Shortly after 7pm, on Parliament’s black and white tiles, Hipkins dispatched what was left of Nash’s political career. MPs Andrew Bayly and Golriz Ghahraman, returning from the dinner break, cast their eyes down into the atrium, giving the scene the air of public execution.
But what next?
Hipkins has done the right thing launching an inquiry. If there are any other breaches, he needs to know and the public needs to know.
The report back time of two months is understandable - one month is too short, two months is fair enough. However, it means the inquiry will report back well into the six-month period leading up to an election in which Nash’s resignation as an MP would not automatically trigger a by-election.
There is a caveat to this.
Skipping a byelection needs the support of 75 per cent of MPs - that means National must consent to the idea and leader Christopher Luxon has given no assurance that he would support such a move.
If faced with such a decision, Luxon would need to weigh-up two other concerns. First, whether the public wants a byelection in a seat that would go back to the polls within six months for a general election, and second, whether he is applying a standard to Labour MPs that he fails to apply to his own. Remember, Barbara Kuriger has been stripped of her portfolios and demoted following her inappropriate intercession in a Ministry for Primary Industries investigation into her family.
Despite calls for Kuriger to leave Parliament, she has remained.
All of this may be moot. As of yesterday, Nash indicated he will stay on as an MP and was silent on whether he would contest the seat at the election in October.
For Nash and Labour, it would be much cleaner for Nash to simply not contest the election. He’s already been selected as Labour’s candidate, but it wouldn’t be impossible for Nash to resign the selection and for a new candidate to come forward.
The politics of this are hard to gauge. It’s obviously terrible for Labour. As Hipkins has admitted, the breach is inexcusable - and deeply embarrassing for the Government.
On a personal level, it shows Hipkins up for not sacking Nash when questions about his judgment first came to light. He acted decisively on Tuesday night - but that was too late.
Making matters worse is the fact that Luxon has handled this well. On Wednesday morning, an exasperated Luxon was able to recite the litany of decisively non-bread and butter distractions that have transpired under Hipkins’ watch: Nash scandal No 1, Nash scandal No 2, Marama Davidson, Nash scandal No 3.
This isn’t quite the psychodrama that envelops late-stage governments, but it is an unnecessary melodrama the Government should avoid.
Will it matter to voters? Hard to tell. The fallout from the Dirty Politics scandal occurred shortly before the 2014 election and did not appear to have much effect on the outcome. Ministerial distractions don’t appear to shift the needle if voters like the party leader and policy platform.
Labour and National know that’s why the emphasis will need to bleed out to the Cabinet at large for the scandal to really stick. National will be trying to shift emphasis, Labour will want to ensure it is unsuccessful,
Whatever the insider baseball political impact, the incident casts a pall over Wellington and the standards to which New Zealanders rightly expect ministers to hold themselves. It should be treated seriously in Parliament and without.
