It is pretty clear to me that leaders acting tough and beating up on members of their team leads to political advantage.
I realised this back in 2010 when my mate Chris Carter succumbed to intense personal pressure and did a couple of silly things.
Then leader Phil Goff went to town on Carter who was quickly expelled from Caucus and then from the Party. Thankfully more recently saner heads have prevailed and Chris is again a productive member of the party.
Immediately after Carter’s expulsion from caucus Goff’s and Labour’s polling support improved. Beating up on your fellow politicians never seems to hurt.
Yesterday Chris Hipkins moved quickly to strip Stuart Nash of the Police portfolio. It was frankly a spectacular own goal. Nash mentioned on Newstalk ZB how he had rang his mate the Police Commissioner to ask if the police were going to appeal a decision but then it quickly became apparent that he should not have.
The case in point was pretty grim. From Stuff:
In the June 2021 decision, a Southland man was sentenced to four months’ community detention after he was found with an AR-15, a 12 gauge shotgun, two AR-15 magazines, two Ruger magazines and thousands of rounds of ammunition at his house.
Police’s gun seizure and criminalisation of the man came after the Government banned military style, semi-automatic guns, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines following the Christchurch Terror Attack on March 15, 2019.
A buyback scheme was launched in the wake of the attack and ran until December that year, but the man hid the AR-15 under his mattress until it was found in March 2021.
It’s understood Nash called Coster about a week after the sentencing and expressed his concern about the sentence.
Nash was a government minister when the phone call was made, but he was not Minister of Police at that time.
His call appears to have had no effect. Again from Stuff:
On Wednesday afternoon, Coster said in a statement: “I regarded the phone call as a venting of that frustration, and nothing more. I felt this was a rhetorical question, not a request, and I did not take any action following the phone call.”
Having said all of this the sentence was well within the Judge’s discretion and Ministers should tread very carefully before commenting on cases.
There has been an attempt to rewrite history and claim that what Nash did is worse than what Maurice Williamson did in 2014. For instance David Seymour has said this:
“Former Minister Maurice Williamson resigned in 2014 for allegedly interfering in a police investigation into businessman Donghua Liu, but Stuart Nash this morning boasted of calling the Police Commissioner to influence prosecution decisions,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“Speaking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Police Minister Stuart Nash boasted that he’d called the Police Commissioner about a case where an accused person was found innocent. “I’ve seen a couple of judgements, and actually one I phoned up the Police Commissioner and said surely you’re going to appeal this?”
“The Police Minister of all people should know that police independence is paramount. We do not want to live in a country where politicians get involved in police prosecution decisions. It wouldn’t be the first time if a Minister in this Government distanced themselves from an issue saying ‘of course we have to respect the independence of police operations.’
I thought this was a stretch. Williamson was fired for contacting a senior police officer about a prosecution involving Donghua Liu, before Mr Liu pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent. From Jared Savage at the Herald:
Maurice Williamson has resigned as a Minister.
It follows Herald revelations he contacted a top ranking police officer after a wealthy businessman with close ties to him was arrested on domestic violence charges.
The Prime Minister’s office is understood to have also questioned Mr Williamson over his involvement with Donghua Liu’s criminal case.
In a statement, Prime Minister John Key says he’s accepted Mr Williamson’s resignation.
“I have been made aware that Mr Williamson contacted Police some time ago regarding their investigation of Mr Donghua Liu,” Mr Key said.
“Mr Williamson has assured me that he did not in any way intend to influence the Police investigation.
“However, Mr Williamson’s decision to discuss the investigation with Police was a significant error of judgement.
“The independence of Police investigations is a fundamental part of our country’s legal framework.
Of course this is not the end of the story. Donghua Liu had been a significant donor to the National Party. He had been awarded residency status despite official advice not to do so and Maurice Williamson had made representations on his behalf.
And the party went to extraordinary lengths to hide a second donation that Liu made to the party. The day before Williamson was sacked National should have declared this donation. That they avoided doing so had a major bearing on the election. Labour was blasted for receiving donations from Donghua Liu that did not actually happen whereas there was pristine evidence that National had received donations from him and that a senior Minister went into bat with the police for him. As I said previously New Zealand you were played.
In my view the two cases are not comparable. Nash has paid a price for his inappropriate comment. But a question about if an appeal will be lodged is not the same as making representations to the police about an active case involving a party donor.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress