Bryce Edwards: Sexual politics and state integrity

Roger Sutton, chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

Should Iain Rennie go? The State Services Commissioner is under fire for his handling of Roger Sutton's departure from Cera. The whole controversy raises important questions and concerns about sexual politics and the state. Does the State Services Commission (SSC) and the National Government take sexual harassment seriously? And has the integrity of governance now been eroded by Rennie's actions? The fact that so many questions are raised - but not being answered - is reflected by Catriona MacLennan in her blog post, 47 questions for State Services Commissioner.

The failure of the state

The state is currently under challenge. New Zealand society is quickly becoming highly concerned about sexual harassment and other forms of inappropriate and criminal interaction between the sexes. This has been seen recently in the Roastbusters and the Malaysian diplomat controversies. The Sutton controversy is just one more situation where the state, and perhaps even the National Government, is seen to be lacking integrity. It appears that public officials and state systems have not kept up with the shifting public concerns relating to sexual politics.

The various government agencies have been tested and found wanting. This is the point made by Christchurch journalist Philip Matthews, who has put forward a lengthy discussion about current 'gender wars' and how the Sutton debacle comes in the midst of other assorted government agencies also failing on modern gender politics - see: Sexism: We can't escape it. Matthews says: 'Sexism is everywhere. The Sutton affair is one more episode in a long-running series about gender politics. Each event sheds more light on gender relations in 2014. The picture is not always pretty but it is useful'.

The harshest critic of the SSC and Iain Rennie has probably been journalist Andrea Vance. Her column, 'Dinosaur attitude' saves Sutton's face essentially accuses the SSC of covering up the sexual harassment crimes. Vance says that Rennie has a 'dinosaur attitude to sexual bullying in the workplace'.

A second column, Vance's must-read Shameful rape culture ridiculous but pervasive also points out that the SSC is the 'lead public service agency', and should have learned from witnessing the poor handling of other sexual politics cases by the Police and the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Duncan Garner makes some similar points: 'This case has been handled poorly and it lacks transparency. Rennie should have done much, much better than this. He's the ultimate boss of the public service and he's allowed the victims to be re-victimised. Rennie talks about public service standards and ethics. He lectures others how to be the perfect employer. But on this case he's been found seriously wanting' - see: Iain Rennie utterly fails the test.

Garner calls for 'an inquiry into the inquirer', accuses Rennie of protecting Sutton, being evasive, and warns him that 'the truth, as it always does, will slowly leak out. And Rennie will be further embarrassed, as he should be'.

For another highly critical appraisal of the SSC boss' role - and especially about Rennie's failure to be accountable to the public over the issue ('Rennie is refusing more than fleeting interviews') - see Hamish Rutherford's column, Rennie's reputation takes a big hit. The upshot, according to Rutherford is this: 'Until he confronts the lingering questions a cloud will surely hang over his future. If he is not willing to front up, he should resign. Thousands of women in the public sector deserve better than what he has delivered'.

The most recent Listener editorial, Que Cera, Cera?, also questions what the SSC has achieved, and says 'For an agency charged with ensuring the welfare and effective functioning of the public service, the State Services Commission (SSC) has excelled not only in making a bad situation inside Cera worse, but in foisting new uncertainty on all workplaces, public and private'.

Politicisation of Rennie's 'mistake'

Quite properly the Sutton-Rennie situation has been politicised. Labour leader Andrew Little has made strong statements - see: Andrew Little: Rennie 'unfit' for SSC job. But Prime Minister John Key has come out today to defend Rennie and argue why he shouldn't be sacked - see the Herald's Rennie made 'miscalculation' in allowing Sutton press conference - PM.

Similarly, David Farrar puts forward two reasons against a sacking in his blog post, Calls for Rennie to go. The first reason is that such a significant sacking could 'be justified only if there was an ongoing series of wrong calls on multiple issues, rather than one situation handled badly'.

Farrar's second point is an issue of process: 'he can only be sacked by way of resolution of the House of Representatives. S16 of the State Sector Act 1988 states they can only be suspended by the Governor-General for up to 21 days, and they resume their job unless House of Representatives declares by resolution they ought to be removed from office. This shows that the threshold for removal is set very high'.

