I was accused recently of being a Nash supporter. This was after this post where I attempted to put into context a previous example of Nash’s stupidity and suggest that on the scale of things his stupidity was mid range. Nothing could be further from the truth and I always thought he was one impulsive step away from disaster.
Recent events suggest that his stupidity varies depending on context. If donors are involved his stupidity can be extreme.
Breaking news from yesterday that he had previously disclosed to private donors what happened in Cabinet on a vote that directly affected their business interests has been met with a summary response from the Prime Minister.
Chris Hipkins has front footed the issue and sacked Nash, not allowing him to resign. From his press release:
This evening I have advised the Governor-General to dismiss Stuart Nash from all his ministerial portfolios.
Late this afternoon I was made aware by a news outlet of an email Stuart Nash sent in March 2020 to two contacts regarding a commercial rent relief package that Cabinet had considered.
In the email he sets out both his opposition to the decision Cabinet reached and the position that other Cabinet members took.
This is a clear breach of collective responsibility and Cabinet confidentiality.
Stuart Nash has fundamentally breached my trust and the trust of his Cabinet colleagues and his conduct is inexcusable.
In addition the two recipients of the email were donors; Troy Bowker and Greg Loveridge, via GRL Holdings Ltd, have both donated to Stuart Nash.
They are also commercial property owners who had an interest in the Cabinet decision.
That crosses a line that is totally unacceptable to me.
Questions will be asked about who leaked the email to the press. I suspect it might have been Troy Bowker who has attracted the attention of the Standard previously.
In 2021 I responded to claims that he had breached draft hate speech legislation by suggesting that he was exceedingly stupid but not in breach of the law. I also noted some disturbing connections he had with Nash. From my previous post:
For instance in 2014 Bowker paid for a report strategising the setting up of a centrist party in competition with the Labour Party. Simon Lusk, he of dirty politics pedigree, was commissioned to write the report and Stuart Nash was implicated in elements of the attempt. Nash said he torpedoed the idea and did not know about it until the report had been prepared. Bowker disagreed and says Nash told them to see him when the report was completed. Why Nash was having anything to do with one of the people most implicated in Dirty Politics is hard to understand.
And why Nash would still accept donations from Bowker?
I am not sure.
Bowker also had significant links to New Zealand First and was a major donor.
In the past I have also expressed concerns at Nash’s performance as Fisheries Minister which I thought was sub optimal.
His demise highlights the power of money and the need to reform campaign finances. Donations should never create the perception or feeling that highly sensitive information needs to or ought to be disclosed to donors.
Labour has a quandary. If Nash has been confirmed as the candidate for the next election the New Zealand Council may want to review this. Quickly.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress