Debate By Leave — Ministerial Resignation—Minister of Police

Point of order.

New point of order?

CHRIS BISHOP: New point of order. I seek leave for a debate to be held lasting one hour into the resignation of the Hon Stuart Nash as Minister of Police, with the speaking order to be determined by you and the Clerk forthwith.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that? There is none.

I move, That the House take note of the resignation of the Minister of Police.

What we saw today was a disgraceful episode where the Minister of Police, Stuart Nash, was forced to resign over clearly unconstitutional behaviour, a breach of one section of the Cabinet Manual and also a breach of the Policing Act 2008—most notably section 16 of the Policing Act. What do those two provisions say? First of all, the Cabinet Manual says that Ministers must not involve themselves in prosecution decisions and must not involve themselves in judicial decision-making. That principle is fundamental to our constitution because it says that Ministers administer and govern, the judiciary administers and decides on the proof and decides on punishment, and Ministers should not involve themselves in that. Why is that? It’s because Ministers are drawn from the legislature, the democratic part of our constitution, and it would be inappropriate, wrong, and unjust for Ministers, who are elected, to involve themselves in the administration of justice. Why is that? That is because the administration of justice should be apolitical; it should be neutral as to the party that is in power; it should be neutral as to the people who run the courts and run our system of Government that should be above party politics.

So the issue we are dealing with today—and it’s good that the Government allowed this debate, and I’m looking forward to the contribution of Mark Mitchell, who sought for this debate and called out those remarks. The reason we are having this debate and the reason why it’s so important is that this goes to the heart of our constitution. Before I return to the point about the Policing Act, let’s not forget this is a Government that shows a flagrant disregard for our constitutional conventions, because it was only at the end of last year that the Government sought to entrench various parts of the three waters legislation, in December last year, and it was only under significant pressure from the constitutional lawyers of the land and the National Party that they backed down on that. So this goes to the very heart of our constitution and the apolitical nature of the administration of justice in this country.

How did Stuart Nash breach that? Well, Stuart Nash, bafflingly, got up on the radio this morning and said, “Yeah, I just called my mate Andrew Coster, the Police Commissioner, about a particular judicial decision. My mate Andrew Coster goes”—I mean, leaving aside the inappropriateness of calling the person who you used to be in charge of “your mate” as the police Minister—that in itself is inappropriate—but to hear reported publicly a judicial decision that you as a Minister don’t like and then to ring the Police Commissioner, your “mate”—his words—and say, “I think you should probably appeal this. Are you guys going to appeal? I think you should.” That just beggars belief. It is an unbelievable dereliction of duty, an unconstitutional behaviour, by the Minister.

So the first point is that it is a breach of various sections of the Cabinet Manual, and the second point, as Mark Mitchell knows so well as a former Minister, is that it is a potential breach of, or at least runs very close to, section 16 of the Policing Act. What does that say? The Policing Act says that Ministers can’t direct the Police Commissioner. Again, the reason it’s there—and I remember the debates back in 2007 about that—is to enshrine absolutely as an important point of law that decisions about prosecutions and decisions about investigations and decisions about the way in which the police do their job are not subject to ministerial direction. They have ministerial oversight, because, of course, Parliament and the Government fund the Police—we fund Vote Police through the Budget cycle and make sure the Police have the resources that they need—but the individual decisions are not directed by Ministers, because what sort of banana republic and kangaroo court would we be in if Ministers could say, “I don’t like that person. Hey, Mr Commissioner, hey, hey, mate! Mate the commissioner, you should go after that particular person.”, or—and this is actually worse—you stop prosecutions and say that particular matters shouldn’t be investigated. And we have seen—even in developed, First World countries and economies that people can think of in the Commonwealth—examples in various police forces where behaviour runs close to the line on that, and we don’t want to be like that in New Zealand.

So that’s why the Policing Act 2008 says that Ministers can’t direct the commissioner and can’t direct the Police executive. In fact, it is a breach of the law for Ministers to do that. It’s written in statute. So what do we have? Stuart Nash—who, in slight defence, was not the police Minister at the time but was a Minister of the Crown—hears something 2½ years ago or so and rings up his mate, the Police Commissioner, and all but directs the commissioner—all but directs the commissioner—and says, “Hey, you guys are going to appeal this, eh?”

Now, is that a direction? Possibly, possibly not, but I think we can agree it runs pretty close to the line. And he was not ringing as a backbencher, he was not ringing as a local MP, but he rang as a Minister. So he wasn’t the police Minister at the time, but as members opposite who are members of the ministry know and members on this side of the House who have been former members of the ministry know, when you’re a Minister and you ring an official, that carries weight; that is a big thing. Now, you might think you’re having a joking conversation, ringing your mate, the Police Commissioner, just to have a casual chinwag on a Friday night. But, no, actually, when you call a senior official as the Minister, you are calling as someone who carries the imprimatur of the New Zealand Government behind you and with you, and that matters. That’s why people pay attention to what Ministers do and say, because they have extraordinary power. And that’s why the Policing Act 2008 explicitly says Ministers cannot use that power, because of the extraordinary nature of it.

So it is not appropriate and not right for Ministers to intervene or try to intervene in decisions like that. Now, I hesitate to bring this up, but Maurice Williamson did this back in 2007 and 2008, and we all know what happened there. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. And I want to finish in this debate by making the point that Mr Nash should be removed from the Cabinet, because, ultimately, the Prime Minister has done the right thing in one sense: he has removed him as the police Minister. He’d only had the job again for five minutes, but he’s removed him as the police Minister. He did the right thing.

Simeon Brown: More police Ministers than police.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s right. But the selection of Ministers is a very important process. The selection of Ministers is solely up to the Prime Minister and the portfolios that they hold. And it goes to judgment. As Nicola Willis said in her questions to the Prime Minister today, it goes to judgment and discretion, and how can the Prime Minister have confidence in someone who shows such a flagrant disregard for New Zealand’s constitution? How can the Prime Minister retain the confidence in any of the portfolios Mr Nash holds, given his appalling behaviour, not just violating the Cabinet Manual, not just running right up against section 16 of the Policing Act 2008 but doubling down when he was called on it, thinking the whole thing was actually a bit of a joke, and not actually realising the gravity of what he did?

The Cabinet Manual makes it very clear that Ministers are to have regard to the principles and the rules in the Cabinet Manual. Mr Nash flagrantly violated those rules. Mr Nash has been a Minister for five years now. He should have known better. The fact that he didn’t reflects badly on him. But what reflects worse on the Government is that Chris Hipkins will not relinquish his ministerial warrants and sack him from the Cabinet altogether. He should do so forthwith.

In accordance with leave that was moved and granted, I’m proposing the following speaking order: the next speaker will be a Labour member, followed by the Green Party, the ACT Party, Te Paati Māori, and finally the Labour Party again.

I rise to speak on this motion, understanding the gravity of a decision of a Minister of the Crown to resign. When we are issued with our Ministerial warrants, it is very clear to Ministers that the responsibilities they take on are serious ones. We all understand the importance of our role, as Ministers, to exercise our judgment, and exercise that well. Ministers are acquainted, when they come into office, with the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual, as Mr Bishop has just indicated when he sat down, is clear about the principles on which Ministers must operate. That includes section 4.14 of the Cabinet Manual, which says, “Following a long-established principle, Ministers do not comment on or involve themselves in the investigation of offences or the decision as to whether a person should be prosecuted, or on what charge.”

It is for that reason, today, that it is appropriate that the Hon Stuart Nash has tended his resignation as Minister of Police, and that has been accepted by the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister indicated, this represented a serious error of judgment from Mr Nash, and the idea that he could continue in the role of Minister of Police, given the circumstances, was not possible at all.

On this side of the House, I want to reiterate that the Government does regard it as vitally important that we safeguard the independence of our police and the independence of our judiciary. I agree with what Mr Bishop said about the kinds of countries where that does not exist and that New Zealand would never want to be one of those countries. We have seen numerous times, in the recent past in New Zealand, the extraordinary work done by the police force in supporting and protecting New Zealanders, most recently in the cyclones but also in numerous other examples, including recent examples where members of the police force have lost their lives. The decisions about what the police do and how they go about that and their operational work must remain that of the Commissioner of Police, and then, in turn, the police Minister needs to be in a position to respect that.

The Policing Act is extremely clear: the responsibilities and independence of the commissioner are laid out in section 16 of the Policing Act: “The Commissioner is responsible to the Minister”—under that Act—“for carrying out the functions and duties of the Police … the general conduct of the Police … the effective, efficient, and economical management of the Police … tendering advice to the Minister … giving effect to any lawful ministerial decisions.” Section 16(2) then goes on to say: “The Commissioner is not responsible to, and must act independently of, any Minister of the Crown (including any person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown) regarding the maintenance of order in relation to any individual or group of individuals … the enforcement of the law in relation to any individual or group of individuals … the investigation and prosecution of offences; and decisions about individual Police employees.”

It is for that reason—both the Cabinet Manual and the Policing Act—that it is clear that Minister Nash had a serious error of judgment. The Prime Minister then has gone on to say that it is his view that removing Mr Nash as the Minister of Police is proportionate to that particular error of judgment.

It’s very clear that, across history, a Prime Minister’s job is to interpret and enforce the Cabinet Manual as they see fit. I have sat in this House over the last 15 years—and prior to that, working in this building—and I have heard Prime Ministers give their interpretation of the Cabinet Manual. Ultimately, it is in the hands of each Prime Minister to dictate how that Cabinet Manual will be applied. Mr Bishop’s already mentioned the example of Maurice Williamson. I also sat in this House on another occasion where the Prime Minister of the day made a decision not to ask a Minister to resign, and that was the Honourable Judith Collins, with respect to the Oravida scandal where a breach of the Cabinet Manual was also identified. Equally, in Helen Clark’s time, I recall other Ministers who were found to have breached the Cabinet Manual, and a variety of different consequences have occurred for that. In the case of Mr Nash, the consequence is one where he has had to lose this particular portfolio. But, I reiterate again, it is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide upon the gravity of any breach of the Cabinet Manual and what then should happen to that person.

