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.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
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.”
