John Roughan: Key can be too candid for our own good

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key talks to the media while Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy looks on at Parliament House. Photo / Getty Images

Opinion

Police seem far less worried about 1080 milk powder poisoning threat.

One of the first things you learn in journalism is that a hoax is not news. This comes as a surprise to the keen young starter who has made the morning police calls and heard about a bomb scare in a city building that has caused a major evacuation and had the emergency services on high alert.

I can remember feeling a little foolish when I got off the phone and raced to the newsdesk with words like "bomb scare", "high alert" and, "turned out to be a hoax". The chief reporter was matter of fact. "So nothing happened," he said.

It has been more than a week since the Prime Minister saw fit to tell the world about an anonymous threat to poison Fonterra's baby formula unless the Conservation Department stopped using 1080 pesticide by the end of this month. Discussion in the media has been about whether he ought to have told us three months ago when the threat was received. Discussion in the industry is about whether he ought to have told us at all.

John Key is open and candid by nature, that is part of the reason he is so popular. When he is trying to dissemble on an awkward issue his taut face and a little suck of breath are almost redeemingly transparent. But he can be open and candid to a fault.

He has explained that he decided he had to make the announcement because if he hadn't, and something happened, he'd be accused of a cover-up. That may be honest but I cannot think of a weaker reason to put one of the country's prime export products under another cloud.

He also said some of the media had wind of the scare and were asking questions, which is true. The Herald was one of them.

The industry had been alerted and word was bound to get around. But sometimes it is better to simply answer some questions than to call a press conference, line up on television with police and company representatives and make a major news production of it.

Consider how differently the disclosure could have been done. Government press secretaries could have simply confirmed that a threat had been received by Fonterra and the Ministry for Primary Industries in November, that the Government is satisfied with precautions the company has taken and police are fairly confident it is a hoax.

Further questions could have been referred to Fonterra. It is, after all, Fonterra's business and a food manufacturer of its scale will be prepared for this sort of risk to its consumers and its reputation.

Michael Barnett, chairman of the NZ Infant Formula Exporters Association, has been telling us these threats are received by commercial food producers more often than people realise. Somebody said Fonterra's global competitors receive such a threat every week. I can believe it. It is not hard to send contaminated food to the manufacturer. Harder to do real harm.

The police don't appear very worried. There has been no sign of urgency from them this week. Downplaying these things, which serves several good purposes. It denies the hoaxer the satisfaction of publicity, avoids encouraging imitators and it is a good test of how serious the threat really is. Hearing the police dismiss it as a hoax, the sicko might be provoked to contact Fonterra again, which could help them flush him out. If he did nothing, the police could be more confident nothing will happen.

But thanks to political candour it has been confirmed that the threat came in the form of milk powder laced with 1080 and it takes effect next month. With the warning thus substantiated and still alive, it is remarkable that the public and press are being very sensible about it. Young mothers do not appear to be in panic, supermarkets are keeping watch on their stock, the media in this country are proving they can be more responsible than most people know.

The only damage may be to export markets where, once again, the public hears there's a problem with New Zealand product.

The Government seems to think candour will give foreign customers more confidence in our food. That is probably naive. References to the botulism scare in media overseas already forget to mention it was a false alarm.

Fonterra and its farmers are paying a price, I think, for the patronage their industry historically has sought from governments. Left alone, a company of its size would have sophisticated communications with its supply chain and consumers when necessary.

But Fonterra is obliged to inform politicians who live in fear they will be accused of a cover-up. They weigh in with a televised warning, the world takes notice and the damage is never entirely undone when it turns out to be nothing.