Colleagues across the House will be aware of the fact that for Mr Nash this represents a very significant change. He is a person who was a very proud police Minister when he held that portfolio in the previous Government that we were part of. And now, as he has taken that portfolio back up, all of us know the pride he has in the New Zealand police force—the extent to which he regards this as an important job. And so I think everybody in the House would recognise that the loss of such a portfolio for Mr Nash is a very significant matter. And as I said, I think the Prime Minister has indicated that he believes that it is proportionate.

I do just want, in the remaining time in my call, to reflect back again a little bit on the importance of the independence of the Police Commissioner and to raise an issue in relationship to this, which is the way in which, in this House, over a succession of years—and I’m not going to pinpoint any individual—we have got ourselves to a place where a lot of the questioning within this Parliament goes to those parts of the Policing Act that I mentioned before. I believe we all do have a responsibility to uphold the independence of the police force and of the Police Commissioner.

During the occupation of Parliament, out the front here, it became necessary for me as the local member of Parliament, representing the people whose lives were being so severely disrupted, to have quite regular conversations, not with the commission necessarily, although that did happen once or twice, but with other members of the police. And I knew, when I was having those conversations, just how important it was that I was clear that, as the local MP, I was providing my reflections on what was occurring. Every one of those conversations was prefaced with the fact that I could not tell the Police Commissioner to do his job. I remember standing in this House and saying I may disagree or agree with some of the things that the commissioner and his police officers were doing, but that I did not feel it was my place to go beyond the comments I made privately in terms of what I was seeing on the ground. It’s a fine line for people. I’m not suggesting here, in any way, Mr Nash’s acts represent a fine line, but it is a fine line for this House.

Something I would encourage colleagues to reflect upon, as we go forward from here, is how we talk about what the police do and how we raise issues. Ministers in this House are responsible for the resourcing of the Police, for example, and whether or not they have the resources to do the job. Ministers in this House are responsible for the laws that we promote—and then Parliament passes or doesn’t pass—that reflect on what the police can do, what their roles are, and where they go with that. But when we move beyond that to a place where we are questioning operational questions, it’s challenging. The last thing I want is for the Minister of Police to have to get up in the House and just say on rote, “That’s an operational matter. That’s an operational matter.”, because it doesn’t take us anywhere. But we need to make sure that, in the boundaries that we work within, we do uphold that independence. And so I just put that on the table.

As I say, I’m not actually particularly pointing anyone out, and I’m sure people would be able to go back in history and find examples of both sides of the House, when they’re not in Government, taking that approach. We do need to uphold the independence of our police force. Our police force do a terrific job on our behalf. We have seen, over the years, the development within the Police of a range of diverse operations and people behind those operations. Most of us, in our working lives as members of Parliament, have significant interaction with the Police, and, in doing so, we have to understand the importance of their independence, but also the importance of the work that they do in the community.

So, to recap, the Prime Minister received a resignation letter—or an email, I think it was—from Minister Nash. He accepted that. He is being clear—the Prime Minister, that is—that this was a serious error of judgment, it did indeed breach the Cabinet Manual section 4.14, and it also, no doubt, cut across section 16 of the Policing Act as well. It is, therefore, the right decision that Mr Nash has resigned his position, and we hope to move forward from here, again reinforcing the independence of the Police and the responsibilities of the commissioner in that regard.

SPEAKER: I understand the Green Party has decided not to take a call. Just before I call David Seymour, I’ll let members know, if there’s any unused time of the one hour debate, I’ll allocate that at the end.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That’s a superb decision by the Green Party. I want to just reflect on what we’ve just heard from Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance, because I think it is, ultimately, important that all sides of this House uphold the traditions and conventions that underpin New Zealanders’ basic freedom—and amongst those, the independence of police from political interference in their decisions to surveil, investigate, prosecute, or appeal against adverse prosecution decisions by the courts. That independence of the police is one of the most important things that we have in New Zealand for the simple reason that you know, if the State is going to use its extraordinary power to take you away and lock you up in a cage—which it can do—then you at least should know that there is no bias, that you have a right to a trial before your peers, and whether you end up on trial is not influenced by political considerations. There’s no shortage of countries in this world where you do get locked up for your political opinions, and the first thing that happens on the slippery slope to that horrible world is when politicians start blurring the lines between their political objectives and the powers that the police are given to protect citizens’ rights.

I think it’s a good thing that, prior to the speech by Grant Robertson, many people have said similar things in this House, and I hope that for a very long time it will continue to be said. Jacinda Ardern in 2014—you know, Maurice Williamson made a very clear error of judgment, not just by having a conversation with the police about an open criminal case by just picking up the phone, he clearly breached the Cabinet Manual. John Key said in that same Maurice Williamson incident: “Mr Williamson assured me he did not in any way intend to influence the Police investigation. However [his] decision to discuss the investigation with Police was a significant error of judgment. The independence of Police investigations is a fundamental part of our country’s legal framework.” That was John Key.