Farrar also raises questions about whether more critical focus should be directed at the women who complained about Sutton, as she is now effectively also breaking the confidentiality agreement by leaking information to the media - see: Doesn't confidentiality apply both ways?.

Much of the defence of Rennie's position appears to be badly attuned to the level of public concern about sexual politics and harassment. The SSC is now developing a reputation for not taking sexual harassment seriously, and as a result the public will ultimately lose faith in the ability or willingness of government agencies to response to such issues.

Therefore the issue is about more than a mere 'mistake'. After all, the SSC is in charge of ensuring ethical behaviour and integrity in the public sector. This is the agency that is tasked with ensuring that other government agencies are transparent, accountable and ethical. Yet it might now, under Rennie, lack the moral authority required to carry out its duties with the confidence of the public. The watchdog will not be trusted.

The SSC faces an uphill battle to regain the trust of the public. And by staying on, Rennie effectively stands in the way of the SSC achieving this. Therefore the integrity of the whole state is at risk. Undoubtedly this provides much political potential for opposition parties to campaign on cleaning up and modernising the public sector.

Furthermore, there continues to be questions about whether Rennie and the SSC just make a 'mistake' or actually a willful decision in holding the ill-fated Sutton press conference. This is especially relevant after revelations have emerged that the SSC had actually been specifically advised against handling the scandal they way they did - see Hamish Rutherford's Adviser off after Sutton warnings.

So, can someone with such obvious poor judgment be allowed to continue in such an important role? And as the controversy goes on, more questions might be raised about the SSC's role. For example, the Herald's editorial on the issue raises the question of why Rennie wasn't in favour of Sutton being pushed out of the job: 'Rennie has said subsequently that Mr Sutton was guilty of "serious misconduct", and that he had been right to resign. If resignation was the right course, it seems axiomatic that dismissal was, in the first instance, the appropriate penalty' - see: Other side of Sutton affair needs airing.

And for an even stronger-worded newspaper editorial, see the Dominion Post's Rennie bungles Sutton investigation.

Perpetuating rape culture?

A previous Political Roundup column from the time of the Malaysian diplomat scandal, asked Does New Zealand have a 'rape culture'?. This latest incident will give greater credence to claims that the enabling of sexual harassment and abuse is widespread.

Certainly Andrea Vance argues strongly that the current scandal indicates that many of those speaking out on the matter are guilty of perpetuating rape culture: 'Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee, chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Andrew Kibblewhite, Labour MP Ruth Dyson, Green MP Eugenie Sage, television presenter Mike Hosking, all publicly offered support or sympathy to the abuser. Sadly, just as culpable are large swathes of the media, who swallowed whole Sutton's lines and painted him as just a "larrikin in a suit" who "meant no harm".' - see: Shameful rape culture ridiculous but pervasive.

The presence of so many politicians and public figures - including Green and Labour MPs - that gave positive endorsements of Sutton during this controversy might now be regretable. Bill Ralston explained why he was sympathetic towards Sutton: 'Even the gold standard of political correctness, the Greens, were sad for him. Spokesperson Eugenie Sage said his departure was "really unfortunate" and Sutton was a "bouncy, Tigger-ish character". When the Greens start comparing someone to a cute AA Milne character, you get the feeling they're not a sexual abuser' - see: Touchy-feely (paywalled).

For a further critique of the culture and defence of Sutton, see Toby Manhire's Another round of 'blame the victim'?. In particular, he derides the defenders of Sutton and those that have complained of the complanent simply causing a 'fuss'.

Other interesting commentaries and revelations can be found in Rodney Hide's Men who get things done don't hug, Kurt Bayer's Sutton accuser 'was not alone', and the Herald's Workplace harassment watchdog wants to know why Roger Sutton was allowed to go public.

And in light of all the pronouncements about Sutton's many achievements in Christchurch - coming from everyone from the Mayor of Christchurch through to the editor of The Press - it's worth reading a counterview - see Steven Cowan's Roger's legacy, sweetie.

Finally, for a visual view of this latest sexual politics scandal, see my blog post, Cartoons about the Roger Sutton scandal.