Audrey Young: The proper and improper ways for ministers to behave over appointments

OPINION

When Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was asked earlier this week if Andrew Coster would last in his job as Police Commissioner under the new Government, he naively said that would be up to the new minister, Mark Mitchell.

It was a blithely improper suggestion that the incoming Police Minister should be able to sack or try to sack the Police Commissioner.

That would be the ultimate abuse of power in the current circumstances.

An important feature of New Zealand’s democracy is political independence from the constabulary and that includes keeping at arm’s length from its work and not politicising its appointments at any level. The minister can set Government priorities and expectations without giving direction.

Independence has been a long-standing practice but it was put into the law in the Policing Act 2008 after concerns that there was no protection in legislation for it and that it was taken for granted.

Incidentally, codifying the independence in law was, in part, also a response to concerns about the level of direction police got from Government in response to protests during a visit to New Zealand in 1999 by China’s then-president, Jiang Zemin.

The Police Commissioner is a special appointment – one of few appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

It is not like other public sector bosses who, by the way, should not be elbowed out by incoming governments either without just cause.

Yes, the Government needs to have confidence in its top-level public sector executives but that should be withheld only in exceptional circumstances and for clear reasons.

But the bar should be even higher for a police commissioner before a minister embarks on any campaign, overt or covert, to get rid of them – the test should be impropriety or misconduct.

An irretrievable breakdown in the relationship could also be grounds but in that case, the Prime Minister should first try a new minister before employing a new commissioner.

That fact that National might prefer someone else is not grounds enough. It is understood that National would rather see Assistant Commissioner Richard Chambers in the role.

Police Commissioner Andrew Coster. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The fact that National launched political attacks on Coster when it was in Opposition is not grounds enough either.

The commissioner was attacked as a “wokester” by former leader Simon Bridges who had had run-ins with Coster during the Covid-19 select committee. And that is evidence of National politicising the role, not Coster.

The question is whether Mitchell will embark on behaviour that would make it untenable for Coster to continue, which could range from repeated failure to express confidence in him to open criticism of him. That is bound to be tested by the Opposition when Parliament resumes.

Despite National’s attempts to demonise Coster, he is not a demon in the eyes of the public and there is an expectation on Mitchell to act fairly and make an honest attempt to work with him.

Coster’s term began in 2020 at the start of Covid and runs until April 2025.

New Police Minister Mark Mitchell needs to be seen to be acting fairly. Photo / Jed Bradley

Not all appointments should be safe, however. For example, it would be highly unusual but not improper for the Government to recall political diplomatic appointees made under Labour.

Former Labour deputy Annette King is just finishing up in Canberra as High Commissioner but Foreign Minister Winston Peters originally appointed her so she would have been safe.

But former Labour leader Phil Goff in London and former Speaker Trevor Mallard in Ireland have no guarantee that Peters will keep them in place, particularly Mallard against whom Peters bears a grudge. Mallard trespassed Peters from Parliament grounds after he visited the unlawful occupation on Parliament’s lawn last year – although the order was later withdrawn.

There has been an unwritten rule between National and Labour that will honour the other’s political diplomatic appointments. One of the few if not the only breach occurred when Sir Robert Muldoon as a new Prime Minister recalled former Labour Deputy Prime Minister Hugh Watt from London to replace him with Sir Doug Carter.

Winston Peters and Trevor Mallard at a farewell for Peters after he was voted out of Parliament in late 2020. Photo / Audrey Young

Peters, the New Zealand First leader, would likely require the agreement of his National and Act coalition partners before any high-profile recall of ambassadors. By all accounts, Mallard is doing a good job in Dublin but he was appointed because of his political credentials and he could just as easily be recalled because of them.

However Peters has acted fairly traditionally in the past. After he became Foreign Minister in 2017, he took great umbrage at the suggestion he might recall former National Trade Minister Tim Groser from his ambassadorial post in Washington DC.

Ministerial appointments to boards should be safe until their term is up but the appointment by ministers of former politicians to chair important boards are in a different league. It is not always the case that they need to go either. But the chairs need to have a good working relationship with the minister. Kainga Ora’s chair, Vui Mark Gosche, and Pharmac’s, Steve Maharey, are both former Labour ministers and could be replaced by incoming ministers.

Former National Deputy Prime Minister Sir Don McKinnon decided to offer his resignation to new Defence Minister Judith Collins in his role on the Defence Strategic Review – which no doubt she will reject.

The fact he was appointed by a Labour Government was proof he was appointed for his expertise, not his politics, but he takes the view that every minister should be able to make his or her appointments.

However principled that might sound, New Zealand may be a little too small to have a complete clean-out of ministerial appointments after every election as they do in the United States where politics is all-pervasive.