David Cunliffe, Labour leader at the time of the Williamson affair: “Mr Williamson’s resignation and the issues that led to it are very serious matters that question the independence of the New Zealand Police and its ability to conduct investigations without political interference. New Zealanders must have an assurance that Ministers in any Government will not, cannot, and must not use their positions either to favour some members of the community or to apply pressure to independent organisations like the Police.” It’s not just politicians that have said these things; the Policing Act, and it’s very clear at section 16: “The Commissioner is not responsible to, and must act independently of, any Minister of the Crown (including any person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown) regarding— … the investigation and prosecution of offences”.

Our country has also recorded, in the Cabinet Manual, that “Following a long-established principle, Ministers do not comment on or involve themselves in the investigation of offences or the decision as to whether a person should be prosecuted or on what charge.” And so it goes on. I think we’ve got a responsibility, in this House, to make it crystal clear that one of our most cherished traditions in New Zealand has always been, is, and will always be that we have a constabulary with extraordinary powers that they may use only under the rule of law and never to advance the political purposes of one side of politics, another, or those outside of politics altogether.

We still have to acknowledge the extraordinary acts of Stuart Nash. First of all, he picked up the phone after reading a court case—according to his telling—and spoke to the Police Commissioner while he was a Minister of the Crown and said, you know, well, what did he say? “Surely you’re going to appeal this.” He was trying to direct a specific police prosecution in a specific case, and he went on the radio and actually boasted about doing it. You know, now, most people have the intelligence to, when they break the rules, actually try and conceal it so they don’t face the penalty. But not Stuart Nash; he actually went and boasted that he’d been breaking the rules. Why? Because I don’t think he realised what he’d done. And the reason why I don’t think Stuart Nash realised what he’d done is that, when he was asked about it, he gave the most extraordinarily revealing answers to media this morning: “Oh, I was just chewing the fat with my mate, who happens to be the Police Commissioner, and we happened to be chewing the fat about a prosecutorial decision by the police.”

The casualness, or perhaps it’s the brazenness of Stuart Nash riding roughshod over critical conventions that, as I’ve listed, so many political leaders have spoken of before, that is recorded in legislation passed by this House, and the Cabinet Manual created by successive Governments—so many people get this but Stuart Nash didn’t. And, of course, the answer we heard from the Prime Minister today, as well, “He’s paid a penalty”. Well, that may be true, but, unfortunately, Chris Hipkins is asking the wrong question. The question he should be asking is not “Did I make sure that he paid a price?” That’s the student union politician coming out of them. That’s the union politics: “Oh, he’s been beaten down a peg, so it’s OK now.” The question should be “Is he capable to perform as the Minister of Forestry?” Pretty big issues in the Ministry of Forestry right now. Is he capable to be the Minister of Economic Development, a portfolio that is inherently about passing out economic resources to particular actors—something where you really have to have some integrity, if you think it’s a good idea to do it at all. Is he capable of being in charge of ocean and fisheries—a very contestable area of policy, to say the least. If he’s not capable of discharging his duties as the Minister of Police, then why does the Prime Minister believe he’s capable of doing those other portfolios? Are they less important?

It might be that he offended while he was the Minister of Police, but his offences were actually carried out while he was not the Minister of Police. So he’s now been put back in the exact same position he had when he did the wrong thing in the first place. He should go. He should go from all of his portfolios. Either he’s capable of being a Minister of Police or he’s not, and, if he’s not, why are those other portfolios less important than Police—fisheries and forestry and economic development—they don’t matter as much as Police? It’s not logical; he needs to go.

The next point is this: the Labour Party got into this trouble because Stuart Nash was trying to be tough on crime. He was trying to boast that he actually—haplessly boast—rings up the Police Commissioner and gets them to prosecute the bad guys. Now, we’ve discussed how stupid and wrong that is and everyone agrees with that. But the real issue is this: the Labour Party have had such a bad time being tough on crime that now their political response is to ignore the rule of law. If a Government wants to get tough on crime—and ACT strongly recommends that this Government should, otherwise the next one’s going to have to because things are out of control—the way to do it is to write a law, bring it to this House, debate it in public, get a majority, pass it into statute, and have the courts apply the law equally to all people, in order that we have open and transparent justice without fear nor favour.

Here’s an example. Recently, in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle, just as we said after the Kaikōura earthquakes, the ACT Party has said there should be a provision in the Sentencing Act—section 9, to be precise—that says if you loot in a state of national emergency, that’s an aggravating factor and you should get a longer sentence. You should go away for longer—scumbags and lowlifes that loot in a national disaster. But that would be making a law that is written down, the same for everyone—not making phone calls in the night to see who should be taken on by the cops and who shouldn’t, Stuart Nash - style.

