Former Beehive staffer used private email account to receive document from Fonterra

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s office has admitted a former staffer received a digital copy of a document from Fonterra that lobbied to change climate change legislation.

The document was sent to the private email account of the now-former staffer, a spokesman said. The staffer was Matt Burgess, who worked in the Prime Minister’s Office until October last year and was Luxon’s chief policy adviser.

Burgess told the Herald on Tuesday: “I have no comment to make. There is a formal process underway.”

The Department of Internal Affairs has now launched a review of the former staffer’s IT account.

“Using private email to share official information undermines transparency and public trust,” a spokesman for the Prime Minister said.

The document relates to Fonterra and Z Energy lobbying for a law change in relation to pending litigation, Smith v Fonterra. The litigation was launched against a range of firms over their contribution to climate pollution.

The documents were not released when requested after a request under the Official Information Act (OIA), despite the fact Fonterra and Z Energy both admitted to sending them to the Prime Minister’s Office – a fact revealed during a High Court disclosure.

In a statement, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said “it has been brought to our attention that the hard copy document relating to the Smith v Fonterra case was also sent from a Fonterra staff member to the former Beehive staff member’s private email account".

“This does not meet the standards expected of staff in the Beehive and we are treating it with the seriousness it deserves, with a number of reviews underway,” the spokesman said.

“The Department of Internal Affairs is conducting a review of the former staff member’s IT account to ensure there are no further documents or meetings relating to the Smith v Fonterra case that should be released, and will work with the individual to identify whether there are any other work-related documents on their private email that should be on the public record.

“The former staff member has given an assurance that there are no other emails relating to the Smith v Fonterra case on their private email.

“Separately, the Ombudsman has initiated its own review into how this OIA release was handled.

“Using private email to share official information undermines transparency and public trust.

“It remains appropriate for interested parties to talk to ministers and their staff on policy matters, but it is imperative that information is appropriately recorded and transparent.”

That did not happen here, the spokesman said.

“The individual concerned has not worked in the Prime Minister’s Office since October last year and has not worked at Parliament since January,” the spokesman said in the statement.

Speaking later at a press conference, Luxon said he didn’t know why the former staffer had used their private Gmail account.

He said if the “process failings” were put aside, the Government had decided to change the legislation to ensure the climate change framework remained the responsibility of the state, rather than the courts.

“It’s actually a no-brainer when you look at the substance. We’re not interested in a parallel system where the courts interpret climate-change frameworks.”

Luxon said he didn’t talk with Burgess at all on the matter. He also didn’t believe there was a widespread issue within his office of people using private emails.

“I have no evidence of that,” Luxon said.

“I think we’ve got very professional staff who are well aware of their obligations, but that’s why we are putting full court press on it and drawing attention to the issue, because it’s a good teachable moment, to remind staff of their obligations.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins on Tuesday said: “The more new information comes to light, the more this looks like a deliberate ploy by the Prime Minister’s Office to hide the extent of industry lobbying and influence.”

“This stinks to high heaven.”

Luxon responded to that by saying Hipkins may wish to “politic” on it but he was focused on making sure “we’ve got robustness and rigorousness in our processes”.