Prime Minister Chris Hipkins announced that he has received and accepted the resignation of Police Minister Stuart Nash.
Video / Mark Mitchell
OPINION
If former Police Minister Stuart Nash thought asking the Police Commissioner if he would appeal against a court decision was okay because they were “mates” then he has quickly found out otherwise.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ decision that it was a resignation-worthy offence was as much because of Nash’sapparent obliviousness to that on Tuesday as for the original sin two years ago.
Nash got himself into this situation after an interview with Mike Hosking Newstalk ZB this morning while talking about whether the courts were handing down sentences that matched the crime.
He revealed he had once phoned Police Commissioner Andrew Coster to say “surely you’re going to appeal this?” after a court gave an offender home detention instead of jail. He then went on to question whether the courts were applying tough enough sentences in general.
The trouble Nash got himself in was that a question can easily be seen as an instruction when it comes to conversations between ministers and public servants.
That is problematic when there are strict rules about not interfering in decisions undertaken by police – or commenting on the decisions of the courts for that matter.
Stuart Nash has resigned as Police Minister over a comment he made to Police Commissioner Andrew Coster.
Nash is no rookie to either the police role or being a minister. He should know better than to make such a call in the first place - or to boast about it afterwards.
While he had assured Hipkins that it was the only such conversation he had with Coster of such a nature it was not enough to set at ease the question of his lack of judgment.
Nash’s attempt to defend it to the media this morning - rather than recognising he had erred - had sealed his fate.
Nash’s response when asked about it after the interview was gob-smacking. He claimed it was all okey-dokey because it was two years ago and he was between stints as Police Minister. He was simply “chewing the fat with a guy who was a mate”.
What Nash did not appreciate - but Hipkins did - is that there is no such thing as a friendly chat with a Police Commissioner when you’re a minister. It is one of the most politically sensitive relationships that there is.
There is no special exemption clause in either the Policing Act or the Cabinet Manual for “mates”.
There were a number of issues with Nash’s actions - all of which Hipkins himself recognised when setting out why it was an error of judgment sufficient for Nash to lose his warrant.
Not only had he questioned the actions of the judiciary, raising questions about the separation of powers between the three branches of government, but he had also put Coster in a very difficult position. The Policing Act stipulates the Commissioner must act independently of “any minister of the Crown” when it comes to the maintenance of order, the enforcement of the law and – pertinent in this case - “the investigation and prosecution of offences”.
That puts a counter-duty on ministers not to put the Police Commissioner in the position he feels they are trying to exert influence over any of those things.
That counter-duty is set out in the rule book for Nash – the Cabinet Manual.
This stipulates ministers must respect the political neutrality of the public service - and the rules around that are even stricter for police than most Government department heads, which is why it is in the Policing Act.
That manual also warns of the very fine line between “chewing the fat,” as Nash calls it, and exerting influence. “Ministers should bear in mind that they have the capacity to exercise considerable influence over the public service. Ministers should take care to ensure that their intentions are not misunderstood, and that they do not influence officials inappropriately, or involve themselves in matters that are not their responsibility.”
And there is a specific clause on questioning decisions made by the courts: which stipulates ministers should not comment “adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of any judge” - or bring into question the performance of the courts.
It did not help that part of Nash’s objection to the court sentence was that it was politically embarrassing for him.
He said on Newstalk ZB: “I was wandering around telling everyone ‘if you have an illegal firearm, you could face five years in jail’ … This bloke didn’t have a licence, had illegal firearms, had illegal ammunition and had guns without a licence and he got home detention, I think that was a terrible decision by the judge.”
The Cabinet manual is considered to be guidelines rather than strict rules – and it is up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not a breach is serious enough to warrant disciplining or dismissal.
One wonders what former Police Minister Poto Williams might feel felt about her predecessor contacting the Police Commissioner in such a way (and presumably behind her back). She was replaced because she was not seen as tough enough on crime.
Hipkins let Nash stay in his other roles, but he will not be happy to have lost Nash as Police Minister: Nash enjoyed the job and had helped restore Labour’s position on law and order a bit.
Hipkins had appointed Nash because Labour was on the back foot on law and order and Nash is about as tough as a Labour MP could get on crime. His attempt to try to prove that instead resulted in his downfall.