The next thing we could do is that we bring back three strikes. We say, “Whoever you are, if you commit three serious violence or sexual offences, you get the max.” If this Government wants to be tough on crime like Stuart Nash was trying to be, ACT’s got lots of ideas for doing it in a way that’s consistent with the rule of law; written down and applied the same to everybody—not phone calls to your mate to chew the fat in the night, and maybe someone extra gets prosecuted along the way. There are many countries like that. We’re so lucky to be born and to live in one that is not like that, and we in this House have a duty to uphold those traditions in the past, today, and forever. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The demise of a Labour Cabinet Minister today started six years ago. One of the issues that he raised on the Mike Hosking show today, and I’ll come to that, in what was a desperate call to the show to ask if he could go on—to raise the point that my colleague David Seymour made—to try and show in a desperate attempt that he was tough on crime. And the reason why he did that, and I said to my own team when he took over as police Minister, is that they’re under so much pressure that he is going to overreach, that he is going to do something and step outside the bounds in trying so hard to show that they aren’t soft on crime; they’re tough on crime. That is exactly what we saw as a country play out today.

What happened was he got up and he talked about how he had tried to have some influence over the Police Commissioner in terms of going back and appealing a decision that was made by the courts. But instead of looking at the courts or the police, he should have been looking at himself and his own Cabinet, his own Labour Cabinet. Because if you go back six years to when they came into Government, their priorities were quite simply this: “Let’s repeal the three-strikes legislation”—the only tough piece of sentencing law that we actually had on our statute book. “Let’s go for a 30 percent reduction in the prison muster”—a 30 percent reduction in the prison muster. That was the signal that this Government was sending to our judiciary. “Let’s go for alternative actions.” What do alternative actions mean? By the way, they’ve blown out in their thousands now inside our criminal justice system. Quite simply, an alternative action is a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket.

We can all see, in this country, that one of the great frustrations of our front-line police officers is that there are no consequences for the offenders that they’re putting themselves on the line to arrest, charge, and take to court. Offenders that they are catching on a Friday night are back out re-offending the next day. We know that there’s an issue. We know that there’s a problem around no consequences. Today, the Minister tried to talk tough, tried to show that he was trying to do something about that, was taking it seriously. He shouldn’t have been talking to the commissioner about it. He shouldn’t have been pointing the finger at the judiciary. He should have been back in his own Cabinet room discussing what they need to in terms of policy changes to actually send a signal that there were going to be consequences, that there was going to be proper sentencing. So that was the first thing.

The next thing that happened is that they held a justice summit. And in the justice summit, they forgot about victims. They forgot to ask victim advocacy groups to attend. And Minister after Minister—I was there—got up and said the real victims are the gang members; that’s where the focus is. That’s the mind-set. That’s the mind-set of this Government from six years ago and that’s why in the last six years we’ve seen an increase, a 50 percent increase in gang membership, we’ve seen a 35 percent increase in violent crime, while, at the same time, there’s been a 25 percent decrease in the prison muster. That’s people that aren’t being rehabilitated and are let out. That is transferring the risk back into the community. That is asking our already stretched thin blue line to step up and do even more. And this is the background in which Stuart Nash came in and took over the police portfolio; by the way, the third police Minister in the last 12 months and he was desperate to get out there.

We had questions in the House yesterday to him about the numbers—that retail crime has gone up 39 percent in one year; over 100,000 reports of retail crime. And then the Herald did a story around some of the numbers that they were presented with, the data they were given, and realised that, actually, maybe there’s something wrong here and they came back out and they corrected that. It wasn’t a good story for the Government at all. It was completely consistent with what they’ve been doing in the last six years. So what did the Minister do? In desperation, he rings Mike Hosking and says, “Can I come on the show and can I lay all my data out there and show you how tough we are”—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: “And beat my chest.”

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —“and how good we are on crime?” Beat his chest—that’s right. And now, literally eight hours later, he’s had to resign as a Minister.

Chris Hipkins, as the incoming Prime Minister, appointed Stuart Nash into that role because he understood how critically important law and order is going to be in the campaign this year for the general election. That was Chris Hipkins’ appointment. It’s not a great way for a new Prime Minister to start losing one of his most senior Ministers. And, by the way, has he been strong? Has he been decisive in dealing with the situation with Stuart Nash? No, he hasn’t. He’s tried to look like it. He’s removed him as police Minister. But the problem is that Minister Nash’s complete and utter lack of awareness of actually just how wrong it was, the things that he did, the breaches that he made of the Cabinet Manual—and, by the way, the terrible situation he’s now put our Police Commissioner in.

By the way, I don’t agree with everything our Police Commissioner does. I’ve been very public about that. I don’t like the approach he’s taken. I think it was the wrong time for us as a country in terms of what we’re trying to deal with. But the Minister has put him in an awkward position that I’ll come back and address in a minute. But the reality is this: you’ve got a Prime Minister that’s made an appointment like that and he’s now got one of his senior Cabinet Ministers that’s come out and breached the Cabinet Manual. He’s probably breached the Policing Act. It’s obvious that he’s not fit to stay inside a Cabinet and an executive. But what has the Prime Minister done? He’s removed the police portfolio.

Now, I do have to acknowledge and admit—and the Hon Grant Robertson referred to this. The one thing that I do want to say about Stuart Nash is that I actually liked having him in that portfolio. I’ll tell you why: because he actually likes and supports our police. And there were some Ministers that were appointed on that side of the House that barely disguised the fact that they didn’t particularly like or support our front-line police officers. At least Stuart Nash did that, but he lost his way.

