless public servants, but media advisors are in a unique position. They are publicly linked with the ministers they serve. Journalists are on first name terms with them and, even if their names are less well known to the public, their faces are recognisable. Last week editors would have had no difficulty finding an image or video of Forbes standing behind the Prime Minister or Louise Upston at a media conference or public event.
That places a responsibility on media advisors to act (and speak) in ways that befit the office they serve. It is a responsibility not limited to office hours. Senior journalists have a similar responsibility because of the public links they have to the media that employ them.
Like my predecessors, I was acutely aware as editor of New Zealand’s largest newspaper that my personal behaviour needed to be above reproach. And it needed to be seen to be so. Yes, I made decisions with which some disagreed (it goes with the territory), and inside the office I allowed myself occasional displays of anger and the use of expletives (I was in good company). However, I was always conscious of the need not to behave in a way that would bring my position, the masthead, or the publisher into disrepute.
The events of the past week should be a lesson to anyone in the communication and public relations industry that they have a reputational duty to their employers or clients. That duty does not stop at showing their client or organisation in the best possible light, but extends to ensuring their own behaviour does not reflect adversely on those they are charged with representing.
There was also another lesson from the Forbes saga: No-one should assume that, just because you want it to be hidden, a secret will necessarily stay that way.
Forbes’ activities were discovered by a sex worker during a session with him in July last year and, after the closing of the Police file, he may have thought it would all quietly disappear.
He did not reckon on two things: Four Wellington sex workers rightly concerned at what he was doing, and the tenacity of Stuff senior investigative journalist Paula Penfold.
Penfold has a host of impactful investigations under her belt, not least her three years enquiry into the wrongful conviction of Teina Pora, who spent 21 years in jail for rape and murder. Her stories contributed significantly to the eventual quashing of his convictions and a $2.5 million dollar payout from the Crown.
The Teina Pora story showed how dogged she can be, and the same tenacity was evident in the investigation that culminated in a series of stories in Stuff publications last week. As she has since revealed on Stuff, her initial involvement began last November when she first heard of Forbes’ actions. Her investigation involved working with the Prostitutes Collective, finding four sex workers and a brothel owner, gaining their confidence, then gathering and corroborating material.
As Penfold says, knowing about the story and being able to publish it were two quite different things. It took until early last week to pull all the strands together. You can read how her investigation unfolded here .
Other media picked up the story and, to their credit, most acknowledged Stuff’s investigation. A major follow-up focus has been on the vetting process that failed to uncover Forbes’ activities. New Zealand Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan gave an excellent insight into the process (and its shortcomings) in the Weekend Herald.
He outlined the process led by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the disclosure obligations placed on those with security clearance. An SIS spokesperson told him: “There are clear obligations on security clearance holders to report to their sponsoring agency any information which may be relevant to their ongoing suitability to hold a clearance, and to allow any risks to be managed.”
That, it seems, was another obligation Michael Forbes failed to meet.
Bouquet
To NewstalkZB’s afternoon host Heather du Plessis-Allen for winning Broadcaster of the Year at the New Zealand Radio and Podcast Awards. She was just finishing her shift as the win was announced, so was denied the pleasure of personally accepting the Sir Paul Holmes Award. Among other things, I admire her work ethic.
From Jim Tucker: Good column, but I think there was a lower horse you might have considered riding as well.
It carries the telling irony evident in society’s lack of regard for the rights of women, sex workers particularly.
Nobody took any notice of their complaint, which was no doubt made first and foremost to protect themselves but perhaps also from a sense of duty to report the dangerous behaviour of such a senior public servant.
Take a read of “Madam” some time. Gavin. It reveals what an ugly world some NZ women are forced to inhabit.
Let’s celebrate their role in all this. The irony lies, of course, in the fact they brought this to light, not various other parties who regard themselves as important. They were lucky it was a woman reporter who dug into the story.
From Jim Tucker: Good column, but I think there was a lower horse you might have considered riding as well.
It carries the telling irony evident in society’s lack of regard for the rights of women, sex workers particularly.
Nobody took any notice of their complaint, which was no doubt made first and foremost to protect themselves but perhaps also from a sense of duty to report the dangerous behaviour of such a senior public servant.
Take a read of “Madam” some time. Gavin. It reveals what an ugly world some NZ women are forced to inhabit.
Let’s celebrate their role in all this. The irony lies, of course, in the fact they brought this to light, not various other parties who regard themselves as important. They were lucky it was a woman reporter who dug into the story.