Indeed, Seymour specifically tried to tell them how to do their job, writing: “It’s understandable that police would regard him as a person of interest. But in this instance, the police appear to have gone beyond that brief”.
That is a big no-no for any MP and can only be seen for what it is – an effort to undermine the police’s independence.
Police appear to have ignored Seymour’s effort to alter their conduct - but that doesn’t absolve his wrongdoing in trying it on.
Seymour claims that he was just passing on the concerns of his constituent and that’s his job. Yeah, do you think he’s turning out dozens of letters a week on behalf of people under police investigation telling the cops how to do their work? Not bloody likely.
The truth is, MPs are not required to personally take up every cause that comes to their door, and it is clear what they should do when asked to intervene in a police investigation – tell the person to talk to their lawyer or the Independent Police Conduct Authority. An ex-MP who I asked about this said they had never written to police about the conduct of an investigation and did not know of any MP who had.
Why Seymour gave Polkinghorne special treatment and crossed the boundaries is naturally causing speculation. Did the eye surgeon donate to Act? Seymour refuses to say. That only adds to the bad odour around this whole thing. Seymour would be wise to clear up why he intervened especially for Polkinghorne.
This isn’t the first time Seymour has erred in such matters.
The way Seymour handled the Polkinghorne and Jago issues makes a mockery of his claims to be about equality before the law and tough on crime.
In one case he tried to use the power of his office to influence how police treated a specific person. In the other, he seems to have been more concerned about the employment ramifications for Act than ensuring Jago’s victims got justice.
As for the stunt trying to drive a Land Rover up Parliament steps this week, the act itself is not a biggie, but what gets me is he’s on film being told it wasn’t permitted, then tried to claim afterwards that he didn’t know.
In my opinion such blatant dishonesty makes you question everything he says.
Act leader David Seymour was told off by Parliament security for attempting to drive a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament. Photo / Adam Pearse
Ministers who display incompetence, or partake in dodgy behaviour, seem to get a free pass.
In a few months, Seymour will be Luxon’s Deputy Prime Minister, yet it’s clear Seymour is in charge of their relationship. He’s openly defiant because he knows Luxon won’t do anything to bring him into line.
You’ll see political commentators say Luxon can’t discipline Seymour because he needs Act’s votes for his majority in Parliament. But that’s wrong. Seymour needs Luxon too.
Imagine if Luxon had stood Seymour down from his portfolios for a month as punishment, or taken one of his associate portfolios. Seymour’s not going to walk away from the coalition over that. If he did, he and his Act MPs would no longer be ministers.
The fact is, Seymour (and Winston Peters) walk all over Luxon because that’s the relationship dynamic Luxon established right from the coalition talks – where he obediently trailed Peters around the country and gave away far too much power and policy to Seymour.
A weak Prime Minister, a faltering economy and coalition partners who are off the leash: no wonder the polls are saying this Government is already on its last legs.