Just very quickly, in terms of the Police Commissioner, I just want to say that the last time the National Party was in Government for a short time I was the Associate Minister of Justice and I got to work closely with Commissioner Coster, because at that time he was the deputy chief executive at Justice. I want to put on record, and I’ve always done this, that although I don’t agree with what he’s done or his leadership or where he’s taken our police service—I think the front line have been badly let down—I’ve always said that he is a man of integrity and you would never question his integrity. And when I dealt with him, he was professional and we had a professional relationship. He’s very, very strong on policy and he did an outstanding job in Justice. He’s just, in my view, the wrong guy right now to be leading our police service.

So I just want to put on record that I would never question Andrew Coster’s integrity, but I think that he has been put in a very difficult situation because he’s had a Cabinet Minister, a member of the executive, who has reached out to him, has now put on record that they’re great mates and they chew the fat and they’re discussing court cases and judicial decisions. So this Prime Minister and a member of his Cabinet have now put a very senior executive, the Police Commissioner, in a very awkward position. And I just want to say that I, personally—and I’m sure my colleagues as well—would never challenge his integrity and don’t believe for one minute that he has come under undue political pressure. However, there’s no doubt going to be questions asked now whether or not there has been pressure that’s been tried to be applied by this Government.

What else have they done? They had a director that was appointed who was an ex-Labour MP who was asked if she had read her ethics and compliance manual—

Hon Member: No!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah—and code of ethics, and with great pride, she turned up and she said no, she hadn’t. So in my view, the response from Stuart Nash today, which, by the way, he doubled down on—I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I said, “If he comes out and he acknowledges that what he’s done has been a breach and he apologises for that and he agrees to maybe take on some remedial actions around it, then it might be OK; he might get through.” But he didn’t. He doubled down on it, and he doubled down on it because there’s a hubris and there’s an arrogance that has formed on that side of the House. One of the greatest enemies of a Government that is coming almost to the end of their second term is they’re becoming arrogant. And there is not a clearer sign of that, in terms of the response that we got from Stuart Nash.

Should he be stood down from Cabinet? Is that the real test for the incoming Prime Minister? Absolutely it is. Is he going to try and get away with standing him down as police Minister? Absolutely he will. And he’s sending a very clear signal that “I’m willing to have a Cabinet Minister sit in my executive that will try to influence, or try to bring to bear their influence on, senior members of agencies, leaders of agencies.” He’s willing to have someone in his Cabinet that will break the rules of the Cabinet Manual, and still say “It’s OK. You’ll lose the police portfolio. Turn up to work on Monday.” Not acceptable.

I find it somewhat reassuring that around this House this afternoon, from Chris Bishop to Grant Robertson to David Seymour, we’ve had an absolute underscoring of the importance of the independence of our police and the independence of our Police Commissioner. I think it’s been absolutely right and proper that people have returned, time and time again, in their contributions in this debate to section 16 of the Policing Act. That lays out very clearly what the responsibilities are: both of the Minister and the Commissioner. I think it speaks to the heart of who we want to be as a country. It’s been said previously in this urgent debate that one of the things that none of us want here for New Zealand is to live in a country where our politicians have the ability to unduly influence members of our police force when it comes to matters of investigations—or the judiciary when it comes to matters of sentencing. I think it is a fundamental of who we believe we are in New Zealand.

So we’ve had laid out, very clearly, what the Commissioner is responsible to the Minister for: “carrying out the functions and duties of the police … the general conduct of the police … the effective, efficient, and economical management of the police … [to tender] advice to the Minister and Ministers of the Crown and [to give effect] to any lawful ministerial decisions [that are being made]”. But it is also really important what the Commissioner is not responsible for. And the Commissioner must act independently of any Minister of the Crown, including the person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown. And it lays out very clearly—and this strikes to the heart of who we want to be as a country: “the maintenance of order into relation to any individual or group of individuals … the enforcement of the law in relation to any individual or group of individuals … the investigation and prosecution of offences; and decisions about individual Police employees.” It is a timely reminder to us all as politicians that there are very clear demarcations when it comes to our police and to our judiciary, in terms of what we should and shouldn’t be thinking that we have the ability to comment on. We have this separation of powers for a very good reason.

What we’ve seen here today is a Minister who has breached the Cabinet Manual in relation to what we hold the line on as so important in terms of the independence of our police and the independence of our judiciary. We have a Minister who is suffering the consequences of breaching the Cabinet Manual on that. We have a Prime Minister who has shown leadership; he has acted quickly and he has acted decisively because, as a Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins knows how fundamentally important it is to us as a country that we do uphold those very important principles. We have heard people say that therefore he should resign all his portfolios but I think the Prime Minister has made a decision that speaks to the transgression being in relation to such an important part of being the Minister of Police. There is an onus on the Minister of Police that is quite different to the interactions the Ministers have with chief executives in other areas in terms of that independence of what can—and can’t—and who does what being laid out so explicitly in statute in the Policing Act: that is for a very good reason, and it has been talked about in this House throughout this debate. It is the transgression of those that has meant the Prime Minister has made the quick and decisive call that we cannot have a Minister of Police that has transgressed those very clear boundaries and has accepted his resignation.

