6. Trust in Government

Trust in government is a complex issue that includes cultural, political, socioeconomic, and other factors. Trust includes the public's perspective on how well government is performing and the issues of the day that dominate public discussion. Because this study did not focus exclusively on trust, all of these issues were not raised in each focus group meeting. Thus, the following provides a general overview, one that highlights confidence in government, the intrusion of government in peoples' lives, privacy, and security. The examination of these factors, however, does not directly look at or compare the public's trust in government in general, but looks at trust in government as represented by the Internet.

A further complication is that there is a global dimension to the trust issue. Some governments, as a few focus group participants mentioned, have more of a trust problem with their public. That problem relates to government in general and to the perceived use of government web sites to promote a political party's political, economic, military, and social agenda. Overt conformity by a government agency, and on its web site to a government's political agenda, may result in a loss of confidence. One participant, who was born in the United Kingdom and lived there until recently, commented that the public there was "losing confidence in the government and therefore placing less trust in government web sites." He noted that he had heard the same was occurring in the United States. The other participants in that focus group did not share his distrust of government web sites in New Zealand. However, they pointed out that if a significant problem of trust in government arose, their level of trust in New Zealand government web sites could change.

An advantage that New Zealand has over many other countries is its size. Members of the public tend to feel a closeness to, or connection with, government. They can interact directly with government officials, and they might see these people, for instance, in their city or suburb, on airplanes and in airports.

6.1 The Internet

Focus group participants distinguished between trust in the Internet in general and in government on the Internet. They maintained that the general problems commonly associated with Internet use (e.g. identity theft, pornography, spam, and viruses) do not apply to government web sites. For instance, they viewed spam and viruses as general problems that every computer user faces. They did not consider these as issues related exclusively to use of government web sites. As one participant stated, "Why would government send me spam?," and another queried, "Why would government send me unwanted e-mail?" They could not imagine government selling e-mail addresses to the private sector.

6.2 Confidence in government

Focus group interviewees interpreted confidence as relating to the quality of the information provided, the currentness of information, and the recency of the publication date on a web page. Some members of the Auckland business community distinguished among types of government information; they saw some (e.g. press releases and statements by Ministers) as likely to be self-serving and less trustworthy than other types of government information. The working professionals agreed; government information on the Internet might reflect the “official line.” They were the only group to question the version of the information they examined—“Is it in draft or final form?” Furthermore, “which version has been archived, and can the public tell the difference?” “Where is the authoritative version if the pdf version is not a faithful rendition of the actual document?” One working professional added, “If I see typos and other errors in proofreading, I assume the document is half-finished and not the final report.”

Most respondents were willing to supply information via the Internet to the extent that they would do so by post, telephone, or face-to-face. Those who took the view “I have nothing to hide” also applied this to Internet-based exchanges. Those who were more sensitive about personal information applied this to their use of the Internet.

Related to this was the widespread belief that government will not misuse the information provided—whether that information relates to their work or personal lives. Confidence would be eroded if they found out that the government cross-matched data or extensively engaged in data mining—sharing data among departments and agencies and culling information from assorted databases to learn more about the public. The Māori group, however, were sensitive to information about their iwi not being broadly shared.

Another aspect of confidence is that government provides some incentives for providing information through the Internet while properly protecting the security of the information provided. The information supplied might be business information, and the incentive is a cost reduction for supplying the information online as opposed to offline. Such incentives (such as that applied by the Companies Office to the ability to register a company online) were broadly approved. Some commented that such incentives could be applied across other departments and agencies.

It merits mention that the members of the public interviewed do not always trust the information supplied by phone. Because the person on the phone might make a mistake, they might ask for the name of the person to whom they speak. One participant added, “If the question is simple and there is not much at stake (cost, time, etc.), then I’d use the web site.”

6.3 Intrusion of government in daily lives

Intrusion has different aspects. One aspect occurred in the interview with members of the business community (Auckland) and the working professionals. That aspect related to the belief that government was becoming Orwellian in its adoption of "Big Brother." The number of people who mentioned this term, however, was small.

6.4 Privacy

The members of the public interviewed believed that personal information “is out there. What can I do about it?” An area of limited concern relates to the handling of personal information that the public might be asked to provide online. One person asked, “How secure is personal information in filing cabinets of a department?” Obviously, information can never be entirely secure. However, if a government web site claimed that the information provided was secure, focus group participants would believe it. Still, they would like government web sites to indicate (1) that they protect information provided and (2) how they protect it. Nobody interviewed mentioned either the Privacy Act or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner when they discussed government’s handling of personal information that they supplied to government. (However, we did not insert a prompt in the discussion to refer to either the Commissioner or the Act.)

6.5 Security

Those interviewed assumed that government blocks viruses and that computer hacking of government sites has not yet presented a problem in New Zealand. However, if someone were to create a mirror site that involved a scam and that sought credit card information, their response to trust in government sites might change. There is a definite belief that any site address containing “.govt” is official and therefore is trustworthy. Furthermore, if a government web site promises secure transactions, the public is likely to believe it.

An area of limited concern, but a concern that might grow in the future, related to the security of e-mail messages. A number of focus group participants wondered, “How well would government protect e-mail messages they might send?” They realised that recipients can “forward” messages, perhaps to large groups. Forwarding capability relates to the content of a message but also the protection of one’s e-mail address. They definitely wanted their e-mail address protected and not shared without their permission. If government web sites use cookies, both the type and its use must be carefully explained on the opening screen of the homepage. Cookie use could lead to a level of distrust in government web sites.

The members of the Auckland business community thought that the quality of security varied from department to department. For them consistency and standardisation promoted a sense of security in their dealings with government on the Internet. An element of security for the Wellington business community is that government could preserve e-mail correspondence. Even if departmental personnel deleted e-mail, it still resides on the hard drive and could be accessed. Still, the question for them is, "How significant is the risk if staff passed a computer to someone else in (or outside) the department?

6.6 Major Areas of Distrust

The students, the working professionals, the Māori, and Pacific peoples referred to government as "Big Brother' engaged in surveillance of them and their Internet use. Students and some people in other focus groups distrusted the service that WINZ provided them.As one of them explained,

If I complete any WINZ form I want to get a receipt saying that I've handed something in to them. If I don't get a receipt and they say that they've never got it—then I have to go back to the start. So you physically go down there? Well if it's just the form—I give it to them and say look would you mind just signing so I've got something to stand on if they say they've lost it. Since they lose so much I don't trust them.

• "The Ministry of Health does not provide up-to-date information about drugs. It passes along drug company information. [That] information is not independent. [It reflects] what drug companies say."
• Government serves some of the population on the Internet but not everyone. This perceived selectivity raised a concern about trust in government itself.
• They felt that if government sites claimed they were "secure," they would not believe it. They do not provide personal information online and seemed unlikely to ever do so.
• Trust involves easy to find and up-to-date information. Government should not mislead or misinform. This is a reference to the previously mentioned drug information on the Ministry of Health web site.
• They thought that government departments shared personal information, such as health information.

The group thought that some of the questions that government asks on numerous forms reflected a stereotypic image of people with disabilities. They might ask for a declaration of the specific disability. To them, this is "personal information." Insensitivity of people is an aspect of trust to them; "If I don't reveal my disability, they won't do what I want." This perceived insensitivity has trust implications.