Labour leader Chris Hipkins claims former Labour minister Stuart Nash is breaching Cabinet collective responsibility by airing details of conversations he had while he was Police Minister.
It comes as senior Labour MP Willie Jackson alleges Nash’s criticisms of Labour for not supporting his desire to lower the threshold for criminal asset seizure suggest the former MP, now a private sector commercial director, is hoping for contracts with the new Government.
“I think we had a balanced strategy, but [Nash] needs to show more class,” Jackson said.
“He needs to have a look at himself in terms of what he’s doing, I think it looks like he’s bidding for all the contracts around Wellington at the moment.”
Nash told the Herald he rejected both claims, saying that his conversations with former Justice Minister Kiri Allan were outside of Cabinet and came after the threshold had been set at $30,000 and therefore were not subject to Cabinet confidentiality.
The former Napier MP laughed when the Herald told him of Jackson’s allegation, saying it was absolutely not true.
“Willie is a good friend of mine and Willie has a habit of shooting from the hip and he says the first thing that comes into his mind, but Willie’s entitled to his opinions of course.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon believes the matter has reinforced how Labour took a soft approach to crime, but he wouldn’t be drawn on whether Nash had broken Cabinet confidentiality, saying it was a matter for Labour.
The issue arose following a social media post Nash made that referenced his position on the threshold within the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act that police must abide by when looking to seize assets of criminals, such as gang members, that officers believe were paid for by profits from criminal activity.
The decision to set the cumulative threshold at $30,000 was made by Cabinet prior to Nash becoming Police Minister. When he did get the portfolio, Nash said he spoke with Allan about lowering it to zero, but she didn’t agree.
Allan had formerly said the limit had been based on advice it would make it compliant with the Bill of Rights Act.
Nash said he went “toe-to-toe” with Allan when Cabinet debated how far the changes should go at the start of last year, but lost when then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins sided with Allan.
“She believed it was anti-Māori and I thought that was absolute rubbish, because this was not targeting Māori in any way, it was targeting gangs.”
Nash’s public comments led to Hipkins this morning saying he believed Nash had broken Cabinet collective responsibility - requiring members of Cabinet to stand by decisions made - because it was a discussion between ministers relating to a Cabinet decision.
“I think Cabinet collective responsibility has never been one of Stuart’s strong points, but as a former minister he is entitled to have his views,” Hipkins said.
Nash wasn’t fazed by Hipkins’ comments: “All power to him, doesn’t worry me to be honest.”
Jackson wasn’t impressed by Nash’s actions and said it was a “real show of no class.
“[Nash] should look at himself, he’s one of the reasons things didn’t go too well for us in the polls,” Jackson said, citing Nash’s resignation last year after breaching the Cabinet manual.
“He’s acting like a little kid at the moment, he should be ashamed of himself.”
Jackson claimed Nash might be angling for contracts with the new Government through his criticism of Labour, something Nash said was incorrect. Jackson admitted he had no proof.
Labour’s police spokeswoman Ginny Andersen said it was for Nash to address the issue of Cabinet collectivity. “I’m not going to comment on that, It’s disappointing, but that’s his choice to make those comments. He’s not really bound by that now.”
Labour’s justice spokesman Duncan Webb said it was disappointing Nash had decided to talk about what went on in Cabinet.
“I’m just disappointed that he thought it was appropriate to talk about a decision to which he was a party, and ultimately to which he agreed.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he and Police Minister Mark Mitchell have discussed lowering the threshold and said he was open to looking at changing it.
Nash’s argument to reduce the threshold to zero relied on giving police discretion on what assets they targeted. To the concerns about the Bill of Rights Act, Nash had said it was sometimes acceptable to forgo basic human rights in the name of safety.
Hipkins today said he had initially been leaning towards setting the threshold at $10,000, but noted the select committee which considered the legislation recommended a $30,000 threshold.
However, he said he would be open to seeing what the new Government came up with.
Andersen said the legislation Labour had passed had been effective in targeting the assets of gangs, and pointed to the recent crushing of Comancheros motorbikes by the police over the weekend. She said those motorbikes had been seized under the Labour legislation, and it had been a good outcome.
“[The legislation] hit gangs in those financial areas.” She said she was not in Cabinet when the discussion around the threshold took place, but said the $30,000 could be reached by a cumulative tally.
Webb said lowering the threshold would lead to issues around the Bill of Rights Act compliance when it came to talking about “taking things out of people’s households.
“That’s the kind of discussions that have to be had. But if the new government want to look at that, we don’t have a position on it.”
Additional reporting: RNZ
Adam Pearse is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team, based at Parliament. He has worked for NZME since 2018, covering sport and health for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei before moving to the NZ Herald in Auckland, covering Covid-19 and crime.