My colleague Grant Robertson talked about this being a consequence for the Minister in question who did tender his resignation to the Prime Minister because he did see that there had been a breach of the Cabinet Manual—that this is something that he will be feeling. We know as colleagues of Minister Nash just how dearly he holds the police portfolio, so this isn’t something that he will see as just a small consequence for an action. He will be feeling, very clearly, the gravity of the consequence of this action. The other question that’s come up in this is: is it appropriate for Ministers to be mates with the police? That’s been something that has been raised. I think that one of the things that we have to make sure that we are doing as Ministers—and this has been acknowledged in what has happened today—is that we demonstrate a professional approach and good judgment in our interactions with officials. That is a central thing that you take on when you become a Minister. And as Grant Robertson spoke about, as Ministers, we have to traverse that line, being local MPs often as well. I know—and it’s a timely day to remark on it—that as the Member of Parliament for Wigram while being a Minister, March 15 occurred with Al Noor Mosque being in my electorate. I spent a lot of time interacting our District Commander, John Price, around the welfare of the community, around what was happening with the community, but never did I see it as something that was appropriate for me to suggest what, operationally, the police should be doing. It is something that we all do have to bear in mind and often be quite explicit in our interactions with police, especially when we are Ministers, because we cannot be seen to be putting that undue influence on them. But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have interactions with the police. We are a country of only several million people that often, especially back in our home patches, there are going to be those interactions, so we need to be making sure that we tread that line in a careful way, but in a sensible and pragmatic way that does allow us to do our jobs as local MPs.

I think it is also a reminder of just how important to us as a country—to the separation of powers that we hold dear in this country—that at times, yes, the political debate around crime and justice can get heated. But it is also a careful reminder that as members of this House, we have a responsibility to not treat this as a game. We have a responsibility to hold those divisions that stand there in good stead, to make sure that we are respecting those divisions. It’s all well and good to sometimes imagine you’re in the locker room talking tough about some of these issues, but there are clear divisions that need to be adhered to. It is each and every member of this House’s responsibility to make sure that they are adhering to those divisions, because as we know, this place can be a tough place when you make an error of judgment, and that is what we have seen today: someone is having the consequence of losing a job that they held dear in terms of being Minister of Police. And that is correct; that is the right thing to have happened: for Minister Nash to have tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister, and a Prime Minister—who has shown leadership—has acted quickly and decisively. Because he is clear with us as a Cabinet, with us as a group of Ministers, that we have to make sure that we are upholding the highest of standards; that we are ensuring that when there are breaches of the Cabinet Manual, they are dealt with; that they are made sure that the consequences are there. And I think that that’s what most people will see: someone here exercised an error of judgment; they did something that wasn’t correct, and there has been a consequence. They haven’t just come out and said “I’m sorry, I won’t do that again”. There has been a real and lasting consequence of someone not serving in the portfolio that they held so dear.

So it has been heartening to me, listening to this debate, that across this House we can see the gravity that this issue is being taken with, because it is serious and it should be serious to all of us as elected representatives in this House. It should be something that all New Zealanders hold dear. We have no desire to live in a country where our politicians meddle with our police force. We have no desire to live in a country where political decisions are made about operational police matters. It is right and proper that the divisions and the Policing Act exist, and it is something that our Prime Minister has shown today that we take incredibly seriously as a Government.

I indicated earlier that any unallocated time I would allocate now. There’s 10 minutes left; I propose two five-minute calls. Any member can seek it now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We started this morning with Minister Stuart Nash beating his chest on radio, saying he was tough on crime and he remembered calling the Commissioner of Police, his mate, to surely challenge or appeal a decision. At 11 o’clock, he was still beating his chest in front of the media, saying, “I’m not doubling down. I’m not turning around. I did the right thing.”, and then by 1.30 he was beating a retreat and handing in his resignation one minute before he was about to be fired by the Prime Minister. But the point of this debate is not about the resignation over an act by a Minister of Police—interfering with the Commissioner of Police. It was the Minister of Tourism—Mr Stuart Nash was the Minister of Tourism when he interfered, and then he subsequently became the Minister of Police. And then this story came out, and yet he was a Minister of the Crown interfering with a police investigation and criticising the judiciary. And that was the breach of the Cabinet Manual.

And what has been the punishment? Well, the punishment has not been his removal as a Minister of the Crown, as a Cabinet Minister. In fact, the punishment has been to lighten his workload a little bit and to lose the police portfolio. And that is not a strong and decisive decision by the Prime Minister. It’s a weak decision by the Prime Minister. It is a decision that defies any logic, because the breach that the Minister made as the Minister of Tourism meant that he is not fit and appropriate to be in the Cabinet and he should be removed from the Cabinet. And every hour and every day that he remains in the Cabinet shows that the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, has made a weak decision and has low standards for his Government—he needs to be removed.

The wider context that my colleague Mark Mitchell referred to is the critical one: why did he do this? Why did he go on the radio in the morning and beat his chest and try to pretend to be tough on crime? We all know the answer to that. We all know, the Government knows, the population of New Zealand knows, everybody knows that this has been a Government that has been both soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime, and that is why this country is facing real issues on our streets. They are soft on the causes of crime because they haven’t dealt at all with the long-term drivers, such as truancy, where 50 percent of kids are not attending school regularly, such as emergency housing, where 4,000 children are being raised in emergency housing, such as all the other long-term drivers of crime that haven’t been dealt with effectively by the Government. There are lots of intentions, lots of announcements, lots of statements but no real action. And then when it comes to crime itself, the two things that they’ve done is repeal the three-strikes legislation because they’ve come to the conclusion, given the 30 percent increase in violent crime, given the massive increase in ram raids, given the explosion in youth crime, and given all the delays to justice, that the one thing we need to do is reduce sentences for our worst repeat offenders by removing three strikes.

And then the second signal they sent to the judiciary was that they want to reduce the prison population by 30 percent—that’s the goal. That’s the signal they send to the judicial system. And then they have specialised in the culture of excuses. If there’s a crime—if there’s a ram raid, if there are kids not being at school, if there’s any problem, it’s not the individual’s fault; it’s something else. It’s their background, it’s history, it’s the community, it’s everything other than people taking responsibility for their actions. And that has led to this culture of impunity and violence that we’ve seen on our streets. That’s why people are worried about crime. Poto Williams, the previous Minister of Police, exemplified that approach. Then we had Mr Hipkins come in himself as police Minister, so-called “Mr Fix-it.” I’ve never understood that notion—five years as the Minister of Education with only half the kids going to school cannot be regarded as a “Mr Fix-it” in any way, shape, or form. And then we had Stuart Nash trying to get tough. And so he went out trying to be tough and overreached and made the mistake, and now he’s paying half the price that he should be paying.

And the point that New Zealanders are worried about—yeah, they’re slightly worried about a ministry, and about a Government that’s losing Ministers, and they’re slightly worried that a new Prime Minister’s come and he’s promoted a new bloke back as the Minister of Police and he’s had to sack him, effectively, within six weeks. So that looks messy. People will be worried about that. But they are more fundamentally worried about the fact that we’ve lost a sense of law and order on our streets, and they’re worried about that. If they live in Auckland, like I do, they’re worried about the helicopter flying overhead every night and ram raids every night, and they want to see a Government that’s going to make a difference—and let this be a lesson to this Government: don’t actually talk about being tough; actually get things done.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as Attorney-General to make a five-minute contribution in support of the separation of powers. The separation of powers is a constitutional model which democracies such as New Zealand hold dear. It separates government into separate branches, each of which has separate and independent powers which they exercise independently.

The doctrine of the separation of powers is sometimes attributed to the French political philosopher Montesquieu, who, in the mid - 18th century, said—and I quote—“there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.” Essentially, he is saying that if you merge prosecutorial decisions with legislative or executive decisions, there will be no liberty. It is an absolutely fundamental principle of democracy and the rule of law in countries such as New Zealand that those separations of power be respected, and I agree with comments made by all those who have spoken today that it is an absolutely central principle of our system.

It is, of course, given voice in the Cabinet Manual, which says, at paragraph 4.12, “Ministers must exercise judgement before commenting on judicial decisions, whether generally, or in relation to the specifics of an individual case (for example, the sentence).” Paragraph 4.13 goes on to say that “Ministers should not express any views that are likely to be publicised if they could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of any judge. If a Minister has grounds for concern over a sentencing decision, the Attorney-General should be informed.”, and then paragraph 4.14 follows that by saying, “Following a long-established principle, Ministers do not comment on or involve themselves in the investigation of offences or the decision as to whether a person should be prosecuted, or on what charge. Similarly, they should not comment on the results of particular cases, on matters that are subject to suppression orders, or on any sentence handed down by a court. Ministers must avoid commenting on any sentences within the appeal period, and should avoid at all times any comment that could be construed as being intended to influence the courts in subsequent cases.”

So the Minister of Police has erred both in terms of criticising the judiciary and making a call to the Commissioner of Police that could be said to have attempted to influence the police in the decision as to whether they appealed. The system, of course, has worked, because there was no appeal. So if that was his intention to influence that decision, it didn’t have that effect, because those systems, those principles, are well entrenched in the New Zealand system and they’re respected by the branches of government, and this is a rare error, for which the Minister has had to resign as Minister of Police.

The Labour Government takes these issues very seriously, as we do more generally the issue of the protection of civil liberties, and I think there’s no better illustration of that than in the response to COVID. With the COVID response legislation, we expressly preserved New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions and the ability of the court to listen to complaints by citizens as to whether the orders that were promulgated under that legislation went too far in breach of civil liberties, in breach of the Bill of Rights. So the separation of powers lies at the cornerstone of our constitutional arrangements, and although it gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate in respect of the Hon Stuart Nash’s resignation, I am pleased that on all sides of this House we have reinforced the importance of the separation of powers.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.